Globalisation is understood to be the ultimate force shaping our planet today; throughout this essay I shall draw upon the works of two of the great nineteenth and twentieth century sociological theorists respectively; Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, to see how their descriptions of social change relate to this twenty-first century phenomenon.
Whether economical, political or cultural, the term ‘globalisation’ refers to the spread of a certain idea or practice between groups around the world, for example trading, manufacturing or purchasing; removing barriers and deregulating communication. By doing so, societies, nations, and eventually continents become integrated through complex networks of interaction (Steger, 2003).
Both Marx and Durkheim lived and worked before the full extent of globalisation could become reality, indeed this is still the case now, but in today’s world when economic globalisation creates huge flows of capital between nations, when political globalisation means UK law is partly directed from Belgium, and when cultural globalisation means someone in Bombay is just as likely to be an avid fan of The Wire as someone in Baltimore, we live in very different times to which they did. In fact, the term ‘globalisation’ was first used many years after the death of both of these theorists.
Inevitably, some view globalisation as good, some as bad. Some believe it to be the best hope of ending world poverty, others, as we shall see, believe it to be the spread of oppression. However, the merit of globalisation is not the focus of this essay, instead I shall discuss the differing processes from which Marx and Durkheim would suggest it has sprung.
For Karl Marx, social change was a result of social conflict, stating in the Communist Manifesto, alongside co-author Friedrich Engels: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Throughout his life, Marx studied how societies changed through the course of history, from early hunter-gatherer societies, to what he described as ‘ancient world societies’, into feudal societies and finally the society we now live in; the capitalist society. Whilst he observed that social changes often happen gradually, he noted that in some cases very rapid changes occurred (revolutions), and that technological advances were often the reasoning for this. But above all, as Macionis and Plummer state, “he steadfastly held that conflict between economic groups is the major engine for change” (Macionis and Plummer, 2008).
For Marx, capitalism is within itself a system of class conflict, from which all change is stimulated by the economy. Living through the early stages of industrial capitalism, he believed a small part of the population, those that previously fulfilled the feudal roles of merchants and landowners, had become the capitalists, or as he named them, the ‘bourgeoisie’; those that owned the factories and other productive enterprises. The majority of the rest of the population, those that had previous to the industrial revolution worked on the land, now worked in the factories and other industrial systems and provided the labour necessary for production. Marx named these the ‘proletariat’, the working classes. Like earlier societies, Marx saw capitalism as being made up of two classes. However, differing from previous societies, Marx believed capitalism’s sole aim was profit, and that unlike horticultural and agrarian societies, capitalism was not tied by any codes of honour or obligation. Instead, profit was to be attained at almost any cost, notably the oppression of workers (Macionis and Plummer, 2008).
The initial expansion of capitalism was reliant upon the use of ‘surplus value’, the capital which remains after all costs of production are deducted, otherwise known as profit. Instead of dividing this surplus value equally amongst workers, the capitalists reinvested it, expanding their factories and industries. In order to increase this surplus value, Marx believed that the bourgeoisie would continually cut all productive expenditures, including wages, oppressing the workers as far as possible. This process of seeking to increase profit is where Marx would suggest the expanding nature of capitalism stems from. As well as minimising the costs of production, they also seek to inflate their capital gain by growing into new markets, in new places with new people. This can either be for the benefit of production or sale, but it is overwhelmingly with the aim of increasing profit.
All societies are composed of many social institutions; however, Marx suggested that the institution with the most power and direction to control social change in the capitalist system is the economy. Drawing on the notion of Materialism, Marx suggested that the other major spheres of social life- politics, family, religion, education- function under the direct influence of the economy (Ruben, 1977). Marx therefore described the economy as the ‘base’ and all other institutions as the ‘superstructure’. Simply, the economy, dominated by the capitalists, reinforces their dominance in to all other areas of social life. It is for these reasons that Marx suggested many of the proletariat believed that the bourgeoisie earned their wealth, while those without lacked the ability or knowhow to do so. This is what he named ‘false consciousness’; the belief that social problems are caused by individuals rather than society itself. This false consciousness implemented by the capitalist system of base-superstructure, he believed, obscured the real causes of the working classes struggles.
Finally, as mentioned, Marx believed that social change often relied upon technological advancement and the continued process of modernisation. As we have seen recently, modern technology such as the internet, and global applications such as Twitter and Facebook, have the ability to organise and start, if not finish, revolutions (The Telegraph, 2009). Indeed he and Engels noted in the Communist Manifesto that without the explosion of science and technology in the nineteenth century the rise of the European bourgeoisie would not have been possible (Steger, 2003).
However, as well as promoting social change, Marx noted that technology also had the ability to act as a barrier to it (Macionis and Plummer 2008).He suggested that as capitalists produced technology to gain power over the world, the technology, and productive processes in which they are involved, would eventually assume power over the proletariat workers, creating a feeling of alienation. Whereas once workers had wholeheartedly interacted with fellow workers, products, and their work itself, Marx commented that technology would withdraw many of these functions and leave workers isolated.
From this very basic introduction to Marx’s views on capitalism, we can see several explanations for the expansion of social change globally. He suggests that capitalism is an expansive force, reaching out and searching for greater profit, in what we now understand to be a global fashion. In this sense Marx would suggest that all forms of globalisation are for the purpose of capital gain only. So as well as the obvious aims of economical expansion, cultural globalisation such as that of film and media, are also solely to create profit. Marx also suggests that the capitalist system, and the expansion of it, is innately protected by the false consciousness of the working classes, implemented by the base-superstructure and the control of the economy by the bourgeoisie.
Writing in the Communist Manifesto on the discovery of America, and the early expansion of European capitalism, he and Engels state:
The discovery of America prepared the way for mighty industry and its creation of a truly global market...The growth of industry, trade, navigation and railroads also went hand in hand with the rise of the bourgeoisie and capital which pushed to the background the old social classes of the Middle Ages…. Chased around the globe by its burning desire for ever-expanding markets for its products, the bourgeoisie has no choice but settle everywhere… Rapidly improving the instruments of production, the bourgeoisie utilizes the incessantly easing modes of communication to pull all nations into civilization- even the most barbarian ones… In a nutshell, it creates the world in its own image.” (Steger, 2003, p32).
From this description, thirty-six years before his death, we see that Marx had a very clear grasp on what we now describe as ‘globalisation’ and the important role of technology within it. By stating that capitalism ‘creates the world in its own image’, he and Engels not only refer to trading systems, but the whole base-superstructure which must be in place for capitalism to work in full effect; creating laws and privatising production in order for the bourgeoisie to influence all aspects of social life.
However, Marx deemed such expansion to be one of the final stages of capitalism, and in turn one of the final stages of the conflict model of social change. He believed that the capitalist system would implode as the continued search for profit lead to irreversible centralisation, economic depressions, overproduction and unemployment. In turn, he believed that eventually the proletariat would awaken from their false consciousness and that it would be replaced with ‘class consciousness’ as they responded and eventually revolted against the oppression and alienation they had been subjected too, bringing to an end the capitalist system and replacing it with a socialist and eventual communist state. Ultimately he believed capitalism, and in turn globalisation, were doomed to failure.
Although like Marx, Emile Durkheim believed in macro-sociology and the change of society as a whole, for him, social change was the product of evolution rather than conflict. Witnessing the rapid transformation of Europe throughout the nineteenth century, Durkheim noted and discussed the changes from what he named ‘mechanical solidarity’ to ‘organic solidarity’.
Prior to the industrial revolution, Durkheim believed societies to be tied together by mechanical solidarity, a likeness of traditions and bonds based upon shared morality. He called these common beliefs the ‘collective conscience’ and noted that social institutions such as religion played an imperative role in forming this phenomenon. When discussing the views expressed by Durkheim in ‘Causes of Anomie and the Role Played by the Economy’ on religion in pre-industrial society, Ken Morrison remarks that religion not only enforces the collective conscience but also gives reasoning to citizens roles in society, placing life in perspective and teaching them that economic success is not the primary goal of life, further than this, religion compensates societies hardships by promising compensation in the next life (1995, p185).
It is from these simple societies, based in mechanical solidarity, that Durkheim believed holistic change occurred in evolutionary fashion, producing the complex global societies we live in today. He suggests that population growth plays an important role in social change, but above all else he notes society’s ‘division of labour’, the specialisation of work and economic activity, as the key process in the change from simple to complex societies.
The organic solidarity that Durkheim believed sprung from the developing division of labour was specifically due to the increasing specialisation of the work force following the industrial revolution, creating interdependency on a scale never before seen. Morrison continues;
“As production, income and the division of labor began to develop more freely, the social threshold set by earlier periods became redirected. As a result, needs and wants- and even entire perspectives- are raised to a ‘fever-pitch’. The replacement of religion by economy subordinated society to economic and industrial ends. The intense economic focus of society freed desires from previous moral limits and replaced moral restraints with utilitarian sanctions inherent in law and social rules. Eventually , the extension and activity of markets acted to extend and expand desire.” (Morrison, 1995, p186)
Here we see an explanation of how the changes implicated by the industrial revolution, not only changed the types of roles fulfilled by workers, but the type of desires that these new jobs and markets created. However, Durkheim warned that, the expanding nature of the new complex society, as well as widening the ambitions of workers, had the potential to be catastrophic. He suggested that when the economy replaces other social institutions, such as religion, in importance, the risk for social and moral insubordination is highly increased.
During his study of Suicide, and the phenomenon of ‘Anomie’, a lack of social norms created by rapid social change, Durkheim suggested that anomie related to the economy was one of the largest causes of suicide (Giddens, 2009). However, as the shift from simple to complex society occurs, Durkheim suggested that the mechanical features of likeness are replaced with the organic differentiation meaning social and industrial bonds now unite workers through difference rather than likeness.
Globalisation then for Durkheim, is based not solely upon the economy, but the global spread of the complex society. As such, he believed that as members of modern societies, eventually rather than being reliant on a few thousand people after the initial spread of specialisation, we would one day rely on millions of citizens interlinking, communicating and living in a truly global sense, all in order to secure the resources and services to live everyday life. He believed that as such, the societies partaking would become truly classless and wholly meritocratic. As we have seen, he warned that the advantages of modern freedom create a dilemma in which moral guidance is lacking, however, he believed that with the spread of the complex society and organic solidarity, a new form of moral unity, or ‘world patriotism’, would be sprung, recreating, in sorts, the moral guidance of the simple society and tackling the issues of anomie.
Comparatively, both theorists approach social change very differently, leaving comparisons few and far between. However, the main conflict between Marx and Durkheim would be that of false consciousness versus tradition and morality. The moral guidance discussed by Durkheim in the simple society, and the potential for it in the complex society through world patriotism is undermined by Marx, who suggests that any such institutions, providing guidance, are at the disposal of the capitalists. As we have seen, predictions for the future of society are also converse; however it is fair to say that Durkheim’s belief of growing interdependence is increasingly true in a very global sense. His hopes for the disposal of the class system have been slower in progress, but the growth of meritocracy has been faster paced, largely due to the barriers of the simple society, and the acceptance of them, being removed, at least in part by what he would describe as world patriotism. Marx’s hopes for the downfall of the capitalist system haven’t yet materialised, advanced economic systems have meant although crashes have occurred, recoveries have been much less catastrophic than Marx predicted. Finally, the hunger for social change by the working classes has lessened not only through their increasing wealth in the most modern capitalist societies, but also through the downfall of many high profile socialist and communist societies.
Bibliography
ANDERSON, James and RICCI, Marilyn (1997). Society and Social Science, 2nd Edition. London, Open University Press.
BEAUMONT, Claudine (2009). G20: Protesters use Twitter, Facebook and social media tools to organise demonstrations. [online]. The Telegraph, 01 April. Last accessed 11 April 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/5090003/G20-summit-Protesters-use-Twitter-Facebook-and-social-media-tools-to-organise-demonstrations.html
EMIRBAYER, Mustafa (2003). Emile Durkheim, Sociologist of Modernity. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
GIDDENS, Anthony (2009). Sociology, 6th Edition. Cambridge, Polity Press.
HINKLE, Roscoe C. (1976). Durkheim’s Evolutionary Conception of Social Change. The Sociological Quarterly, 17 (3), 336-346
MACIONIS, John J. and PLUMMER, Ken (2008). Sociology, 4th Edition. London, Pearson Education.
MARX, Karl and ENGELS, Friedrich (1998). The Communist Manifesto. New York, Signet Classics.
MORRISON, Ken (1995). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London, Sage Publications.
RUBEN, David-Hillel (1977). Marxism and Materialism. Sussex, The Harvester Press.
STEGER, Manfred B. (2003). Globalization, A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment