'Karl Marx & Max Weber on Social Stratification\r'

'We cannot deny the existence of well up-disposed expressions or system by which concourse be categorised or ranked in a hierarchy. This concourse categorization is otherwise cognise as fond stratification. It is a universal characteristic of clubhouse that persists e preciseplace generations.  It is a sociable structure by which favorable issues and organizational problems plagiarize.In a golf-club, conclaves of state sh be a similar friendly shape, and this is cognise as tender clear. Over the years, the importance and definition of membership in some(prenominal) affable class evolve and swop between societies. Societies hold back become tout ensemble the to a greater extremity dynamic because of technological advances, industrialization, and now, globalization. present-day(a) societies stratify into a hierarchal system based on sparing condition, income or wealthiness, and this is know as sociostinting class.  In the past, societies break a n upper class and a get class. Those in the upper class ar deemed to be the precise wealthy and major coercive, mend those from the light class be the poor and the weak.Considering neighborly changes and developments in the twentieth century, untested groups called the middle class and functional class in urban societies emerged.  Members of the middle class atomic number 18 the ameliorate, highly paid professionals ilk doctors, accountants, scientists, and lawyers. They n wizardtheless put to work for or render services for the upper class. Much like the working class, they receive their wages, sole(prenominal) they ready higher up the minimum wage because of the grocery store value of their professions and skills. Their market place value increases as they increase their skills and competencies. They have the materialize to increase their income and n hotshotthelesstually execute up the accessible ladder (Krieken, et al, 2001, p. 62).Meanwhile, those who belong to the working class are the trades people, factory cut intoers, drivers, and similar workers who has some skills training, which they use to earn a living. Although they may be considered financially enduring due to regular income, they unflurried belong to the lower class for the reason that they earn sole(prenominal) pretty above the minimum wage.Other members of the lower class are the underemployed, unemployed, welfare beneficiaries, homeless, and everyone else who live below the poverty business. referable to lack of education and skills, their opportunities are simply check (McGregor, 1997, p. 261).sociable stratification is already an intrinsic structure of whatsoever connection, and if it has its benefits and function in a society, which some scholars believe, that is retaliate and merit for productivity. People are rewarded for their productive efforts and skills. When we verbalize of reward, it does not only mean economic reward. think up that people are to a fault rewarded with ( neighborly) honor and this is known as fond shape.Karl pocket and Max weber were distinguished theorists whose works have become the introductory except significant frameworks of sociology. Their fantasys prove to be applicable until today. They have provided a juicy reservoir of perspectives, which patron contemporaneous friendly thinkers and learners, understand social stratification, classes and status groups. They both laid the groundwork for judgment social conflict and inequality in new-made society such that whenever issues of social inequality arise, whether it is on the flat coat of social class, race, ethnicity, gender, and other dimensions, all these are explored and analyse in the context of sociological traditions derived from their works. Karl Marx’ Concept of partitioning Karl Marx localized class in terms of the extent to which a person or social group has the capacity to control the means of product. Those o f the same social class have a common race to the means of production. Marx believed that the base of inequality among individuals in modern societies is economy (Sanghara).Marx believed that classes are constituted by the kinship of groupings of individuals to property self-command in the means of production. In this regard, a some own properties and capital while others do not, many work while only a few live off the fruits of those workers. bod societies have been built around a line of demarcation between two antagonistic classes, one dominant and the other subordinate (Giddens, 1971, p. 37).Marx’ view of social stratification stemmed from his observations of early industrialization in Europe during the late part of the 19th century. He saw the existence of two major classes â€the public opinion class ( capitalistics) and the working class, or otherwise known as the cautious and confinement. The capitalists were viewed as such because of their ownership of the means of production, as well as the power this creates †economically and even politically (Krieken, et al, 2001, p. 55).In a capitalist system, the ruling class, with their economic resources, lives from the productivity of the working class, and this is when social divisions and conflicts arise. Unlike in tribal, rural or simplex societies where people live by hunting (or gathering), people can not be categorized differently, because no one has much than others do.Marx believed that the conflict between the button-down (capitalists) who happen to control production, and the confinement who actually upraise the goods or render services in a society, on the basis of capitalism.In capitalism, control over production evokes control over the laborers, and this chastise-up is likely to result in evolution of workers by the capitalists. With the craving of capitalists themselves to compete with chum capitalists, and the greediness for more material gains, Marx predicted that in a society where the capitalist system prevails, financial resources of the few but wealthy capitalists would flourish. At the same time, the income dissimilarity between the poor and the rich would shroud. Meanwhile, as capitalists deal to exploit workers, the workers would remain victims of economic crises.The social classes that originated from the capitalist system that Marx knew during his time still holds straight today, only, the bourgeois class has become fragmented over the run century due to the emergence of the so-called stockholders. Likewise, the proletariat has been changed significantly by the â€Å"white-collar revolution.” Decades ago, work regard mostly manual labor, or otherwise known as â€Å"blue-collar” occupations. â€Å"White-collar” occupations involve mostly mental or non-manual skills. However, the shared social structure of earning wages put ups both proletariats during Marx’ time, and today’s educated but aver age office workers, a â€Å"working class.”Today, workers’ conditions have significantly improved through the efforts of labor organizations, and, because of expanded legal rights and protection of workers. While exploitation of workers still happen, and a small proportion of powerful people control the vast majority of wealth in our society, Marx’ perspectives will continue to prove blue-chip and significant in our understanding of social conflicts that arise from social stratification.Max weber’s loving StratificationMax weber expressed a two-fold classification of social stratification, with social class, status groups as distinct concepts. He believed that, the economic order was of great importance in find the precise sit of different communities, but nonetheless, he did not discount the important role of religion, ideas, status, and bureaucracy (Hadden, 1997, p. 126).Weber defined class as the disproportionate scattering of economic rewards, a nd the status group as the disproportionate distribution of social honor (Krieken, et al, 2001, p.58). Class stance is determined by one’s market value. This market value is founded by education, talent, acquired skills and competencies. He had no notion of â€Å"surplus value,” unlike Marx. Social class is simply an aggregate of people with similar work or professional opportunities, and their slip would count on on the choices they made out of these opportunities.Unlike social class, status groups have similar qualities like groups. They are influenced by how social honor is shared among the members of the group. Lifestyle is shared by those of the same social circle. Belonging to a status group may depend on kinship, education, and at the most extreme, through a caste system, which happens to be related to one’s culture. In a caste system, status is determined not only by law and convention, but also by religious sanction (Gane, 2005, p. 211).Contrary to Ma rx’ perception, Weber believed that status is more influential than economic condition. He introduced the concept of status groups as an additional social category to define one’s consumption pattern or lifestyle. If Marx focused on one’s position in the production assembly, Weber believed that status groups are actually communities held together by common lifestyles and social esteem. Status groups share the same professions, views, as well as lifestyles. They do not just savor economic rewards, but social honor as well. With their professional achievement, comes social honor.Weber was concerned with individuality and generalisation (Ritzer, p. 114). For instance, he  recognized the individuality of people †their talents, skills and competencies and, that people have a good chance to shape up their career and improve their standard of living by increasing their market value through education.Weber’s theory on social mobility (or movement in the class structures) is more promising. Unlike Marx’ idea of social class which imply that animosity between the bourgeois and proletariat will not end until the proletariat eventually overthrow the bourgeois.However, Weber’s concept of social mobility does not only mean an upwardly movement. The reverse may also happen and that is †wretched down the social ladder. Moving up or down the social ladder will depend upon the life choices the person made, as well as opportunities he had. In this case, the middle class are the most predisposed as it is only an intercessor class. Just like how Marx argued, the middle class would be eventually absorbed into both the upper and lower class, as this is not sufficiently different for it to travel (as a social class) in the long run.ConclusionKarl Marx and Max Weber were two important personalities whose theories led to our understanding of social stratification, class and status groups. Marx provided an elaborate and very s ystematic concept of capitalism and capitalist development, and its takings in society.  While Weber held other factors were also relevant in determining the future of our society  such as religion, culture, ideas, values, meaning, social and personal action.Marx and Weber’s perspectives amazingly still hold true in today’s modern societies. In the â€Å"Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels remarked that â€Å"the history of all hitherto brisk society is the history of class struggles” (Bottomore, 1983,  p. 75). In any historical era, social classes were real and today, pressing economic conditions make social stratification and other structures all the more complex.Despite the fact that many work even harder to achieve more economic reward, many cannot move up the social ladder. â€Å"The class in its bias achieves an independent existence over against the individuals, so that the latter(prenominal) find their conditions of existence predes tined, and hence have their position in life and their personal development appoint to them by their class, become subsumed under it” (Giddens and Held, p. 20)To be in the middle of the ladder, and stay there is such a long tedious struggle. Opportunities come, but sometimes, these elude them. In most modern societies in the world, many still live below the poverty line. But those who are born in a wealthy or powerful family, knows just where they stand in the hierarchy system †and that is similar to that of their parents. Looking at how wealth is proportioned in today’s society, and how richer populations possess and continue to increase their wealth, Marx was right. The trend of widening disparity in wealth and social class between the rich and the poor will continue, until we brace ourselves as a social group to make a witting and consolidated effort of reducing this gap.Weber believed, we can finish things which we do not even rationally or scientifically  think we are capable of doing, â€Å" to wit the subjective understanding of the action of the component individuals” (Weber, 1968, p. 15). In other words, man has innate capabilities and the power to make significant change in himself and in the society where he belongs.To illustrate his viewpoint and applying it in contemporary society †and it may already sound cliché, one way of reducing the gap between social classes is through education. Through education, we are able to set the social foundation for the next generations.  It is the long route, but nonetheless, its impact has more lasting value.References:Bottomore, T (ed), 1983, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p. 75.Krieken, R, et al, 2001, Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 2nd edition, Longman, Melbourne, pp. 54-62.McGregor, C, 1997, Class in Australia, Penguin Books, Victoria, pp. 261.Gane, N, 2005, â€Å"Max Weber as a Social Theorist,” European Journal of Soc ial Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 211-226 (2005)Giddens, A, 1971, capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the literary productions of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 17.Giddens, A and Held, D, 1982, Classes, Power, and Conflict: simple and Contemporary Debates, Berkeley, University of California Press, p. 20.Hadden, R, 1997, Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition, Peterborough, Ontario, Broadview Press, p. 126.Ritzer, G, 1992, Sociological Theory, 3rd edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 114.Sanghara, S, The Concept of Social Inequality, 3 March 2008, http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_macionis_sociology_5/23/6031/1544046.cw/index.htmlWeber, M, 1968, Economy and lodge: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York, Bedminster Press, p. 15.\r\n'