Sociology. Anthony Giddens
but with the physiology of the human body.
The body consists of various specialized parts, such as the brain, heart, lungs, liver, and so on, each of which contributes to sustaining the continuing life of the whole organism. These necessarily work in harmony with one another; if they do not, the life of the organism is under threat. Similarly, for a society to have a continuing existence over time, its specialized institutions, such as the political system, religion, the family and the educational system, must all work in harmony with one another. This is a consensus perspective, which focuses on how societies hold together.
Those who focus mainly on conflict have a very different outlook. Their guiding assumptions can be seen in Marx’s theory of class conflict. According to Marx, societies are divided into classes with unequal resources and, since marked inequalities exist, there are divisions of interest that are ‘built into’ the social system. These conflicts at some point break out into active social change. Since Marx, others have identified gender and ethnic divisions or political differences as sources of conflict. For conflict theorists, society inevitably contains divisions and tensions regardless of which social groups are stronger than others.
As with the case of structure and action, it is unlikely that this theoretical dispute can be resolved fully. Yet, once more, the differences between consensus and conflict standpoints may not be as wide as it appears. All societies probably have some loose, general agreement on values, and all certainly involve conflict. As a general rule, sociologists always have to examine the connections between consensus and conflict within societies. The values held by different groups and the goals that their members pursue often reflect a mixture of common and opposed interests. For instance, even in Marx’s theory of class conflict, capitalists depend on a labour force to work in their businesses, just as workers depend on capitalists to provide wages. Open conflict is not continuous because what both sides have in common overrides their differences. For this reason, Max Weber argued that the future of the working classes lay in wringing concessions from capitalism, not in trying to overthrow it.
A useful concept for analysing the interrelation of conflict and consensus is ideology – ideas, values and beliefs which help secure the position of more powerful groups at the expense of less powerful ones. Power, ideology and conflict are always closely connected. Ideological dominance can often create the appearance of consensus, as the internalization of ideological notions leads people to accept gross inequalities of opportunity, status and condition. Those who hold power may depend mainly on the influence of ideology to retain their dominance but are usually able to use force when necessary. For instance, in feudal times, aristocratic rule was supported by the idea that a minority of people were ‘born to govern’, but aristocratic rulers often resorted to violence against those who dared to oppose their power.
In recent times, the so-called Arab Spring of 2010–12 saw the apparently stable societies of the Middle East and North Africa riven with protests and demonstrations which expressed pent-up frustrations and underlying conflicts of interest. In Libya, Bahrain and Syria, when appeals to national pride and shared solidarity had failed, the governing regimes turned to military force to try to put down the protests. The example shows that neither consensus nor conflict are ‘natural’; both are outcomes of social processes.
Societies and sociology in transformation
For much of its history, sociology was dominated by the so-called Marx–Weber debate on the character and future of capitalist societies. For both Marx and Weber, the emergence of capitalism was a fateful development which shaped the direction of societies around the world. Marx saw capitalism as more dynamic than any preceding type of economic system. Capitalists compete to sell their goods to consumers, and, in order to survive in a competitive market, firms have to produce their wares as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This leads to constant technological innovation as companies strive to gain an edge over their rivals. Capitalist firms also seek out new markets for goods, cheap raw materials and cheaper sources of labour. For Marx, capitalism is a restlessly expanding system spreading to all parts of the globe.
Max Weber is one of Marx’s most perceptive critics, and his work has been described as involving a lifelong struggle with ‘the ghost of Marx’ – the intellectual legacy Marx left behind. Weber agreed that economic factors played a crucial role in social change, but non-economic factors, such as ideas and ideologies, also played their part. For example, Weber argued (as did Marx) that material interests are the main driving force in history, but for Weber these interests are channelled in particular directions by ideas, which act rather like the ‘switchmen’ who direct powerful trains at railway junctions. Weber’s understanding of modern societies and their direction of travel contrasts sharply with that of Marx.
USING YOUR SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
3.1 Marx and Weber – the shaping of the modern world
| Broadly Marxist ideas | Broadly Weberian ideas |
|---|---|
| 1 The main dynamic of modern development is the expansion of capitalistic economic mechanisms. | 1 The main dynamic of modern development is the rationalization of production. |
| 2 Modern societies are riven with class inequalities, which are basic to their very nature. | 2 Class is one type of inequality among many – such as inequalities between men and women – in modern societies. |
| 3 Major divisions of power, such as those affecting the differential position of men and women, derive ultimately from economic inequalities. | 3 Power in the economic system is separable from other sources. For instance, male–female inequalities cannot be explained in economic terms. |
| 4 Modern societies (capitalist societies) are a transitional type – we may expect them to become radically reorganized in the future. Socialism will eventually replace capitalism. | 4 Rationalization is bound to progress further in the future, in all spheres of social life. All modern societies are dependent on the same basic modes of social and economic organization. |
| 5 The spread of Western influence across the world is mainly a result of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist enterprise. | 5 The global impact of the West comes from its command over industrial resources, together with superior military power. |
THINKING CRITICALLY
Are the key ideas of Marx and Weber really incompatible? Using the table above, see if you can put together an argument that says they have more in common than that which divides them.
According to Weber, capitalism is just one aspect of social development, and in some ways the impact of science and bureaucracy has been more important. Science has shaped modern technology and would continue to do so in any future socialist society, while bureaucracy remains the most efficient way of organizing large numbers of people effectively. Bureaucracies inevitably expand with modern life, becoming a key source of rationalization – the organization of social and economic life according to principles of efficiency on the basis of technical knowledge (see ‘Global society’ 3.1 below). Weber also suggests, against Marx, that capitalism actually provides a counterbalancing source of creativity to the stultifying ‘dead hand’ of bureaucratic domination.
Which interpretation of social change is correct? Perhaps today this is not the most pressing question. The classical theories of Marx, Durkheim and Weber and their later incarnations may not be the best guides to contemporary issues of shifting gender relations, multicultural societies, globalization, technological development and accelerating climate change. Do we now need new theories that