SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY BY KARL MARX AND HERBERT SPENCER
Introduction
The sociological theory exemplified some critical concepts which improved my understanding of the subject. I enjoyed concepts such as materialism, capitalism, and social Darwinism. According to Karl Marx, materialism depicted that the material world is perceptible to senses, thus develop an objective reality to the independence of spirit (Aron, 2017). However, Marx did not deny the reality posed by spiritual processes but postulated that the ideas would arise since they are a reflection of material conditions. For instance, Marx had a dialectic conception that opposed metaphysical thoughts, thus opposing the view of things as an abstraction (Cutler et al., 2013). Therefore, historical materialism by Marx stood out to me since the sociologist believed that morality, religion, and social structures were much rooted in the economy. However, during the late stages of his life, Marx tolerated religion due to its deep-rooted nature in society.
On the other hand, Herbert Spencer capitalism was depicted as an economic system that allowed enterprises to carry out their operations without government interference. For example, several claims depicted that the sociologist was a precursor by most of the anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. Besides, the sociologist exemplified the Darwinism concept, thus developing insight into Laissez-faire competition between societal members leading to gradual improvement (Aron, 2017). As such, the society was characterized by “survival for the fittest” due to the constant wrangles between individuals. As such, the concept heavily relied on the fact that natural selection was a biological evolution characterized by the rise and fall of different species. So, it is evident that Spencer was concerned with mechanisms and processes resulting in societal changes in America. Moreover, Spencer outlined the evolution concept since it was a vital process in achieving social change towards achieving complexity in society.
Summary of media presentation
The article on shopping with Marx and Spencer provides a linguistic parallel between the 19th-century contemporaries and philosophers. The British retailer shop for food and clothes articulates concepts by the theorists since shopping is a value realization process (Fuchs, 2014). As such, the retail shops stipulate that there is no shopping without market advertising and consumer society. In modern society, shopping is attributable to a lifestyle symbol, having a huge influence on cultural control. Price competition has become a huge area of concern, with labor being intensively utilized, thus compelling other organizations to reduce the value of their commodities (Aron, 2017). Hence, capitalism has tried to realign life aspects into a large shopping mall. The article develops an insight into sociological concepts developed by the theorists relative to its impacts in shopping malls. The abundance of sales in the shopping malls relates to the jungle of survival for the fittest in a quest to achieve what an individual wants.
Therefore, the inability to utilize sales make people a little bit different in distinct strata of the human community. Hence, the conflict theory by Marx can be attributed to the changes in individual behavior in times of sales (Fuchs, 2014). The observation presented by the retailer shop shows that individuals often forget about all the treasures and focus on what is displayed at the retailer shop. The fact that people are not aware that they are being observed while shopping ensures that they do not change their behavior. As a result, the lack of behavioral change can be well aligned with Darwin’s theory, as stipulated by Spencer (Fuchs, 2014). Consequently, sales serve as a high-risk conflict in a move to win customer products that need to win purchases.
Application of the concept
However, Marx and Spencer had different ideas on price competition in the economic markets. Marx was a communist, thus a fierce critic of capitalism; hence the idea of price competition did not make too much sense to him. On the other hand, Spencer founded social Darwinism, thus celebrated increased competition in the markets. Hence, the retail shopping at the store aligns with Spencer’s stipulations for survival for the fittest is the fundamental principle of society’s shopping characteristics. So, my venture to outline the struggles for existence postulate that it has been indispensable for evolution. Thus, the guidelines by Spencer have helped further production, thus increasing sales (Rumney, 2017). So, universal conflict forms the basis for development due to the utilization of active powers. Besides, social structures must be developed in a manner that recognizes facts in regards to the struggles for existence. Spencer articulates the need for evolution as a necessity in markets, thus governing price wars and competition. As such, it is evident that groups, humans, and societies cannot expect help from one another, thus subject to die. However, Spencer exemplifies the scenario as a law of nature found in every society, thus cannot be used to depict distinct features of societal classes (Rumney, 2017).
On the other hand, Marx contrasts and stipulates that market competition is historically destructive evident in the division of labor (Aron, 2017). As such, market competition “brings into independent contact producers of commodities,” thus results to acknowledge the absence of power. Hence, competition leads to the coercion of vulnerable stakeholders due to pressure exerted by reciprocal interests. For instance, Marx provides the example of the animal kingdom where the “war of all against all” shows the struggle for existence for every species. The same situation has been used by the sociologist to illustrate the bourgeois consciousness in a workshop, thus setting the need for lifelong annexation of workers in an organization (Turner, 2012). Hence, the capitalist concept, as illustrated by Marx, shows the need to increase labor and power in a quest to regulate the production process.
Besides, Marx postulates that humans survive without competition but can never live as isolated individuals. Cooperation is thus important compared to the competition in the quest to promote social relations between all classes (Cutler et al., 2013). Competition is thus deemed as an ancient mode of business sustainability and cannot be applicable in the modern setting. Marx, therefore, outlines that individuals are the social being which confirms the presence of life (Cutler et al., 2013). Hence, people and species are required to develop a general perspective on life and the need to adopt healthy competition between relevant stakeholders. Cooperation is, therefore, the essence of coexistence contrary to competition as outlined by Spencer. Human capacity is therefore developed around social practices and not the ability to outshine others in terms of prices and quality. Cooperation between individuals is vital in developing productive forces needed to foster sustainability, as depicted by Marx.
The conflict theory, as outlined by Marx, outlines that society is involved in perpetual conflicts justifiable by the limited resources. Hence, social order can only be maintained by power and domination rather than competition in a quest to achieve a consensus (Aron, 2017). According to the theory, individuals having power tend to cling on it as justified by the price competition experienced in the retail shop. Hence, the poor are consistently oppressed since wealthy individuals seek to maximize their own benefits at the expense of others. So, the theory develops a wider social phenomenon on the continuous price conflicts. Marx postulates that capitalists tend to control masses rather than developing social order, thus widening social inequality gaps (Cutler et al., 2013). The theorist thus develops an insight into the widening social inequality between classes due to unequal distribution of resources.
Conclusion
Concepts such as capitalism and Darwinism have been exemplified to show their relationship, as shown by Marx and Spencer. The reader should be able to remember the paper since the article provides instances of capitalism and price competition in the contemporary society based on guidelines provided by Marx and Spencer. The retail shop provides numerous occasions in which social inequalities are exhibited due to price competition. I think the article is a good example of competition rather than cooperation in economics. In addition, concept application provided an understanding of how the scenario would have been perceived by the two great theorists. Therefore, it is an opportunity for the reader to realize that cooperation in economics is better than the unhealthy competition. Hence, it is vital to articulate all social perspectives while shopping to promote mutual coexistence and sustainability.
References
Fuchs, c. (2014). Shopping with Marx and Spencer | Christian Fuchs. Retrieved 26 April 2020, from http://fuchs.uti.at/1180/
Aron, R. (2017). Main currents in sociological thought: Montesquieu, Comte, Marx, Tocqueville, and the sociologists and the revolution of 1848. Routledge.
Cutler, T., Hindess, B., Hussain, A., & Hirst, P. Q. (2013). Marx’s capital and capitalism today (Vol. 52). Routledge.
Rumney, J. (2017). Herbert Spencer’s Sociology: A Study in the History of Social Theory, to which is Appended a Bibliography of Spencer and His Work. Transaction Publishers.
Turner, J. H. (2012). Contemporary sociological theory. Sage.