I am going to lose a lot of you with this one KARL MARX, MAX WEBER, AND NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS The dynamics between these two sociologists is nothing short of phenomenal. Though in many ways they are very much alike, they were fundamentally different, primarily in their views of social stratification, or if you will, the balance that creates inequality between political power and private motivations within society. Max Weber viewed that social stratification does cause social conflict but he thought that Marx was too simplistic in his views of society being the same because of three distinct dimensions. (Karl Marx stated, “from each according to his ability: to each according to his needs” )Max Weber’s first point is economic inequality (class position) with those classes not being as categories but as a continuum ranging from high to low. The second was status, which indicated that people could be motivated to achieve and then actually can achieve levels in society as a result of their efforts. And the third is, of course, power. Power has always been the motivator in all of society’s woes. Max Weber claimed that each of the three dimensions of social inequality stands out as different points in the evolution of societies, taking the form of honor. Members of these societies (whether noble or servants) gain status by conforming to cultural norms that apply to their particular rank, What this means is that he felt all people can be happy in every position they happen to inherit if they do not question it but fully embrace it. Karl Marx viewed social prestige and power as simple reflections of economic position and did not treat them as distinct dimensions of inequality. To this Max Weber noted that status consistency in modern societies is often quite low: a person might have power but not money. Another difference is that Karl Marx thought that society could eliminate social stratification by abolishing private ownership of productive property which is the basis for capitalism. Marx felt that capitalism was directly counterproductive to the true freedom that could be found if society would conform to an established norm. Max Weber doubted that overthrowing capitalism would lessen social stratification. It might reduce economic differences but would increase inequality because the people making the rules for the new society (political elite) would be elevated above the others. There is another point that Karl Marx denied, and that was the Davis-Moore thesis: a system of unequal rewards is necessary to place talented people in the right jobs and to motivate them to work hard. Karl Marx separated reward from performance and would have people like Elvis Presley working on cars if that is what the government told him to do. Because social stratification has to do with the way an entire society is organized, sociologists typically treat it as a macro level issue. Both Karl Marx and Max Weber agree with this, but a micro level analysis of social stratification is also important because of people’s standing affects their everyday interactions. All people have an innate desire to achieve above their brother; this is basic to all societies. Every man wants to provide for his family and will readily work for their security. It does not mean, however, that he wants that society to dictate to him, or to control him, into a job that he is uncomfortable with or inept at performing. With this statement I agree with Max Weber. However, I do have 35 years experience (10 using and 25 clean) in a society that has neither class nor caste. The society is Narcotics Anonymous and it functions as a perfect model of what Karl Marx endorsed. There is no inequality between its members because it is understood and written into a set of 12 Traditions that none are to be elevated above the other. The only hint of difference between the citizenry is that it is stated that the newcomers are the life blood and therefore the most important people there; because the others with more clean time need them, not to control or coerce into any ideology or belief, but only so that they can carry the message that saves their lives by sharing it. It is suggested (therefore followed) that the leaders are but trusted servants and they do not govern. There are no money issues: everybody gives what they can and nobody takes any away for personal or private purposes. The money goes to carry the message through literature and chips and it pays the rent and coffee for the meeting places. This society functions because of its primary purpose on which everyone is agreed and that is “That no addict seeking recovery need ever die.” This is the bottom line: “service because of indebtedness for life itself.” I think that Karl Marx would be proud and I feel that even Max Weber would have to concede on some points about this society and how it functions without promoting anyone’s personal agendas. The first Tradition states: “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on Narcotics Anonymous unity.” Stated simply the individual is not the complete puzzle, he is a piece, but the puzzle is not complete without him.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:28:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015