www.curriculum-press.co.uk Number 155

SociologyFactsheet

1

The contribution of Marxism to our understanding of society

In this Factsheet we will try to assess the contribution of Marxist sociologists to our understanding of society by examining three main areas:• What is Marxism – how does it work as a belief

system and a sociological perspective• What sort of areas have Marxist sociologists contributed to in terms

of important research ?• How important and useful have these contributions been? Have

they withstood criticism and analysis by other perspectives?

1. What is Marxism ?Marxism is built around the ideas of Karl Marx (1818-1883). In The Communist Manifesto (1848) (written with Friedrich Engels) and Capital (1867) Marx explained how he had discovered the ‘laws of history,’ which explained how societies were created and changed. He also claimed that this enabled him to predict how history would evolve, and that a communist society based on equality was inevitable.

Karl Marx Friedrich Engels

Marx and Engels maintained that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle,”; this statement is at the heart of the Marxist sociological perspective.

Marx maintained that there were only ever two classes in society – those that OWNED the means of production, distribution and exchange and those that DID NOT own them. The owners controlled what Marx called the ECONOMIC BASE where all wealth was created; effectively the owners were therefore the RULING class in all societies. Everything else that made up society (schools, religion, the media, politics, culture etc.) was what Marx called the SUPERSTRUCTURE, and whoever controlled the economic base would also control this superstructure and use it for their purpose (effectively to support their position as the ruling class).

In every case, the owners created wealth by EXPLOITING the non-owners, so in Slave Societies the slave owners exploited the labour of slaves and in Feudal Societies the landowners exploited the labour of feudal serfs. In each case the owners extracted what Marx called SURPLUS VALUE from the non-owning class.

This was also true, said Marx, of the modern capitalist era which began with the Industrial Revolution, where he named the owning/ruling class as the BOURGEOISIE and the non-owning/working class as the PROLETARIAT. From a sociological point of view this makes a Marxist analysis of society a big picture or macro theory, rather like Functionalism, which is concerned with the role of structures and institutions, because it is they (owned by the ruling class) that shape the role of individuals in society, as well as the norms and values of society as a whole. The latter perspective identifies Marxism as, again, rather like functionalism, a structuralist theory.

Superstructure

Base

Everything not directly to do with production:

Means of production:

Relations of production:

Tools, machines, factories, land, raw materials

Lumpen-Proletariat, Proletariat, Labour AristocracyPetty-Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

Private property, capital, commodities, etc

ArtFamilyCultureReligion

Philosphy

LawMediaPoliticsScience

Education

Ideology

Shapes(and maintains)

Maintains(and shapes)

However, Marx also maintained that these two social classes were in perpetual struggle, because the interests of the two classes were always the opposite; that is the wealth and power of the ruling class depended on the exploitation of the non-owning class; as the non-owning class became aware of this it would resist it and eventually (always being the larger of the two classes) overthrow it.

In other words, the whole nature of all societies, Marx believed, was based on CONFLICT, and such conflict was also the engine of social change. This is the key difference to the functionalist view of society which, although macro and structuralist, has a CONSENSUS model of society (that is that society operates in the interests of everyone, who also have some sort of contribution to, and agreement on, how society is run and what its values are).

Sociology Factsheet155. The contribution of Marxism to our understanding of societywww.curriculum-press.co.uk

2

Exam Hint:- This conflict model is crucial to an understanding of how Marxists see capitalist society as it makes them CRITICAL of existing society, which they see as being based on this inevitable conflict of interests, or as Marx called it ‘class struggle’.It is important to understand the key aspects of the Marxist approach as the ideas can be used to explain many aspects of society.

Marx was also different to the other founding fathers of sociology in that he overtly maintained that his research was not just purely ‘academic’. Marx felt his research was not just unearthing knowledge or the ‘truth’ for the sake of it, as an objective exercise as positivists such as Durkheim and Comte claimed it was. Marx asserted that “Philosophers (and by implication sociologists) have so far only interpreted the world; the point however is to change it”; that is that Marxist research would be ACTIVIST, it would try to change people’s minds about the world they lived in. In particular, Marxist research would educate the proletariat to understand their own exploitation, to build what Marxists call CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS. Marxists maintain that every sociological perspective has its own political purpose (ideas being controlled by the ruling class), but unlike the Marxist perspective, that purpose remains hidden, passing off ruling class ideas (or Ideology in Marx’s term) as objective truth.

Marxist Ideas after MarxMarx’s basic ideas were significantly reshaped by Lenin, leading to the Russian Revolution in 1917, and are often known as Orthodox Communism. However, by the 1970s, Western European reinterpretations of Marxism became more influential in academic circles, known as Neo-Marxism, with the ideas of two thinkers being particularly influential in sociological terms, Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci. Althusser maintained a similar structuralist outlook to Marx in terms of the economic base and the superstructure, but developed a more subtle analysis of how capitalism used that superstructure, dividing it into RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) and ISA (Ideological State Apparatus). RSA was clear and apparent, and its function to maintain the ruling class control was fairly obvious; this was the police, the law courts and the army, for example, but the ISA was more in the background, but also more influential in shaping people’s norms and values and could be seen, for example, in education, religion or the media.

Gramsci’s ideas in some ways ran parallel to this in that he emphasised that capitalism maintained its dominance or hegemony through ideological control of institutions and ideas rather like the ISA. However, he also maintained that in some circumstances there could be some cracks in this hegemonic dominance and that some elements in the superstructure could operate independently of capitalist dominance, such as culture and religion; indeed, at times, Gramsci maintained, such independent elements could be employed against capitalism by planting ideas that could build up revolutionary class consciousness and lead to social change. This could lead to what Gramsci called a longer-term ‘war of position’ (to counter cultural hegemony) rather than the ‘war of manoeuvre’ that had been employed by Lenin in 1917 in capturing the state in a one-off coup d’état.

In political terms, neo-Marxism gave rise to the New Left and even Euro-Communism, trends that were more open to broader, democratic ideas.

In sociological terms, the importance of neo-Marxist ideas, especially those of Gramsci, was that Marxist sociologists were more open to broader sociological ideas and methods, especially those of the interactionists which emerged in the 1960s.

ActivityCreate two columns – in one put the SIMILARITIES between Marxism and Functionalism as theories about society – in the other put DIFFERENCES.

What do you think are the MAIN similarities and differences between the two theories ?

Exam Hint:- Use the differences you have identified above to gain evaluation marks in your essays.

2. Marxist Contributions to Sociological Research Marxist sociologists have researched a whole range of social areas, but, have been most interested in examining the key institutions of capitalist state and society in terms of family, education, law (and lawbreaking or crime and deviance) and religion. More recently, Marxist sociologists have been particularly interested in the role of the media in society.

A. FamilyFriedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family,Private Property, and the State (1884)emphasised the roles that the family fulfils forcapitalism. This was developed and reinforced by subsequent Marxist writers, especiallyEli Zaretsky (1976). In addition to being anessential part of the production process, Marxists argue that the family provides three key roles as part of capitalism :• Unit of Consumption – the family is an important market for the

consumer goods that are produced as part of the capitalist process. This has been even more pronounced since the 1960s with theemphasis on ‘consumer durables’ or ‘white goods’ (fridges, cookers, washing machines etc.) and the development of digital technology (tablets, phones etc.). Advertising is aimed at ‘keeping up with the Joneses’, children are specifically targeted to use ‘pester power’ ontheir parents and celebrities are used to emphasise the ‘must have’ elements of consumer goods. Reinforcement within the family forthese trends is an essential part of the process.

• Ideological Functions – the family, suggest Marxists, is specificallydesigned to serve the interests of the ruling class and to reinforce the norms and values of that class; essentially to keep the working class in its subservient place and make it appear as ‘normal’. Therefore,the family is essential for socialisation into these norms and values - workers pass on the acceptance of their own exploitation justas slaves did in a previous ‘mode of production’. Zaretsky alsoemphasised that the family appeared to offer a ‘safe haven’ from theapparent harshness of working life, which reinforced acceptance,as it created an apparent ‘private’ sphere where workers could ‘bethemselves’ – this appearance, though, was illusory and merelypart of the exploitation process.

• Property Inheritance –Marxists also maintain that the familybenefits the ruling class by maintaining its control over the meansof production (land, property and wealth). Engels maintained thatmonogamous marriage with inheritance being passed on to theeldest (usually male in most societies) child ensured that wealthwas maintained within the capitalist class (bourgeoisie).

Sociology Factsheetwww.curriculum-press.co.uk

3

155. The contribution of Marxism to our understanding of society

Exam Hint: - Make sure you mention SPECIFIC Marxist sociologists, rather than just “Marxists in general.

As in all areas of Marxist research it is important to stress that Marxists don’t agree with or approve of these situations – in fact the exact opposite, they highlight them in order to change them.

B. EducationThe school system, for Marxists, has a similarfunction in society to that of the family, to maintainthe power and dominance of the ruling class andto keep the working class in its place by acceptingruling class norms and values as if they were‘normal’.

In Britain, in particular, Marxists would argue this is done by having two separate education systems, the private school system, made up of ‘independent’ or fee-paying schools (sometimes known, confusingly, as public schools) and the state system. By and large, Marxists maintain, fee-paying schools educate the bourgeoisie and the state school system is for the proletariat. Most Marxist research in education is therefore centred on the state system, and concentrates on two key roles :• Ideological Functions – just as Marxists see the family as the key

institution in primary socialisation for the transfer of the normsand values of ruling class ideology, so state schools are central todo that as part of secondary socialisation. Bowles and Gintis inSchooling in Capitalist America (1976) used questionnaires with237 school students in New York to examine the role of educationand concluded that state schools shaped students’ personalities tobe accepting of capitalist views, so much so that they argued thatschools in their structure and values corresponded almost exactlyto those of capitalist enterprises (the ‘correspondence principle’).They argued that these norms and values were most effective whennot taught directly through lessons, but with more subtlety through the everyday activities and structures of schools (rules, uniform,attitudes), the ‘hidden curriculum’. In this way education is a good example of what Althusser called the Ideological State Apparatus(see above).

Activityusing your own experience of schooling, does Bowles & Gintis’ idea of the Hidden Curriculum make sense ?

• Reproduction and Legitimation – as with the family, the aim of education, according to Marxists, is for capitalist ideas to be accepted as normality, to gain legitimation. Bowles and Gintis said that in this regard schools acted as part of ‘a great myth-making machine’; the main myth being that of meritocracy. This is the idea that everyone has an equal chance of making it to the top, so that those who do make it, do so on merit, through ability and effort; the main vehicle of this in education being examinations and qualifications – if you achieve highly by this method, you must have deserved it. This ‘myth of meritocracy’, they maintain, legitimates not only the education system, but capitalist society in general.

However, it is a myth, argue Marxists, because everybody does not have an equal chance at success; those in fee-paying schools have more resources and smaller class sizes and some children will be hampered

by material deprivation (their lack of physical resources will hamper their progress) or, as French Neo-Marxist Pierre Bourdieu argued, cultural deprivation (lack of cultural capital or knowledge, language, tastes and attitudes seen as essential to educational success). The result, Marxists maintain, is not the open competition of meritocracy, but a ‘rigged game’ that will, on a macro level, merely reproduce the existing class positions (Class Reproduction) with a ‘veneer’ of legitimation overlaying it. Paul Willis summed up this process well with the subtitle of his 1977 study Learning to Labour – why working class kids get working class jobs.

Activityusing your textbooks and the internet find out more about the ideas and research of Pierre Bourdieu and Paul Willis.

C. Crime and DevianceFor many Marxists, crime is an essential partof capitalist society, as capitalism is in itselfCRIMINOGENIC, that is it is based on andencourages greed and exploitation. ManyMarxists have therefore argued that much crimeis economically driven by the inequality inherentin capitalism – that’s why, according to official statistics, most crime is committed by poor or working class people. They have also been keen to emphasise that much crime is committed by the ruling class themselves, but is often under-reported and under-punished; thus Marxists have been active in researching white collar and corporate crime, green crime and state crime. Some Marxists also see people who are deviant or criminal as having resisted mainstream capitalist norms and values and therefore see crime as evidence of class consciousness.

William Chambliss (1975) produced a good example of the classical Marxist approach to crime in his study of the English vagrancy laws between 1349 and 1530. At every point, he argued the laws were used and if needed, changed to benefit the interests of the ruling class, highlighting the idea that they control all aspects of the superstructure. Neo-Marxists like Stuart Hall, in his ‘New Criminology’ study of the moral panic over mugging (1978), emphasised the same conclusion, that the ruling class was using everything at their disposal (changes in the law, the media, manipulation of ‘public opinion’ and racism) to consolidate their grip on power.

ActivityResearch further the link between Marxist theory and ideas about crime and deviance, ensuring that you understand the similarities and differences between traditional and Neo-Marxist approaches

D. Mass MediaTraditional Marxist approaches saw theownership of the mass media as one example of the means of distribution; ruling class owners of newspapers and later television and film companies distributed rulingclass ideas or ideology to ‘brainwash’ the masses. They controlledthe content as well as the form of the media, which were used to keepthe masses ‘in their place’. Rupert Murdoch would be seen as a goodexample of this in the modern day, with his ownership of ‘The Sun’and ‘The Times’ in newspapers and Sky TV; so too would RichardDesmond, owner of the ‘Daily Express’ and ‘Daily Star’ and, up torecently, Channel 5.

Sociology Factsheetwww.curriculum-press.co.uk

155. The contribution of Marxism to our understanding of society

4

Neo-Marxists, especially influenced by Gramsci’s ideas, however, are less concerned with direct ownership and more concerned with seeing the media as part of the ideological apparatus which maintains capitalist hegemony (or dominance) through more indirect or subtle means. Habermas (1989) emphasised how the media limited the ideas discussed in the ‘public sphere’ and ‘stage managed’ the nature of debate, in much the same way as Box suggested above that reporting on crime was framed in a particular way. Examining the values and content of newspapers and TV programmes is therefore much more important than researching ownership, as the Glasgow University Media Group have done from 1974 onwards.

Activity In the 1992 election ‘The Sun’ produced the front page (below) on Election Day, and then the next day claimed that it had been central to the election result.

Have a look at the British Library site http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/fpage/elections/election.htmland other information about the 1992 election and evaluate their claim.If you think ‘The Sun’ was influential, was its ownership by Rupert Murdoch the major factor ?

E. ReligionAs might be expected, Marxists see religion aspart of the superstructure that perpetuates and transmits ruling class ideology through secondary socialisation. However, even from the outset Marx had a more sophisticated view on how this was achieved; religion, he said was “the opium of thepeople. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, the spirit of a spiritless situation.”

In other words, religion acted as a sort of painkiller against the exploitation of capitalism, as well as offering hope for the future – after all, it was “easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. Poor people, it appeared, would achieve their reward in the hereafter as a sort of compensation for their earthly exploitation.

This would mean that religion would act as a conservative force, said Marx, deflecting workers from trying to overthrow capitalism by making them concentrate on what they needed to do to get into the kingdom of heaven hereafter. In effect, as Elie Halevy (1927) argued in relation to Methodism during the industrial revolution, religion would deflect working class anger, despair and revolutionary power into another (less dangerous) area.

ActivityHave a look at the following websites for Faith in the City and the Papal encyclical:https://www.churchofengland.org/media/55076/faithinthecity.pdf and https://vaticloud.vatican.va/oc/public.php?service=files&t=cb8ee4dccb40633fb293358c241d2e94Consider whether their ideas support or could be against the interests of capitalism and the ruling class.

3. Assessment of the Marxist contribution to ourunderstanding of society

There is little doubt that the research of Marxist sociologists, from Marx and Engels in the mid-19th Century onwards have been of some importance. Marx, after all, is considered, alongside Durkheim, Comte and Weber, as one of the ‘Founding Fathers’ as sociology as a discipline. However, Marxist interpretations often come under additional scrutiny from academic sociologists because they are seen (as with Feminists) as activists as well as researchers. In simple terms, Marxists can be accused of bias – they have a political agenda and want to draw attention to the ills of capitalism in order to weaken it. This was a particular criticism of New Right sociologists; for instance in crime, Wilson and Kelling (1982) in creating what became known as New Right Realism, argued that political bias meant that Marxists, among others, did not treat the increase in crime in the late 1970s/early 80s as real, did not recognise the victims of crime as really suffering and often treated the perpetrators of crime as in effect ‘political prisoners’ of capitalism. Similarly Functionalists are often critical of Marxist interpretations because they have a very different model of society; they think that most societies are based on consensus rather than conflict and that institutions such as schools, the family and religion act in the interests of everybody rather than just those of the ruling class. Therefore, although Functionalists and Marxists can often agree about the processes that are happening in society, such as primary and secondary socialisation, they can rarely agree upon the role and purpose of those processes. So, for example, functionalists would fully agree that one of the key roles of education is socialisation of children into norms and values; they might also agree with the concept of the ‘hidden curriculum’, when many of these values are transmitted through the normal processes of school life rather than in formal lessons. However, functionalists such as Talcott Parsons would disagree with the idea that these norms and values are purely in the interests of the ruling class (they would disagree with the concept of a ‘ruling class’ in western democracies anyway) and would see societies as true meritocracies, with education as one of the key opportunities to allow people to realise their potential through a process of competition and role allocation e.g. Davis and Moore (1945). A further general critique of Marxist approaches would be that it is too deterministic, that is that it treats all people in the same ‘class position’ as if they were all the same and therefore assumes that they should react in the same way; if they don’t act in the expected way then the explanation offered is usually one of ‘false consciousness’, that they have been bamboozled in some way by capitalism to go against their own objective interests. This is especially a criticism by interactionist sociologists; they see society as developing through the social interaction of individuals, who see society, other people and themselves through a series of symbols or labels that become attached to them. These processes are much more important than the role of institutions in shaping both individuals and society; the point being that everybody’s experience is different. To learn a bout and understand that social experience therefore, the sort of ‘top down’ macro, positivist research measures used by Marx and other traditional Marxist sociologists just won’t do, they believe.

Sociology Factsheetwww.curriculum-press.co.uk

155. The contribution of Marxism to our understanding of society

5Acknowledgements: This Sociology Factsheet was researched and written by Colin Laker ISSN 1351-5136

Feminists have also often been critical of Marxist research, again largely because of differences within their perspective. Radical Feminists, in particular, maintain that the main division within society is not based purely on the ownership of the means of production, but on gender. In effect men rule society and oppress women in order to do so. Working class women are doubly oppressed, but the source of their oppression is not, (as Marxists, even Marxist Feminists, maintain) capitalism but patriarchy. Overthrow capitalism, as Marxists aim to do, and patriarchy will remain, say Radical Feminists. This difference of approach can most clearly be seen in approaches to the family , but also in broader society; as Mary Maynard (1987) puts it “Women are denied economic, social and political power and are the likely targets of sexual assault and other harassment because they are women”, not just because of capitalism.

Post-Modernists, however, have perhaps launched the main criticisms of Marxism, seeing it as one of the key examples of a metanarrative, a theory that tries to explain everything about society in one big theory. The era of metanarratives is over, they argue, because of the rapid changes in western societies that have occurred since the 1970s. One key result of the development of technologies, restructuring of the economy and globalisation, is that the old class structures now no longer have any meaning – production is much more widely distributed and distribution itself is more democratised through the internet. Society now, they argue, is dominated by individualism, choice and diversity and individuals can choose to be what they want to be, in terms of lifestyle, religious or political identity and even gender and racial identity. Nothing in that sense is determined; “it’s not where you’re coming from, it’s where you are going that matters”.

Exam Hint:- at A Level it is not so much important to show who you think is right, and more important that you show why there is a debate about the topic or issue. Here, the two important points to highlight in any discussion are that the different perspectives not only disagree about the details of individual topics but how they are researched (methodologies) and how they think society works (theories). If you can include some counter-arguments to the criticisms (for instance on the issue of bias or objectivity) or show that some Marxists responded to criticisms (such as adopting more interpretivist methods), this will improve your mark further.

Exam Hint:- Remember that success in A Level Sociology needs three key skills : KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and APPLICATION. You will get a lot of your knowledge from textbooks and revision guides; hopefully reading through this Factsheet and following up on the activities will have improved your understanding. You can show understanding by putting your knowledge into context e.g. how does the Marxist approach explain the role of the family in society today. The final skill is applying your knowledge and understanding to particular questions, and that is what you need to practice.

Exam Hint:- Assess the contribution of Marxism to our understanding of societyThis type of queston is a synoptic question, that is it is used to assess your understanding of the course as a whole; this needs to be born in mind when tackling it.

How might you approach this question ?

1. First of all highlight the key words – Marxism - contribution to our understanding society - assess• you need to show knowledge and understanding of what Marxist sociologists have found out about the nature of society• you need to assess that contribution, evaluate it, examine whether it is an important contribution, how has it been criticised

2. Before you write it, plan of how you intend to structure your answer, always keeping in mind the key terms of the question. There areseveral structures you might adopt, but here’s one you might consider.

Introduction : outline what Marxism is and where Marxist sociologists might be said to have made most contributions i.e. the nature of capitalist society, perhaps seen through crime and education. But also suggest that there is some disagreement/controversy about how important that contribution might be.

What you are trying to show here is that a) you know what the topic is but also b) that you are going to produce an analytical answer to the question, rather than just a list of facts.

Main Body : Part 1 : some of the key areas that Marxist sociologists have contributed to. (Use those outlined above – but select from them, you won’t have time or space to summarise everything about society). Remember to use specific examples or case studies and to reflect the different types of Marxist approaches.This is primarily where your are showing your knowledge and understanding of Marxist approaches.

Main Body : Part 2 : the assess bit! Some of the criticisms of Marxist approaches, either on specific topics or about their methodologies. Again make sure that you use specific examples or case studies to illustrate criticisms and differences.Assessment is the key skill here, but you are also trying to show your knowledge and understanding of other sociological perspectives and their relationship to Marxist approaches.

Concluding Section : does the result of your analysis suggest that Marxist contributions are important or not ? End with an overall conclusion that is consistent with the analysis in the rest of the essay.

In this section you are pulling together the strands of your analysis and showing that your overall approach is coherent.