It is a fundamental fact that to be able to begin to understand how society works, we must first garner an appreciation for the individual self and the role that they play within the bigger picture. As human beings, we are socialised into behaving within the sets of norms and values which society and culture place upon us. However, these values are changeable according to specific cultures and societies; paving the way for sub-cultures to arise. When discussing our understanding of society, we are able to assess it from a material viewpoint with the emphasis being on means production and exchange, and the organisation of society; or from an ideological viewpoint which focuses on the main ideas that are prevalent to society. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these two sides of the same coin whilst also analysing whether we can ever full understand society without taking into account both the material and ideological stances, and what alternatives there may be.
Firstly, it is essential to define the key terms in association with the subject of this essay. Discussion of the material viewpoint centres on ideas pertaining to the organisation of society and, in turn, means production and exchange. Put succinctly, the material viewpoint is interested in the, obviously, material aspects of society: the economy, jobs, retail, class and trade. Whereas, the ideological viewpoint focuses on the individual and the abstract concepts of society: how people improve a society – the idea of ‘people power.’ Arguably, culture (as a massively ambiguous term at the best of times), straddles both arenas with a hand in each. It is the idea of finance, business and technology verses community, religion and politics. All of the above go some way to helping to define a single culture.
The material discussion of society increasingly focuses on the impact of technological advancement on society. As our scientific and technological ability increases, so does our reliance upon machines. Rifkin discusses, at length, the impact of such technologies upon our society: when discussing the increase in global trading as a way of increasing consumer spending, Rifkin argues that due to “growing numbers of workers” being “displaced by technology”, consumers will lose their purchasing power leading to “increasingly ineffective and weak consumer demand throughout the world” (Rifkin p 289). If this is correct, this means that at the current rate of technological advancement and the continued level of job displacement in lieu of these advances, the suggestion is that society may undertake a huge change in the next few decades where consumers can no longer afford to make purchases due to an increased incorporation of technology in the workplace and a decreased need for human employees. This means, higher rates of unemployment; increased chances of a repeat of the recent economic recession; and potentially a huge re-shuffle for society as we know it.
This is further clarified by Rifkin as he discusses the already impending issue of technology-induced unemployment: “Already, central governments are straining under the weight of a technological revolution that is leaving millions jobless and destitute.” (Rifkin, p 289) This implies that the problem can only worsen as technology is advancing all the time. Of course, the further implication to this is that if, one day in the future, our material society is entirely run by machines then our society will no longer be able to be categorised by class structures that are defined by material concepts such as annual income, level of education or even what car you drive: “The middle class, long the voice of reason and moderation in the political life of industrialised nations, finds itself buffeted on every side by technological change.” (Rifkin, p 298) The suggestion here is that these issues are already arising. The middle classes, who are fundamentally defined as being well-educated, above average earners and who drive reliable, new, family cars, are already being affected by the impact of technology. In this instance, it is imperative to consider the impact on the working classes: their jobs are predominantly factory-based or similar roles which are undoubtedly more effectually carried out by machines.
The material view also discusses the market economy in terms of society by making the assessment that, “An economy of this kind derives from the expectation that human beings behave in such a way as to achieve maximum money gains.” (Pulanyi, p 66) Arguably, for the majority this is an accurate view but it must be taken into account that this theory cannot be applied to absolutely every individual member of society. The material view is too obsessed with its examination of society, the economy and globalisation as a whole: none of these terms allows for the individual view.
The ideological stance is one which focuses much less on the impending dangers of technology with regard to unemployment and much more on the impact of the individual on society. Rosznak discusses the example of the Bacon, a social philosopher, who conceptualised an ideological way of examining our society: “it was to be the intellectual base of a major political institution, a collective public enterprise uniting thought and action, and requiring the collaboration of the state” (Rosznak, p 148). The seemingly implied meaning behind this is that Bacon, and the ideological viewpoint as a whole, believe that society can best be understood in terms of individuals working together as a collective – as one – to create and maintain a successful, harmonious society. To Bacon, and other ideologists, the idea of social progress does not need to be measured purely by material advancement (be that technologically, economically or even scientifically); “[Bacon] had confidence in human effort because he had devised a special and specific activity, a form of knowledge gathering which he believed could reach forward in time, which could bind the future to the past, thus giving history a palpable sense of development.” (Rosznak, p 149). This demonstrates the ideological stance that society does not require quantifiable measurements of progress to be understood, but rather the natural development of human endeavour and community would be evidence enough of its progress.
The importance of implementing both material and ideological thinking when trying to understand society is implied simply by reviewing their two standpoints: one is entirely driven by the economic and technological society whereas the other is taken up with the individual and abstract instances. In his discussion of the alternative, Rinehart examines how an ideological viewpoint can be reflected through a material one: “There is no question that individuals in modern society search for meaning, fulfilment and autonomy outside of work.” (Rinehart, p 156) This combination of the two sides presents an interesting idea: work and material side of society are fundamentally unavoidable during the life of an adult, but Rinehart presents the idea of the desire to find something more than the ‘nine to five’ dull existence that material society brings to the table: the ‘live to work’ ethos. Whereas the ideological viewpoint, and the one which Rinehart is nudging his readers towards, is the alternative ‘work to live’ ethos – characterised by the decrease in impetus on material societal needs such as taxes, bills and the economic success of the society. The true alternative is to view society without one of these sides and lose the real, cumulative sense of society that reflects both the faceless material in equal place with the ideological.
It is with this in mind, that society must be considered: material and ideological are two sides of the same coin. One reflects the economic ‘machine’ of trade, globalisation and economy, whilst the other reflects the individuals, their families and the desire for a fulfilling life outside of the work place. Both the material and the ideological are equally as important as the other in successfully understanding society as a whole. Arguably, if there was too much of one and too little of the other, society would be in disarray financially or soulfully, respectively. True understanding of society grows out of a mutual respect for work and play, ambition and love, dreams and reality. The material and ideological viewpoints cannot exist without the other: they are the true balance of a society.
