Theory
In briefly evaluating the classical and modern explanations of social inequality, it isessential that we step outside the realm of our own lives, class position, anddiscard any assumptions we might have about the nature of inequality. Thisprocess of critical pedagogy allows us to view our world, not from ourperspective, but from a wider, more critical analysis of inequality's nature. Also, itshould be considered within this wider perspective that all theories of inequalityhave a class perspective, where the theorist, based on the position their theorytakes, is making claims from (or for) a particular class (whether they want to ornot). With this in mind, it seems that most of these theories come from fairly eliteclass perspectives and, in turn, tend to be more pessimistic about bringing changeto the inequalities they are evaluating. Of the classical (elite) explanations ofinequality, Max Weber's seemed to be most accepted within the domain ofsociology and other social sciences dealing with modes of inequality. Weber, whobelieves that we are living within a sort of "iron cage" which cannot allow us tolook beyond the rules and regulations of our capitalist system, emphasizes the
So the reason for inequality, for functionalists, isbecause our system must reward (with significantly higher incomes) thoseindividuals who are motivated enough to yield the stresses of such functionallyimportant positions. Because capitalism produces both wealth and poverty, society createsthe stratification of social classes. These theories, especially thefunctionalist theory, are based on solely subjective measurement schemes, and arein no way objective (nor does it seem that these aspects can be objectivelymeasured). This system is geared to reproduceitself, as it must, in every aspect of the life it provides-socially, ideologically,politically, and so on. The majorities at the bottom of the apex, with very limited power, areunable to make choices that would bring them to their ends. I believe most of the modern explanations of inequality, at most, helpbuild upon Weber's general theories, and at least, reflect the same elitist pessimismthat Weber also holds. Also, these theories assume that we are allequal in opportunity, when, in fact, there is no such thing as equality in a systemwhich needs to reproduce itself in every aspect of the social realm. By reproducingitself as it does, it generally maintains control to be held by those who have made,and have been born into money-while those without struggle to simply survive,let alone profit. The bureaucracy, with itsrational legal authority, clear division of labor, career systems, and impersonality,is technologically more perfect than any other system (according to Weber). The fact that our system reproduces classes into the sameclass assumes the neo-classical labor-market theory is correct, in which we have aperfect system based on an equal opportunity playing field. Though few theories of inequality made by non-elitists have beenacknowledged, the works of Karl Marx have sustained itself over a century in time. Thewhole basis of class, Marx believed, is through exploitation-those who have themoney, have the control to exploit those who have little or nothing. Thistries to justify those people within high power positions by (somehow) trying toprove that our system is objectively rewarding higher incomes to professions thathave higher social importance than lower income professions. The core attributes ofthe economic system are alienation and the bureaucracy, which create adehumanizing effect on the characters within the system. Clearly, Ithink, these theories are poor analyses of inequality.
Common topics in this essay:
Max Weber's,
Karl Marx,
,
theories inequality,
marx believed,
reproduce aspect,
importance lower income,
income market,
functionalist theory,
importance lower,
power elite,
inequality class,
explanations inequality,
power positions,
|
Acceptance Essays
