Traditional Marxist Theories - Research Paper Example

April 15, Structural Theory of Conflict Sociological perspectives can be broadly divided into two main branches: structuralists or positivists and interpretivists. The structuralists include the functionalists and the conflict perspectives relating to the theories of Karl Marx. Marxism has been extremely influential amongst the perspectives in sociology especial where criminology is concerned. In criminology Marxist explanations have shifted slightly from the traditional Marxist approach to much more thinned-down approach. Marxist traditional approach is commonly referred to as left idealism by critics because it was considered more ideal and less practical. However, since the 1970s newer approaches have started to come out with new concepts of criminology. All of these approaches evolved into what is now known as left realism. The major difference which can be found between the left idealism and left realism is a moral issue which will be discovered later in this article. Traditional Marxist Theories Marx himself had very little to say about crime. He merely explained it as a product of poverty. However, there are other sociologists who have built the traditional Marxist approach to crime. There are four main areas which are discussed by the traditional Marxist approach: the manipulation of values; the process of law creation; the enforcement of law; and individual motivation. According to the Marxists society is controlled by powerful industrialists- bourgeoisie. Control is maintained in the society by means of socialization and threat. Through the process of socialization the young are taught to obey the power and value of the capitalist system. A wide range of social institutions such as the school, mass media and religion convey the message to the masses. Marxists claim that the meaning of crime depends upon the dominant social values. A very valid example would be that the murder of a person in a brawl will be counted as a severe crime but the death of a factory worker is considered an accident even though the cause of the accident might be the irresponsible attitude of the management. The problem which results from this is that the perception which is created through the sociological institutions that much of the crime is carried out by the youth, or the working class men or the black. This creates an ideology which causes the law enforcement agencies to focus more on these people and as a consequence there are more policemen in such areas. According to concepts of Marx law is created by the ruling class. The ruling class ensures that the laws not only maintain their dominance but they also provide them the freedom to carry out oppression and also preventing the working class for improving their standard of living. Marxists also argue that the law enforcement acts as a major catalyst in widening the gap between the ruling class and the working class. This is quite visible by the way that crime is handled. Street crimes are more likely to be punished more severely than white-collar crimes. This is compounded by the fact that white-collar crimes are very likely to be dealt by the firm itself by firing etc. to avoid the scandals. Apart from this the treatment of these crimes is also a question mark on the law enforcement system where street crimes might result in long jail sentences whereas corporate or white-collar crimes usually only result in heavy crimes. Two areas which are explained and discussed extensively in Marxist studies are mugging and corporate crime. When ‘mugging’ is discussed most important details are provided by Hall et al. (1979) in the book policing the Crisis.’ It was in the early 1970s that mugging became the headline news in Britain. Mugging can be defined as robbery in the streets where the person is threatened or harmed. Mugging was an entirely new concept for the masses and simultaneously grabbed the focus of the news agencies who from time to time reported these crimes. This had increased such that the stat came out that it had increased by 129 percent over the previous four years. Hall claimed that mugging was not entirely a new concept. Instead it was an extremely old form of crime which had just been highlighted and was already on the decline. He explained that the outcry over mugging had been triggered by the newspaper reports. These newspapers had been provided by the stats by the policemen who had actually created this in order to justify repressive policing in inner city areas. Also it caused the approval of the point that some groups in society have to be tackled by force. Such information in the newspaper caused a greater concentration toward some groups of the society causing confrontation which instead solidified the idea. There are two parts of Halls discussion which classifies it into a Marxist approach. Firstly, its focus is on the society on the whole and thus, giving it a structuralist approach. The second reason is that crime is seen as the result of capitalism. The bourgeoisie wanted to maintain social order and this mugging issue allowed the police to interfere in these issues and help bring about order. Hall’s explanation of mugging has been criticized by many theorists. He has been criticized of the fact that a lot of focus has been laid on the larger picture of the society and the people who are actually involved in it are ignored. This is because they are seen as victims of the process of deviancy amplification. Another criticism is based on the contradictory statements which are put forward. On one side Hall claims that the increasing police interest and involvement is required to control crime and on the other hand he has claimed that the rates of the crime are decreasing. If there would have been a threat to capitalism by the increasing crime then the decreasing crime rates present a picture to us which explains completely the opposite. Marxists claim that crime is a product of poverty and oppression. Therefore, they believe that crime is a legitimate way of fighting against the system of capitalism. The powerful groups in the society can manipulate the meaning of crime or wrong such that only the working class people are considered as criminals. On the other hand there are also some issues. When the powerful people commit crimes such as tax evasion or fraud they are able to get away with less severe punishments or no punishments at all. The prime reason behind this is that these matters are tackled by experts and they allow the criminals to get away with commissions or fines as a punishment. Corporate crimes basically mean the crimes carried out by companies in order to increase their profits. These involve acts such as breaking various health and safety laws to maximize production in order to increase profits. They basically do not care of the impact as the money motive lures them. Steven Box (1983) gives a much wider explanation for these corporate crimes. He points out that in terms of the damage caused by these firms to people in the form of environmental effects, health and welfare costs and unpaid tax money is a far greater problem than street crimes and mugging. Though there are various different estimates of the amount of losses caused by corporate crime it is estimated that it can lead to a loss of about pound 16 billion in UK. However, all of this is a thing of the past. The current world recession can be said to be the results of the fathers of corporate crimes. The documentary Inside Job 2010 is a very detailed analysis of such corporate crime. Corporate crime has grown over the years but it is often unclear who is harmed most by these corporate crimes. A very valid example here would be the pollution caused by many firms where they neglect the social costs caused by their production processes. So here there is not only one or a couple of victims. The effects of these crimes outreach too many people. This is why the victims of these crimes can be classified into huge categories such as consumers, employees and the public. Consumers in general face problems due to the false and misleading claims which are put forward in the advertisements. The problem here arises from the line between sharp practice and illegality. Misjudgment and reckless decisions lead to the death of many employees annually. This happens because the firms have not taken proper safety precautions and they have neglected health warnings. The maximum harm is done to the public which includes stuff starting from pollution to the burden of taxation lost in revenue. The traditional Marxist approach also has quite a few criticisms. It has been heavily criticized by both sympathizers and opponents. The first and foremost criticism of the traditional Marxist approach is that it ignores personal motivation. They claim that crime results as a product of oppression from the ruling class. However, they avoid personal values and perceptions as a reason for crime. Secondly Marxists claim that the huge proportion of crime from the side of the working class people, or youth or black people is mainly due to the fact that the laws and the policies are biased towards them. Marxists claim that the laws and policies are all in favor of the ruling class or the capitalists. However, this may not be the truth as there are many laws which are formed on general agreement. There are many laws which are not only beneficial for the ruling class but are beneficial for the working and middle class people. Therefore, the point put forward by Marxists that the laws are only important for the ruling class because it helps bring about social solidarity and socializes people to believe in the system of capitalism is not entirely true (Mishra, 1981). Post-Marxist Approaches There are sociologists who although claim that their theories are based on the theories of Karl Marx but have actually moved away from the rigid Marxist approaches and tend to fall a bit more towards the construction of beliefs and ideas which cause the youth to move towards these crimes. Marxist Subcultural Theory The Marxist subcultural theory moved beyond the traditional Marxist perspective by attempting to learn more about the activities of working class youth males and trying to register their reactions to the oppressive actions faced by many of them in the hands of capitalists. The subcultural approach to crime and deviance spread far wider than we can imagine. It extended to study in detail the working class male youth subcultures. Sociologists explain the term youth as the period of transition from childhood to adulthood. The role of the youth subculture is to provide the smooth passage of transition from childhood to adulthood. Eisenstadt (1956) explained that most young people aim to keep themselves away from their parents in order to create their own identity. However, in the process of keeping themselves away they feel emotionally insecure. To face this emotional insecurity they adapt a specific pattern of style and dress codes. This allows them to not only face the problem of emotional insecurity but also to implement the method of independence. All youth face this phase of transition and their behavior during this period creates specific youth subcultures. There are two important points here relating to its comparison with the Marxist approaches. First are the contents of the youth subcultures. Secondly, the backgrounds of the males are unimportant. There are some specific features of the Marxist subcultural approach which will be discussed in detail now. The first important feature is hegemony. Marxists believe that all capitalist societies are faced by the problem of class conflict which arises from the aim of the ruling class to continually oppress the poor and maintain their hold over the working class. According to Marxist terminology, the imposition of ruling class ideas or ideology on the working class is known as hegemony. They use other sociological institutions such as mass media and education in order to influence the values of the working class people. They manipulate the culture and values of these people. Many people in Britain and other European countries are trapped by things such as mortgage payments, credit repayments that the security of the ruling class is seen as a proper refuge. In order to attain that they themselves adopt the ideas and cultural values of the ruling class. Thus, most of the people end up following the habits of the ruling class in order to move up the ladder and achieve the same status as them. However, it is the youth that are the farthest from the holds and influence of the hegemony. They are moving towards independence and as a result they do not follow the ideas and culture of the ruling class. They are the weakest point in the structure of hegemony. Marxists believe that every generation of working class males are faced by the same problems of unemployment or low pay scales. Writers such as Mike Brake (1980) and Dick Hebdidge (1979) elaborated this situation in detail. They explain that the youth develop their own subculture as a means of coping with their problems and these subcultures reflect the socio-economics conditions of the time. Youth subcultures do not change the economic and power differences in society which have created the problems for these males. An example of the Marxist subcultural approach can be the explanations by Phil Cohen (1972) who analyzed the youth in East London in 1970s. Cohen suggested that in order to understand the youth subcultures we need to understand the meaning of these in the immediate context and the wider context. Cohen's study is probably out of date and too tied to the situation he found in London's East End.. Sub -cultural styles have persisted long after the economic / social changes he described in his analysis. In common with the majority of structuralist accounts, there is a general failure to identify why some teenagers develop "mod" styles whilst others in much the same social situation adopt "skinhead" styles. If structural changes are the important variable, why do very different responses emerge? No clear link is actually made between structural changes and youth sub-cultures. Although it might (or might not) be a reasonable assumption to hold that structural changes will produce cultural changes, no convincing evidence is provided for the supposed relationship between the two. Marxist subcultural approach has been criticized on various occasions. Feminist writers argue that the Marxist subcultural theories and its research ignore women. The Marxist subcultural theorists can be defended by the fact that most of the crimes are carried out by working class males. However, considering this attention is being paid to women and blacks by Marxist subculturalists. The Marxist subcultural approach has been criticized because it gives the perception that the sociologists always know the best. This can be explained by the fact that youth may well give their own explanations of the crimes which they carry out the Marxist sociologists will always explain in the context that the prime reason behind these issues are that they are faced by class struggle. Marxist subcultural theories have also been criticized by the radical criminologists. They claim that the meaning attached by Marxist subculturalists to the activities of the delinquent youth is biased. Law in Capitalist society reflects the interests of a ruling class, mainly because this is the most powerful class in this type of society. However, to be effective (people must be encouraged to respect the law and so forth), laws must appeal to as broad a range of people as possible. If people feel that they are protected under the law, this creates a method of resolving conflicts. In addition, conflict between classes may produce laws which, whilst not directly of benefit to a ruling class do, in the long run, act as a "safety-valve" for the limiting of conflict. Ideologically, whilst the ruling class are ultimately the major beneficiary of the laws they create, everyone gains something... References Brake, M. The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth, London: Routledge, 1980, Print Box, S. Power, Crime and Mystification, London: Tavistock, 1983, Print Cohen, P. Subcultural Conflict and Working Class Community, University of Birmingham, 1972, print Cohen, S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics, London: Martin Robertson, 1980, pint Eisendtadt, S. From Generation to Generation, New York: Free Press Hall, S. et al, Policing the crisis, London: Macmillan, 1979, Print. Giddens, A., 2006,Sociology, 5th Edition, Polity Publications. Mishra, R. Society and Social Policy, London: Macmillan, 1981, print www.sociology.org.uk Read More