21205666 the neo marxist synthesis of marx and weber on class

8/8/2019 21205666 the Neo Marxist Synthesis of Marx and Weber on Class

1/26

The Neo-Marxist Synthesis of Marx

and Weber on Class

Pat Ray M Dagapioso

Christine Jane Eleria


2/26

What is this about?

This report is about the reassessment of the

relationship of the contemporary Marxist and

Weberian Theory.

Both theories consider concepts internal to

each other, and were once considered as

points of criticism toward each other, had

been reconsidered and reinterpreted to help

expalin each other theories.


3/26

Neo-Marxist Theory of Class

Primarily this lecture is about the conception

of Neo-Marxism as stipulated by

contemporary Marxists such as Burris himself.

Neo-Marxist infuse Weberian concepts into

understanding contemporary Marxism in the

late 20th century.


4/26

4 Important Distinctions Between the Classical

Marxist and Weberian Theories of Class

Marx Weber

1. Class- Objective

Structure of SocialPositions

1. Class- constructed in

the form of theory ofsocial action

2. Unidimensional 2. Multidimensional

3. Exploitation 3. Domination

4. Expression of

production

4. Market Relations


5/26

I. Structure v. Action

Marx and Weber put different importance on human

agency in explaining social phenomena.

Marx- places much greater causal weight on

functioning of objective structures that constrain

human behavior (i.e. mode of production)

Weber on the other hand places great importance on

human agency (capacity for human beings to make

choices and to impose those choices on the world).


6/26

Structure v. Action: Focus on Marx

One of the structures that determine socialphenomena is the mode of production.

Mode of Production combination of productive

forces (labor, tools, land) and social and technicalrelations of production (property, power, controlrelations (law), association, and relations betweensocial classes.

Marxists view class position as something that entailmaterial interests, capacities and constraints thatexist objectively and independently of the particularpersons.


7/26

Structure v. Action: Focus on Weber

Classes are not the effect of an objectivestructure, but are outcomes of themotivations and behaviour of knowledgeable

human actors. Further, classes are identified with a particular

form of social action. Social action- action that

seeks to restrict access to valued resources w/an orientation to maximixing their return tothe market.


8/26

Structure v. Action: The Difference

Marxist argue that social action exaggerates the

impression of the indeterminancy of social action.

Weberians, on the other hand, argue promises

more than it can possibly deliver.

Weberians also argues that Marxists gives

insufficient attention to the role of conscious

agency and volition in shaping social events.


9/26

Structure v. Action: The Difference

Arguments against Marxism: 1. the logic of mode ofproduction is teleological (believe in ultimate purpose) and2. that humans are downgraded as passive bearers of

social relations. Marxists response: 1. Marxists also debates this

functionalism, that somehow functionalists arguments areincomplete, 2. Marxists employs in theories also theintentionality of human actors, though in restrictive role, 3.human agency is also incorporated in contemporaryMarxist theories (i.e. class analysis) and 4. equal emphasison objective structures and human agency


10/26

Human Agency as Applied by Marxists

1. Thomson and Przeworski (Marxists) sees that the

important aspects of class relations are seen as

structurally undetermined in the sense that objective

structures merely impose a general directionalityupon social development, whereas the pace and

concrete form of that development and selection

among possible outcomes is determined by human

agency. E.G. Burris (1980) variation of size and composition

of intermediate classes among capitalist societies.


11/26


2. Class relations are structurally overdetermined

that is subject to multiple and contradictory

determinations, and therefore to some extent,

indeterminate. E.G. Wright (1978) the conception of intermediate

class positions as contradictory class locations/ the

positions of managers and professionals in capiatlist

class relations


12/26


3. Structural determination of class is mediatedby human agency in ways that are more thatepiphenomenal.

E.G. Ehrenreichs (1979) the formation ofPMC/ professional-managerial class.

They outlined several structural tendencies

that condition the formation of such class andalso stressed that institutional changes that isassociated by the emergence of this class doesnot come out without the conscious efforts of

human agents.


13/26


4. Human agency almost always assumes animportant role in contemporary Marxist accounts ofthe process by which structurally defined classes are

formed/ or fail to be formed into organizedcollectivities.

E.G. Wright the relationship of class structure andclass formation. Class structure itself does notgenerate a unique pattern of class formation, ratherit determines the underlying probabilites of differenttypes of class formations.


14/26

I. Structure v. Action

Summary:

1. Weberian arguments for the importance ofhuman agency served as a useful corrective tothe more one-sided structuralists version ofMarxism.

2. Weberians on the other hand refuses to

accept the importance of structures indetermining social phenomena (see Parkin).


15/26

II. Unidimensional v. Multidimensional

Views

Marxists and Weberians differ in theirconception of the importance of class ascompared with other forms of oppression or

other bases of association and struggle. Class for Marx class is the single most

important division around which social groups

organize and contend for political power. Class struggle therefore is the primary vehicle

of epochal social change.


16/26

II. Unidimensional v. Multidimensional

Views

Weber the importance of class divisions is

historically variable and contingent.

For Weber class relations coexist with otherforms of oppression and other bases of

association that are independent of class.


17/26

Weberian critics of Marxists

Primary point of criticism by Weberianstoward Marxists is the primacy of class.

1. Parkin racial, ethnic and religious conflictshad overshadowed the primacy of class

2. Giddens Marxists are unable toaccommodate nonclass forms of domination

(e.g. nationa, ethnic, and sexual oppression)


18/26

Marxists Reply

1. Most Marxists would defend some notions of the

primacy of class relations.

2. Contemporary Marxists are now applying more

multidimensional viewpoints.

3. Marxists have accorded a considerable degree of

autonomy to nonclass forms of oppression.

4. Disagreements continue on the conceptualization of thedifferent forms of oppression, their degree of autonomy,

and the manner they are related to class relations.


19/26

Marxists Feminists

Marxists feminists sees the oppression of women as aninteraction of capitalist class relations and ptriarchalgender relations.

Mitchell (1974) the distinctiveness of womensoppression is located in the formation of sexual identitiesis relatively autonomous of the production relations thatdefine social classes.

McDonough and Harrison (1978) women are placed in

two separate but linked structures of class and patriarchy. The relationship of class and patriarchy is defined as such

that the form of each is limited by the influence of theother structure.


20/26

Marxists on Race and Ethnicity

1. Edwards (1979) racial divisions and sexual

divisions reflect historical processes that are distinct

from those of capitalism as a mode of production.

2. Wright (1978) class relations play a decisive rolein shaping other forms of inequality; but, it should be

through empirical and theoretical studies that the

relationship between class relations and racism be

founded.


21/26

Focus on Race

Marxists focus on race is on the distinctiveness ofracial divisions from class divisions not from itsautonomy from the latter.

Geschwender (1978) the situation of racialminorities must be treated as an interaction betweenrace and national oppression, neither of which can besubsumed under the other.

Further Geschwender stressed that elements ofcolonial model and capitalist exploitation model mustbe extracted to develop a more comprehensivemodel to further explain the racial situation inAmerica.


22/26

Weakness of These Theories

1. The weakness lies not in the notion that

Marxist are not capable of addressing other

forms of oppression (see Giddens).

2. The weakness lies in the job of the Marxists

to explain why class should be accorded any

degree of primacy over other bases of

political struggle.


23/26

Non-Reductionist Arguments

1. Marxist class categories can be shown to

have stronger effects on life chances

(opportunities each individual has to improve

his/her life), cultural patterns or political

consciousness than alternative bases of

stratification. Weakness? A weak defense of

class primacy thesis.


24/26


2. There is the evolutionary claim that only

class relations have an internal logic that

generates systematic tendencies toward

cumulative and progressive social change.

Weakness? This thesis requires the

development of productive forces at the

center of the historical process of whichproduces support for technoligical

determinism and Soviet Marxism.


25/26


3. However autonomous and consequential

nonclass forms of domination may be, the

material means of production remains the

basic source of power in the society.

Weakness? Weberians rightfully argues that

material resources are necessarily more

important bases of power than political orideological resources.


26/26

End

Thank You!!!

Ajde!

21205666 the neo marxist synthesis of marx and weber on class

Documents