Introduction
The study of sociology requires different paradigms that take different theories. Theory enables sociologists to have multiple methods of conceptualizing the society. The angle upon which we explore social theory is called a paradigm. Kerbo defines a paradigm as a “fundamental image of the subject matter within science. It serves to define how it should be studied and what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how they should be asked, and what rules should be followed in interpreting the answers obtained.” Paradigm assumptions are similar to paradigms but more specific to images about a subject matter contained within a paradigm (Kerbo, 2009, 113).
Given, all social theorists have some truths to them. I will use conflict theory as a realistic way of understanding the society. I think that conflict theories do a better job in explaining societal paradigms. Most conflict theory premise on the belief that individual interests create an anarchic relationship with societies.
Conflict theories maintain that society is held together in the face of conflicting interests because:
There so many divided interests groups that individual must learn to cooperate.
Through this conflict, order prevails.
Society is divide in parts
Karl Max
Karl Marx is perhaps the most renowned German thinker and political activist was born in 1818 in the ancient city of Trier, in Southwestern Germany, Marx’s father was a prosperous lawyer, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism. Marx was a student of law at the University of Bonn. He later went to Berlin, where he began to study history and philosophy. While in Germany, Marx joined a group of radical thinkers known as Young Hegelians who developed a strong critique of the philosophy of Georg W.F Hegel. Hegel’s philosophy of social change gave Marx the basis of his theoretical system and historical materialism (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 23).
In his reaction to this stage of social and economic development, Marx came up with a theoretical model intended to both interpret the world and change it (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 25). In doing so, he centered his analysis on capitalism, alienation, and feudalism. Marx emphasized private property as the innermost institution of a capitalist society. In a capital society, a small segment of the population controls wealth and power. Because of this arrangement, two classes are created in the society: The owners of capital otherwise called the bourgeoisie and the working class also known as proletariat.
He analyzed the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as an inherently exploitative one. The bourgeoisie make profit by inadequately paying the working class. This way, the proletariats are exploited in both body and soul. They have no control over the products that they make Appelrouth and Eddie 27). To him, capitalism is a process that entirely prevents the working class from realizing their essential human capacity to engage in creative labor while the owners of capital get better in their system of ownership and wealth accumulation.
Marx then went on to argue that capitalism was the source of alienation, which is the separation of the individual from either the preconditions or the products of labor. According to Marx, division of labor makes society possible but it also destroys freedom and creates alienation. Marx also claimed that alienation is rooted in specialization and that a society without alienation is utopian, a societal state that could never be achieved in the presence of specialization (McGee and Warms 2008: 65).
According to Marx, economic classes have an impounding effect on social cohesion in the society. Feudalism, for instance, is a system where landowners oppressed the peasants. This led a revolution that was the brainchild of capitalism. In his view, the class relationship of capitalism is a representation of inconsistency. Capitalists need workers and workers needs capitalists, but the economic desires of the two groups are primarily distinct. Capitalists are out for competition and profit making, while the workers are out for wages and survival. Such distinction allude to inherent conflict and volatility.
Why I chose Marx
Marx's ideas have reinterpreted by scholars for generations, his theory has taken a great variety of forms. Three reasons explain why Max was on point with the social theory.
Max argued that to understand societies, there is a need for the theorist to understand material conditions. This encapsulated on what is called material capitalism. Contemporarily, the society is divided into classes of the poor and the rich, developed countries and developing countries, and 99 percent vs. one percent.
Insomuch as we have progress, class still plays a big role in the way we visualize the society. Although a social conflict has not ensued, there have been disputes that point to class struggles. Apartheid struggle in South Africa, Arab spring, and the Occupy Wall Street movements are just examples.
While the development of the welfare state and the growth of the middle class has almost succinctly eliminated the threat of the conflict between the haves and the do no t haves, many societies in the world do not have a major middle class societies. Such societies are thus prone to conlict. For example, in the third world, there are revolutions after revolutions and wars, pointing to a struggle of classes.
Finally, I agree with Max because I see the class struggle in the segmentation of the society through race, culture, class, and religion. There is nothing else except the presence of a struggle that best makes sense to me.
References
Appelrouth, S., & Eddie, L. (2008). Classical Contemporary Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Jon, M. R., & Warms, R. (2008). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York, USA: McGraw Hill.
Kerbo, H. R. (2008). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
