Marx & Conflict Theory - Analysis of Power in Society

Power in Society – Marx Conflict Perspective & Elite Theory Social Analysis By Karyn Krawford 08/09 Introduction Power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force (Holmes, Hughes & Julian, 2007). In society governments, organisations and an elite class of people make decisions that affect the lives of a large mass of other people. A significant amount of research shows these decisions are often made to serve their own economic interests and values of which includes the means of production and property ownership (Holmes et al, 2007; Walters & Crook, 1995; Haralambos & Holborn, 1990; McGregor, 2000). These decisions cause inequality in society and resentment from people who are excluded from the decision making process. The unequalness of this decision-making and power allocation enables the fortunate to enforce their will on the less fortunate (Graetz, 2001, Walters & Crook, 1995). This essay discusses power from two sociological views; the Conflict perspective, predominately from Karl Marx and the Elite theory perspective. These theories show that power is distributed unequally in society where governments, a ruling class, media and business elites hold the majority of power over others. Conflict Perspective Carl Marx, an 18th century sociologist, was one of the original theorists to develop a conflict perspective on how society functions. Following Marx was Ralph Dahrendorf, 19th century, post beginning of capitalism, who developed the theory further (Holmes et al, 2007). This perspective is mostly concerned with Marx’s deep structures of unseen power within the capitalist system (Walters & Crook, 1995). The central areas of focus from this perspective are; (1) the classes that exist in society, (2) inequalities of society and (3) how society functions to serve the powerful class and disadvantage the others, thereby causing conflict (Holmes et al, 2007; Haralambos & Holborn 1991). Examples of these conflicts include wars, revolutions, strikes and communism (McGregor, 2000). These classes that are in conflict are broadly broken into a ruling capitalist class and working class of which aim to further their interests at the expense of the other group (Walters & Crook, 1995). The working class who only have their labour power to sell are at the disposal of employers in situations where no unions exist and need to avoid unemployment (Holmes et al, 2007). Bordering these two class concepts are small businesses, which Marx referred to as ‘petty bourgeoisie’. This group are subject to ether joining the working class or becoming part of the capitalist class if sufficient surplus is accumulated. Social surplus contributes to conflict in societies where class exists and is a struggle for control over profit. Thus one appropriates it and the other produces it (Holmes et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995). Thus, Marx looked at how the working class is disadvantaged by becoming attached to the external world of commodities and alienating themselves from their inner world also known as externalisation, the materialistic world of consumerism. This process advances the interests of capitalists who thereby hold a strong interest, with help from the media, in ensuring the working class are kept busy working by consuming the products of their labour (Holmes et al, 2007, Hurst, 2000). Classes cause inequality in society and Marx believed individuals hold their own personal power, which is in harmony with each other and nature (Holmes et al, 2007), rather than wrestling with it (Hurst, 2000). Hurst (2000) elaborated further by stating that people become enslaved when their actions are controlled by something outside themselves to benefit the capitalist system that is controlling the labour division. People are no longer whole but split into these alienated specialist divisions. Furthermore, Marx believed it is those who own the means of material products also own the means of intellectual production because it is their ideas that dominate through more ‘air time’ (Holmes et al, 2007; Akard, 2001). “In other words, workers unwittingly reproduce the power that rules over them” (Holmes et al, 2007, pg 37). Marx viewed a nation state as a collective power of which political parties rule on behalf of society by making rules and regulations in favour of the ruling class (Holmes et al, 2007, Hurst, 2000), based on rational decisions (Walters & Crook, 1995) and by the growing faith in science explaining reality (Hurst, 2000). The nation state today however, is increasingly transformed through devolution, deregulation of public policy and globalisation through the impact of multinational corporations on government power and ability to regulate economic activity. This has resulted in a shift of power from national boundaries to a global level (Tanner, 1999; Gotham, 2004). Elite Theory Among elite theories, a distinctive theory was developed by an American Sociologist C.Wright Mills, called critical elite perspective (Akard, 2001). It consists of two central concepts, which are the power elite group and the managerial class (Holmes et al, 2007). Both groups are given decision-making power that affects the lives of others (Walters & Crook, 1995), and are unaccountable for their decisions (Haralambos & Holborn, 1991). The elite is defined as a network of business, government, military and media leaders who exchange favours, have common educational and social backgrounds. These people consciously conspire to maintain control over the masses (Holems et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995). Akard (2001) splits this group into two organised segments, governing elites who hold broad political power and non-governing. Similarly a highly paid managerial class are identified as those who produce profits for the company, thereby given a lot of power and control over others (Holmes et al, 2007; Haralambos & Holborn, Graetz, 2001). Consequently power is passed down from owner to manager who is in control on a daily basis (McGregor, 2000). In order for the elite to maintain this control they need to be aware of their membership to the group, act in ways to further their own interests and exchange information between members to conspire the control (Holmes et al, 2007) and to close the access for others making them exclusive (Akard, 2001). For example in Australia there is believed to be an increasing interlock of relationships particularly in the media, sport and education sectors which can be observed by the number of executives each sitting on each the boards of these organisations (Holmes et al, 2007). A number of elite theorists have written about the networking and interlocking of this group (Holmes et al, 2007), also known as mobility (Holmes et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995). For example Australia used to be known as ‘the Welfare State’ in which it served to support mostly men but also women, supporting the role family plays, by means of pensions, health and education. This has changed dramatically over the past two decades as the Howard government continued to privatise many government and state welfare providers, including education institutes. At the same time corporation’s profits rose dramatically (Holmes et al, 2007). In order for this change in ‘welfare state’ to occur as desired by the ‘Elite’ groups, there needed to be a cross over of board representatives in many powerful institutions, channelling power into the hands of these exclusive power holders (Holmes et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995). These power institutions include the three government powers that are stated in the Australian Constitution; the legislative (two houses of parliament), the executive (public service) and judiciary (court system) that they must be kept separate in order for democracy to work. An example of this is when the Howard government, along with cooperation from the media, pressured the ‘executive’ (public service) to gain election votes (Holmes et al, 2007). Clearly the Australian Constitution requirements have not been adhered to in numerous contexts. Holmes et al (2007) provides a list of examples of the mobile crossover of senior political, media and business people sitting on boards of large and powerful organisations and group memberships. Moreover Holmes et al, (2007) and Haralambos & Holborn (1991) explain the new economy today consists of two to three hundred privately owned giant corporations where this mobility takes place and wealth is more concentrated. This concentration of board crossovers, government officials and departments that also cross over into the private sector have further embedded the capitalist society we now live in. Conclusion Both perspectives discussed the unequal power from one group over another. The research on ruling and working classes, explains how the powerful classes dominate over the rest of the population known as ‘mass’, both physically and mentally (Holmes et al, 2007, Hurst, 2000,). A political elite group of people is explained and acceptable in both Marxist and elite perspectives. This is due to the common ground regarding the degree of mobility and the idea of the state’s job in sharing out wealth produced by a working class, kept dependant of this through the privately owned companies. This privatisation and rising of large multinational corporations has produced an increase in the power of management. The media plays a prominent role in portraying a materialistic world through the idealistic interests of the upper classes which are also materialistic to keep profits and power concentrated in their control, while keeping the working class focused less on internal needs and more on external means with production and consumption. The nation state plays a role in assimilating power in society, serving the interests of the upper classes, however this power has reduced significantly over the years. Despite this, there appears to be an increase in mobility of the elite, utilising the powers of mass media, governments and multinational organisations to meet their needs. Finally, there is insufficient space in this paper to cover other significant realms of power affecting society such as the impact of many smaller groups, globalisation, charismatic leadership, the Internet and cyberspace. Reference List Akard, P. (2001), Social & Political Elites. Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol 4, 2nd edition. Macmillan Reference. USA Gotham, K. (2004), State. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Ed. George Ritzer. Vol. 2. Sage Publications inc Graetz, B. (2001) Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to Sociological Ideas. Oxford University Press. Melbourne. Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (1991) Sociology; Themes & Perspectives. 3rd edition. CollinsEducational, Hammersmith, London. Homes, D., Hughes, K. & Julian, R. (2007), Australian Sociology. A Changing Society. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education Australia. Frenchs Forest, NSW. Hurst, D.E. (2000), The Janus-Faced Nature of Society. Living Theory: The Application of Classical Social Theory to Contemporary Life. Allyn & Bacon. Boston. Jamrozik, A. & Nocella, L. (2002), Inequality: The Underlying Universal Issue in Social Problems. Sociology of Social Problems. Cambridge: University Press McGregor, C. (2000) Class. Sociology: Australian Connections. 2nd Edition. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, Australia. Sydney Homeless man makes $50,000 a year begging – The Australian & The Daily Telegraph Both newspapers’ coverage of this issue is exactly the same. This is because they are both owned by News Limited. The article highlights social issues that include amount of money earned by beggars, tax payments, welfare and drugs consumed by homeless people. - The article reports a man made the above figure from begging in a CBD location in Sydney over the period of one year. - He earns different amounts on busier days and slower days. - Fridays he earns at least $250 and some days stays longer if he is earning more. - The man is viewed earning $30 in 20 minutes - That day he had earned $60 before the afternoon rush began - His money is tax-free In these highlighted points the media clearly targets how much money the man earns, as it is the headline and is mentioned here eight times. It suggests he shouldn’t be earning this much and people give too much money to the homeless are happily paid more than the average worker tax-free. The man didn’t state his earnings over the year therefore the journalist has calculated the figure assuming he earns this much each week on a daily basis for the past year. 1. The article proposes he works hard, long hours, every day of the week sitting on a crate on the corner of a busy location with his sign up asking for money. Yet the picture of the man sitting with a sign up and money dropped in front does not look like he is exerting much energy. 2. The day of the interview the man took a three-hour break and had breakfast at a takeaway. The man in the picture looks quite overweight and possibly obese. 3. The man says he gets more money at the end of the day when people are going home happy. This media coverage shows power is used by the media report to portray the man as lazy, taking advantage of people at times when they feel happy. The homeless man does not have the power to publish his situation in his own words. His money is tax-free; he doesn’t get sick days or superannuation. The article compares a beggar with a worker, suggesting an alternative way of making money and avoiding tax. This comparison is unfair, as most people would not be faced with the same issues as a homeless person such as hygiene, health, food, clothing and shelter. Homeless people are concerned about survival and not if they are getting superannuation when they ‘retire’. From a Marxist perspective the ruling class and from the Elite theory perspective, the elite group, have invested interests in the mass population to be kept working, more importantly however that people invest in the consumption of available products. This homeless man’s stated medical expenses and takeaway food for example, contributes to the cycle of consumption where his money given by workers goes back into the system eventually. By Karyn Krawford 09/2009 PAGE 1