Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society - Essay Example

CITIZENSHIP "The two most essential foundations for any , Machiavelli submits, "whether it be old or new, or both old and new, are sound laws and sound military forces. Now, since the absence of sound laws assures the absence of sound military forces, while the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws as well, I shall forego a consideration of laws and discuss military forces instead." (The Prince: Chapter 12, p 46: Quoted in bookrags.com) Since his arrival on the Earth and foundation of human societies, he has spent an imperative part of his life in conflicts and wars. History is replete with the examples of aggressions, antagonism, genocide and battles in the name of race, region, religion, territory and economic gains. The policy of might is right and lust for acquiring more and more territorial areas and economic resources has urged both the state and individuals enter into conflict against one another. Philosophers and political theorists including Kant, Hobbes, Marx, Machiavelli and Locke etc have presented different views and articulated various theories to define the manners, rights and obligations of citizenship. Their works indicate directly and indirectly the factors supportive in maintaining peaceful atmosphere within a social set up. They have also indicated the basic causes and circumstances leading the nations towards the path of conflict and destruction. The term citizenship simply refers to the membership of a country, a state, a tribe, a community or an authority, which creates rights and duties between citizens and the state. The individuals are bound to abide by the norms, values, mores, taboos and laws determined by the authorities to keep peace and solidarity in its fold. Citizenship not only implements wide range of obligations on citizens, but also offers them many opportunities to grow, make progress, involve into social, political, cultural, religious, economic and other peaceful activities on the one hand, and assures the individuals peaceful environment, security of life, honour and belongings, legal remedies, justice and equality within its platform on the other. Looking into the history of the world from the most primitive societies of Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras to the most modern ones of contemporary technological age, it becomes evident that social inequality and injustices always existed in all human societies give birth to stratification and conflict. Philosophers and thinkers have defined the causes and consequences of conflict between different groups and remedies for it in order to escape anarchical situation in the society. Sociological researches too reveal the very fact that even during the ancient times different classes existed in every culture and civilization. Kant emphatically submits that the state of peace among the people living side by side and remaining in constant interaction with one another cannot be remained peaceful, as it is in the nature of man to contain differences with other fellow-beings. It is therefore it is war rather than peace which could be stated as the natural one. The same is the case with nations and states which are at warring positions in the one way or the other. Many wars took place between the Greeks and the Persians time and again sabotaging the peace and harmony of the countries. Absence of any regularity authority to check the advances of the conflicting states kept them in constant war position. The Athenians declared these wars as the golden chapter of their history, though it cost hundreds of lives as well as pushed the economy to a sorry state. "In Ionia (the modern Aegean coast of Turkey) the Greek cities, which included great centres such as Miletus and Halicarnassus, were unable to maintain their independence and came under the rule of the Persian Empire in the mid 6th century B.C. In 499 BC the Greeks rose in the Ionian Revolt, and Athens and some other Greek cities went to their aid." (Quoted in http://www.crystalinks.com/greeksocial.html) The Persians invaded Greece and captured their territories, but were unable to maintain their position for long. The freedom fighters raised revolts against the tyranny and they had to quit their land ultimately. Moreover, the Persians used to destroy the economic stability of the Athenians and captured their finances resulting into significant losses of economy. Tumin also supports the existence of social classes in primitive ages. According to historical and archaeological records, he states, stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man. In such primitive conditions, according to him, both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification. (1978: p 16). It is fact beyond doubt that man is rebel by nature and cannot abide by the statute of laws and the set of norms for long. Thus, there is always a need of implementation of policies by force in a political set up. The force may be the political, militarily or republic. "If one wants", Machiavelli opines, "to preserve a city that is accustomed to being independent and having free institutions, it is more easily held by using its citizens to govern it than in any other way." (Quoted in Porter, 1997: p 226) Machiavelli declares use of force an essential element to maintain order in society. He suggests to the new ruler three ways of holding a sovereign state, which include destroying of the existing institutions, living in the same area of rule, and let the population continue to live according to their prevailing rules of law. He considers the first one as the most favourable one in order to run a powerful system of government and maintain peace and harmony within the republic as well as citizenship. The renowned German philosopher Karl Marx maintains some different view in this regards. He considers conflict as the solution of political and social turmoil and predicts the evidence of a revolution in case of anarchical situation in a society, where unequal distribution of wealth and resources create a socio-political turmoil. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels are of the view that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Quoted in Adams and Sydies, p 133). According to this view, Coser states, ever since human society emerged from its primitive and relatively undifferentiated state it has remained fundamentally divided between classes which clash in the pursuit of class. When a political order based on class is found that seems to lack class conflict, special attention should be paid. Marxism is particularly suited to ferreting out the hidden resistance present in religion and ideology. Marxism is of course dedicated to examining the modes of production present in any society, and there may be more than one present. The dialectical method is also an important concept in Marxism, which is built on the examination of contradictions between classes, ideas, etc. As Marxism is based on conflict theory articulated by Karl Marx, and it is interested in the conflict existing between different social classes in a society, the most critical element among the methods of Marxist Perspective is to find classes prevailing in societies all over the world, and study the techniques in which the classes interact. Dr. Murphy views that lack of class conflict in any society is not only eccentric, but also it deserves special attention to study and manipulate. Also, Marxism examines both hidden and explicit conflicts existing. In his words: Further, Marxist perspective is exercised to observe the progress of various societies at different extents. There are more than one unifying methods used in Marxism, and it is not confined to one single visions. Another great German philosopher Immanuel Kant has presented his theory of Perpetual Peace in 1795, in which he has described the causes of conflicts, disturbances and turmoil leading towards conflict, anarchy and chaos leading towards war and consequent peace settlements. He stands for the eradication of the major causes of hostilities among sovereign states and existing social groups, rather entering into temporary armistice, in order to perpetuate peace by bringing an end to the conflicts, wars and aggressions from the societies. He takes the rule of law as most significant thing to combat conflicts and lays stress on the permanent implication of rule of law to avoid any aggression and wars between the countries. Machiavelli, on the other hand, refutes the idea that only law can ensure a peaceful citizenship. On the contrary, he suggests that the rulers should, sometimes when needed, use force putting aside the provisions of law to sustain the command and grip over the state. Kant had recognized a challenge that went to the very foundations of his political philosophy. "He believed" Solomon (2003, p.106) submits, "that a social life under a rule of law was a prerequisite for the rational and moral capabilities and the achievement of maximum human autonomy and freedom." Similarly English philosopher of seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes and American theorist John Locke of the same era have also advocated for the need of an authority for the smooth running of a government. Both these philosophers worked on the concept of Social Contract Theory which was also adopted by French philosopher Rousseau and played decisive role in awakening the French nation and bringing about French Revolution of 1789. Social Contract Theory submits that man is free by nature and if there is no authority to determine the limitations of human beings, they will start harming and hurting one another leading towards anarchy and chaos in the whole society. In his wonderful "The Leviathan", Hobbes has presented the concept of laws of nature as well as commonwealth, religious and political laws revealing the requirements necessary for the maintenance of peace and evasion from war. Defining peace, Hobbes means to state that nature always guides humanity to seek peace in the first hand. On not complying with this law and revolting from peace, disintegration and chaos are created in a society, which may cause civil war within the state. "The first law of nature", according to him, "is to seek peace and follow it. But if the advice does not prove advantageous for mankind, the second law of nature says that by any means necessary, mankind must defend ourselves from the rest of the population through violence." (Quoted in Esscort.com) He also views that there remain a situation of competition and jealousy in the individuals, intensity of which may turn into serious conflict among them. Hence, there must be not only laws in a sovereign state, but also a statute body to implement such laws. Absence of a regulatory authority, according to Hobbes, results in civil war. Conflict and clashes, according to him, have always brought destruction, disappointment, unemployment and turmoil in societies. There are many examples of deterioration and disturbances in the aftermath of war in various states of the world. "During the thirty years from 1883 to 1913", Arnstein views, "only one man in twenty had been unemployed in England; during the post war years of 1921-1938, unemployment was the fate of one man in seven." (1988, p 274) Nevertheless, Hobbes declares laws of nature as immortal and eternal ones. John Locke maintains difference with Hobbes while describing citizenship as well as the prevailing law of nature, in his theories. He lays stress in complete and unconditional freedom of mankind. He goes against any restrictions on man that could minimize his liberty. It is liberty and freedom that brings the message of peace and happiness, Locke views. "Man being born", Locke views, "as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man." (Porter, 2003 p. 372) Locke argues in favour of unconditional freedom and free consent which ultimately lead to perpetual and continuous and interference in one's freedom and actions costing his free consent cause revolts, chaos and war in the end. Lack or freedom, according to him, may disrupt economic activities and free trade, which can put the cities and countries into war. The political philosophy of John Locke carries weight while looking into causes of war and peace in different states and societies. In ancient times though trade was brisk, yet there were many restrictions in the mobilisation of different goods from one part to the other. It is therefore, the governments belonging to one city attacked the other in order to acquire the command over trade and other economic activities. In the same way, the basic cause of wars and conflict between Florence and Venice in the Renaissance times. The Venice republic was economically steady and affluent, and the volume of its trade and commerce with neighbouring countries was tremendous indeed. The economic prosperity and hub of knowledge supported the republic establishing an independent political system almost on the same patterns as the sovereign states of contemporary world maintain. It served as a matter of great envy for neighbouring cities and republics; therefore, jealousy prevailed everywhere, which converted into battles and wars subsequently. The political rivalry among European countries of 19th century was also the outcome of trade activities. Scramble for Africa and trade in Asian and African countries gave birth to many battles between England and France on the one hand, and embittered relationship between England and Germany as well as Russia and Turkey on the other. The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought which is called "dialectal materialism". Dialectical materialism is defined as the Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Conflict has been the main subject of Marxism, and all the perspective revolves around this concept. Conflict is not only hidden or internal; rather, it may be explicit or external. It is dialectic materialism that turns the conflict winning central place in Marxian theory. The role of dialectic, Bourne states, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces. (2006). It makes conflict innermost theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change. This, according to him, is the basis of Marxian theorizing, though it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation. The several social theories that emphasize social conflict, according to Ryanzanskaya, have roots in the ideas of Karl Marx. (1971). The Marxist conflict approach emphasizes a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward existing social arrangements, and a political programme of revolution or, at least, reform. (Theda, 1980). According to this view, Coser states, ever since human society emerged from its primitive and relatively undifferentiated state it has remained fundamentally divided between classes who clash in the pursuit of class. Lewis Coser's analysis of Marxist Thought, Gouldner writes, associates Critical Marxism with backwardness. Essentially Coser sees Scientific Marxism as grounded in the industrially advanced parts of Europe, particularly Germany, thus missing the way in which Scientific Marxism serves to counterbalance the decline of religion as a source of security among workers. (1980: p 52). Marxist conflict theory does not charge capitalism the only reason of class conflict in the role played by the individuals within the citizenship. Rather, it is inherent in every differential society. Marx considers capitalism a serious threat to the interests of the labour classes or proletariat, and beneficial only for the upper class or bourgeois. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyze how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change taking place in some specific society. Kant looks for permanent state of peace rather temporary ceasefire between two or more independent countries and maintains that any peace accord has been made by force or without the will of any of the rival countries serves as a constant sword of imminent war hanging on the very head of the warring countries. A peace settlement made under war threat always causes another war in near future, because the invaded and defeated country always seeks for revenge from the aggressor. It creates a permanent state of confrontation and disturbances in the region. Kant aims to state that 'no treaty of peace could be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.' To make an end of the war, there must be a regularity authority to check the advances of the states and eradicate hostilities among the nations. "When one or both parties to a treaty of peace", he views, "being too exhausted to continue warring to each other, make a tacit reservation (reservatio mentalis) in regard to old claims to be elaborated at some more favourable opportunity in future, the treaty is made in bad faith." (A Philosophical Sketch of the Kant's Perpetual Peace) As soon as either of them feels itself in a better military position, it started targeting the weaker nation. Kantian theory especially condemns monarchical and dictatorship government systems which have designed no particular rules of law to avoid conflict with other nations. Democratic nations, on the other hand, seldom wage wars against other powers for the governments elected by the people cannot afford it altogether. Absence of rule of law projects irrationality among the masses, whereas its presence makes them vigilant and wise. Franceschet (2000, p 280) asserts the Kantian thesis that democracies do not fight each other. Social life, according to Kant, under a rule of law was a prerequisite for the flourishing of rational and moral capabilities and the achievement of maximum individual autonomy and freedom. (Solomon, 2003 p 107) In addition, Kant is of the view that no hostile country can make another sovereign state under its dominion for long. The political situation, economic conditions and social movements force the invader forces leave the country has been captured forcibly without the will of the local population. Moreover, the continuous war situation and endless fighting weakens the conflicting states so much that their existence looks in serious jeopardy. A country can neither be inherited nor can be sold out t another on the basis of either war or peace. On the other hand, the solidarity and independence of a defeated state is restored with the passage of time. Kant strongly believes in the implementation and observing of the rule of law for the maintenance of peace in the world. He refutes the utopian idea altogether that submits that the continuous and steadfast warring may pave the way of permanent rule of the invader country over the invaded one without any resistance or protest. Social change is the rule, not revolution, according Marx. On the contrary, Machiavelli declares conflict as the weakness of the ruler. Hobbes also refutes the significance of conflict altogether and considers it a constant cause of declining of a dynasty. Yet, Marx views it as the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. Conflict is, Marx insists, the major source of change in social systems. They develop through the exposure of people, he emphatically states, occupying particular social positions to particular social circumstances. Thus, in early industrial enterprises, competition divides the personal interests of a crowd of people who are unknown to each other. (Coser, 1978: p 149). The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. Lockwood insists on the presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals. (1956: p 134) The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. Marx has linked the social stratification to the means of production. The major modern classes are, according to him, "the owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent. Different individuals make up the production of an organization, but the major profit goes to the upper class or bourgeoisie only, which works far less than the labour classes. The deprivation of rights arise the sentiments of revenge in labour class and conflict arises in society. Marxism perspective shows that Karl Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social relationship such as freeman and slave, lord and serf, oppressor and oppressed in describing different classes in a society that characterize different historical stages or modes of production. George Ritzer, famous contemporary sociologist, obtains some different views on Marx's conflict theory. He in his works has criticized Marx and declares his sociological thought a failure especially in respect of being unable to see the positive points and bright aspects of Capitalism. Marx has failed to foresee, in the words of Ritzer, how well capitalism would adapt itself to worker demands (through such mechanisms as legalized labour unions, workers' compensation, minimum wage, workplace safety and other standards for worker protection). (2003). Further, Marx did not know that the concept of ownership of the means of production might suspend in the joint stock company, Ritzer declares. It has not only ended the concept of confrontation between the classes, but also gave the individuals from different social classes the right of ownership. As Marx had no deep vision and foresight, he could not foresee the marvellous and multi-dimensional aspects of Capitalism due to his prejudice towards this economic system. While examining the history of different states from the most primitive to the most modern one, it becomes evident that Kant's theory keeps validity in its very essence. Headley Bull has also reiterated Kant's theoretical framework while discussing state system in his book "The Anarchical Society." Doyle (1983) emphatically affirms Kantian theory of perpetual peace which declares he democratic governments sand proper application of rule of law will eliminate the concept of conflict from the society. In the same way, he admits that the democratic and liberal states seldom observe good and peaceful relations with the non democratic ones. Hobbes, in his Second Treatise of Government, states that the law of nature offers to all and sundry one and the same opportunities which gave the idea of common ownership. It ultimately creates a situation among different social strata. The same was the case with the Greek cities of ancient times. Kant's theory was equally significant in past as it is today. While making an analysis of the ancient Greek cities state system in the light of Kant's theoretical framework, it comes to know that Greek cities very small in size and having less population contained monarchical state of government, which had established a war-loving aristocratic system in them. The warlords of these Greek cities started wars with the neighbouring cities to capture their lands. This warring situation existed for long and truce was only a break to have some rest from long term war days. Not only this that the ceasefire provided them with some respite to keep the forces restful, but also served as an ideal time to make war preparations against the opponent forces. The primitive Greek cities had been engaged in not only fighting against one another, but also had constant threats of Persian attacks that could cost their solidarity and integration. Greek and Persian states, in ancient times, had monarchical political systems and were unable to preserve peace for a long time and every peace settlement paved the way for another war in the region. The relations between the neighbouring cities were always bitter and none of the country ever tried to evade any chance of entering into war with the rival power existing at that time. Kant's theoretical framework witnesses validity in the states of Renaissance and Medieval times too. While talking about the Renaissance Italy, it appears that the system of government at Venice flourished and got the status of most successful republic in 15th century A. D. Bull (1977) has also called the 15th century Venice observed balance of power to some extent. There was neither democracy nor monarchy in the Middle Ages Venice. During the early years of the Venice republic, there existed an autocratic system of government. The island communities of Venice had formed a united sovereign republic state in the beginning of eleventh century A.D. That political system was the outcome of the election under the political traditions of Venice, where the Doge used to be elected to administer the state under an autocratic monarchy. A Doge was stated as the political authority that was responsible for the internal and external affairs of the republic. Apparently, Venice was the centre of art and culture, yet there were conspiracies and intrigues in its foreign policy. Venice sought its rival in the Florence Republic and they used to get engaged in wars time and again. "Intrigues, armaments, leagues, corruption and treason", Snell writes, "make up the outward history of Italy at this period. Venice in particular was long accused on all hands of seeking to conquer the whole peninsula, or gradually so to reduce its strength that one State after another must fall into her hands." (Quoted in About.com) The Republic also imitated the Roman and English laws. There was no discrimination on the base of class, caste, culture, community or gender. Machiavelli also assures role of citizenship by the participation of citizens in the government directly or through their representatives. The Venice government followed the Roman laws in the courts. The Catholic laws had got their way in the judicial system too. Though the state system of Renaissance negates the Kantian theory of Perpetual Peace, where he says that the law abiding states do not adopt aggressive policies against one another, yet these states did never display such type of hostilities which had been attributed to the ancient Greek monarchies. The wars between Florence and Venice took place, but their intensity and duration was much lesser than that of dark and ancient civilizations. Furthermore, these city estates were not democratic in the real sense, though the crude and initial form of democracy had got its way in these governments. Though Venetian government selected and imitated Roman system of government for their sovereign state. As the social system of a country resembled political system too, the social characteristics of the Venetian society also reflected Roman traditional mores, norms, taboos, folkways and even laws. Like Romans, the Venice also observed three social classes and the privileged class had its share in the governments, like nobility in France and other European countries ruled over the peasantry and other lower classes. Only the leisure or privileged class had the right to vote and elect the Doge. The Great Council existed only in Venice and other neighbouring cities and states including Florence, Switzerland, France and others observed despotism. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnstein, Walter L. 1988 Britain Yesterday and Today: 1830 to the Present. Fifth Edition. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Pp 263-300. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought Coser, Lewis Alferd. 1977: Masters of Sociological Thought: Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1957: Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. University Press. Giddens, Anthony and David Held, Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982). HT675 C55 1982 Gimenez, Martha E. 1998. Marxist Feminism/ Materialist Feminism Marx, Karl. 1971. Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. Bull, Headley. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Second Edition. Columbia University Press Doyle, Michael. (1983) Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer, 1983), pp. 205-235. Franceschet, A. (2000) Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy' Liberalism, Kant and International Reform. European Journal of International Relations 6, pp 277-302). Porter, Jene M. (1997) Classics in Political Philosophy. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall Canada. Pp 293-402 Ritzer, George and Douglas J Goodman. 2003: Classical Sociological Theory. 4th Edition. Skocpol, Theda. 1980. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press. Snell, Melissa. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (Quoted in http://historymedren.about.com/od/burckhardt/a/cri_i8.htm) Solomon, Benjamin. (2003) Kant's Perpetual Peace: A New Look at this Centuries-Old Quest. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution Summer 5.1 ISSN: 1522-211X | www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1solomon.htm pp 106-126 Tumin, Melvin M. 1978. Social Stratification: The forms and functions of inequality. Prentice Hall. Pp 16-219 Turner, Jonathan H. 1978. The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press. Wilson, Garret. (1999) Review of the Anarchical Society. (Quoted in http://www.garretwilson.com/books/anarchicalsociety.html) World Politics and Domestic Challenges, 1890-1914 (Quoted in http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyB2.html) http://classics.ucdavis.edu/1/Classics_1/notes2.html http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext'doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009&query=head%3D%232 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext'doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009;query=toc;layout=;loc=6.1 http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/warhealthstate1918.html http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/'econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/thestat http://www.smarter.com/historical-study-books/history-of-international-relations-theory/pd--ch-1--pi-779614.html http://www.irtheory.com/ http://www.wsu.edu/'dee/GREECE/PERSIAN.HTM http://www.crystalinks.com/greeksocial.html Read More