Max weber was strongly influenced my Marx’s ideas, but rejected the possibility of communism, arguing that it would require an even greater level of social control and bureaucratization (tendency to manage an organization by adding more controls) than capitalist society. Weber also critized the presumption of proteriat revolution, believing it to be unlikely. Weber defined social classes as clusters of occupations with similar life chances and patterns of mobility, meaning peoples opportunities are able to move up or down the occupational ladder. Weber divided society into four different social classes. Firstly, those privileged through property or education.
Matthew Arnold suggested that popular culture among the new working classes would lead disruption. He feared revolution and believed a strong centralised state was needed to counter the new barbarism of the working class and their culture. Also we have Q.D. Leavis who like Arnold, believed that mass culture would lead to anarchy as the traditional power was seen to be under threat. They believed that this mass culture led to a passive audience John Fiske’s evaluation of popular culture varies from what has been stated by others who have commented on the topic including the Frankfurt School, widely known for proposing the theory of mass culture.
There are more dimensions to social reality than initially appear to us. It is crucial to move from the surface structures (external appearance) to the underlying mechanisms by which social reality is maintained 3. We need to penetrate the layers of social reality and uncover the underlying relationships that determine the real characteristics of society 4. These relationships are the mechanisms that result in inequality and exploitation within a society, but they are frequently masked by external appearances 5. We do not ordinarily see the real, exploitative nature of society because we perceive it through a framework constructed for us by institutions such as the mass media, serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful in society 6.
TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE STATE A FORM OF OPPRESSION? The idea that the state is a form of oppression is one that is held my marxists and anarchists, who argue that the state is unnatural, and goes against the potential of having freedom and equality. Marxists view the state as a form of oppression, based on the idea that it’s sole purpose is to uphold the bourgeoise ideology of gaining profit through the capitalist society. Anarchists however see the state as a body which undermines the human rationality to live together in society as harmonious beings. The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’.
The term Post-Modernism must not be confused with the term Post-Modernity, which has another focus: Post-Modernism is, as already mentioned, a cultural and intellectual phenomenon, whereas Post-Modernity as a term is used within sociology and political science to describe societies economically and culturally – mostly seen from a global point of view. The Post-Modern writer focuses on expression without content, which means that the writer puts up a scenario which the reader is free to interpret in whatever way he wants to: there is no correct interpretation. But while Post-Modernism seems very much like Modernism, it differs from Modernism in its attitude. Post-Modernism does not see the fragmented reality of the 20th century as necessarily bad but comments on its meaninglessness and plays with it. Post-Modern literature is very experimental and every story is very different from the other.
A clear similarity to Marx’s alienation and Durkhiem’s anomie is that they both critically describe states of social order from utopian standards. However one of the most notable differences between the two theories is that whilst they describe very similar behaviour and discontents, though from different perspectives, they look at different causes and different solutions. It must however be understood that these classical definitions/theories of anomie and alienation are different from contemporary definitions. In fact it can be argued that time and sociologists have changed or ‘obscured’ the classical meanings of alienation and anomie
Postmodernity is a result of more efficient information dissemination and since the progression of so much available information people have questioned the truths and values of modernity. The Postmodern condition, a term coined by Lyotard for his book published in 1984, is a wide ranging philosophical concept that is hard to define. On definition could be that postmodernity is the frailer of modernity. It is a way of looking at a world in which the real no longer governs the lives of people. The media and globalisation has dispersed western culture across the world blurring cultural boundaries.
Marxism and Postmodernism are the two of the most controversial and thought provoking theoretical perspectives in the field of sociology. One stems from a theory of conflict within society that is fuelled by clear inequalities of monetary income, the other was a seismic shift in critical thinking and the assertion of no fixed, intellectual truths. Both perspectives divide opinion within academia and their influence is also evident in numerous academic subjects such as literary theory, post-structuralism and feminism. This essay will outline the contrasts that are present in the each theory and their effectiveness in making sense of society. Each viewpoint will be reinforced with evidence of how they interpret their influence on a specific social institution and in wider society.
New Historicism thus represents a significant change from previous critical theories like New Criticism, because its main focus is to look at things outside of the work, instead of reading the text as a thing apart from the author. In its historicism and in its political interpretations, New Historicism is indebted to Marxism. But whereas Marxism (at least in its cruder forms) tends to see literature as part of a 'superstructure' in which the economic 'base' (i.e. material relations of production) manifests itself, New Historicist thinkers tend to take a more nuanced view of power, seeing it not exclusively as class-related but extending throughout society. This view derives primarily from Michel Foucault and his work in
Weber does not believe that history had a grand pattern, like Marx does, and although there is a clear relationship between material factors and politics, belies, consciousness; the relationship is complex, multi directional, multi causal and more than that. It is often the case that non material factors, shape or make possible the material relations that Marx uses as a starting point.