Examine the Marxist contribution to our understanding of the family Unlike functionalist sociologists, Marxists do not agree with value consensus (agreement) and the promise of meritocracy. Marxist sociologists argue that institutions; such as the family helps to maintain the system of class inequality and exploitation. This is known as capitalism. By this, the Marxists mean that the family solely operates for the benefit of the bourgeoisie (the ruling class) and this allows for the exploitation of the proletariat to take place. This view sharply contrasts the view of functionalists as they argue that the family benefits both the society as a whole and all the individual members.
Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism. For Marx, the concept of class has always existed in society. Historically, a society has always been arranged into various orders of social rank. A defining characteristic of capitalism however, is that “it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels 1848).
Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint. Marx looked at how capitalism separated humanity by making work a simple means of individual existence. In addition he describes society in terms of class and economic conflicts. Marx saw proletariat or people of a working class as being underneath the bourgeoisie or the capitalist of a modern society. Marx looked at how alienation of production of commodities by workers also leads to alienation of social life.
However, Marxists criticise this and argue that education in capitalist society only transmits the ideology of the ruling class and not the shared values of society. Furthermore, Durkheim argues that modern industry has a complex division of labour where production of a single product involves cooperation from many different specialists. But for this to be successful, each person must have the necessary specialist knowledge and skills to perform their role. So education teaches individuals specialist skills and knowledge that individuals need to play their part in the social division of labour. So the main function of education is to maintain a value consensus in society.
One way the family serves capitalism is the socialisation of the young into the ruling class ideology. They see the family as an institution which serves and maintains the position of the ruling class. Marxists point out is that families socialise children in to an idea of hierarchy and inequality. An example of this is when parent’s power over children making them accustom to the idea that there is always someone above or better than them and they will have to obey there orders. This leads them to the working life where you work under capitalists and accept orders from superior employers.
Marxists also believe that the capitalist system creates laws that are seen to favour the working class and make them think the system is fair and just, however, these are only put in place to appease the subject class and give the appearance of fairness. Marxists also recognise that crime happens across all social sections, and they challenge the view that crime is a working class phenomenon. This take on crime can be criticised because there is too much emphasis on class inequalities in policing and law enforcement, they fail to recognise racial discrimination within crime. In addition this theory is also very deterministic, believing that criminals are driven to crime as victims of the capitalist system, and for also believing that all the working class in a capitalist society commits crime, for example Japan is a capitalist society but they have very low crime rates, this opposes the view of the Marxists. Further criticisms come from the Left Realists, they say that most of the working class crime is not committed against the state as the
Assess the contribution of Marxism to our understanding of the Role of Education Sociologists argue that Education has different functions amongst society. Functionalists would argue that Education is a good thing and that it prepares younger generations for life in the work place; however Marxists would argue that education justifies social inequality and prepares working class people for working class jobs. Marxists argue that Education creates the ‘Myth of Meritocracy’, where pupils are taught to believe that social mobility is possible in society; however in reality schools are educating working class students for working class jobs. With the exception of a few, education confirms individual’s class of origin as their class of destination. Class inequalities are reproduced and education does not provide a means of social mobility.
Rilley states “it was because of certain traits in private capitalism that the machine which was a neutral agent has often seemed, and in fact has some time been a malicious element in society, carless of human life, indifferent to human interest. The machine has suffered of the sins of capitalism; contrariwise capitalism has often credit for the virtues of the machine.” Their desire to keep the machine running led to mass resource and atmospheric pollution. Mumford states ‘Capitalism is ideally a system of private enterprise, control, and profit, whereas ecology is ideally a public concern.” The lack of concern the capitalist had for
Postmodernists reject this view of Marxism, that we still live in a two-class society and the claim that education reproduces class inequality. Postmodernist sociologists such as Morrow and Torres see class divisions as no longer important and that society is now much more diverse and fragmented. Marxist approaches are useful in exposing the ‘myth of meritocracy’. They show the role that education plays as an ideological state apparatus, serving the interests of capitalism by reproducing and legitimating class inequality. However, postmodernists criticise Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle on the grounds that today’s post-Fordist economy requires schools to produce a very different kind of labour force from the one described by Marxists.
However, research in the Marxist 'political economy' tradition in particular does employ empirical methods. And the analysis of media representations does include close studies of particular texts. The orthodox Marxist notion of 'false consciousness' misleadingly suggests the existence of a reality 'undistorted' by mediation. The associated notion that such consciousness is irresistibly induced in mass audiences does not allow for oppositional readings. Marxist perspectives should not lead us to ignore the various ways in which audiences use the mass media.