Weber\'s Class Conflict Theory Weber Defined \'Class\'

Weber's Class Conflict Theory

Weber defined 'class' as having in common "a specific causal component of their life chances in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) it is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor market" (Kasler, 1988, p.15). Class position does not necessarily lead to class ideological stance or class-directed action. Communal class action will arise when the classes realize the motive and needs of the struggle. In these postulations, Weber was similar to Marx. He differed from Marx in supplementing the existence of a 'status group'. Status groups are classes that are linked together by a certain lifestyle and consumption pattern rather than on their specific place in society (such s 'bourgeoisie' or 'working man'), This consumption pattern accords them a certain status and causes these demarcated groups to structure differences between 'we' and the 'other'. There is alienation and a passive conflict characterized by the existence of social distance.

In a capitalist society, the economically up-and-coming individual may belong to this more 'privileged' status group, whilst, at the same time, an aristocratic and propertied owner may belong to that same group too although he may be penniless. Conflict may issue by people who are afraid of losing their status from their much-valued group.

Weber sees society as grouped not only into distinctive class settings but also into sub- and super- ordinate groupings and categories with conflicts occurring within these categories too. For instance not only does conflict (passive mostly) exist between bourgeoisie and working class as per classical Marxist perspective, but conflict may also exist within the particular layers of the status group with each striving to achieve and maintain his specific status within that group.

In American society, this may explain the 'haves' and the 'have-not's notion where, although demarcation and pressure of distinction as well as social restraint against assimilation of the various social strata is less than in Europe and certainly minimal when compared to historical tradition (of, for instance, Weber's period), certain demarcations still exist.

According to Weber, power consists in the influence of economics but he recognizes that a salaried employee (not necessarily, as per Marx, the owner of the firm) may hold as much power if he has an important say in the firm's operation and power is not only economics but also prestige as for instance the prestige accorded to a film star of athlete in contemporary American society. So social class for Weber, constituted power and prestige as well as property or wealth. Wealth and prestige are oftentimes intertwined.

According to Weber, power is defined by the chance of a man, or a number of men "to realize their own will in communal action, even against the resistance of others" (Kasler, 1988, p.20). And this is characterized by the person's specific cultural, historical, social conditions. Social class, in other words, is a result of power, which is the ability for one to get his own way despite opposition.

Furthermore, men's objectives are not only for the benefit of accruing money to oneself. It may be also for gaining and/or retaining one's status in one's social group and for gaining personal influence.

There is another way in which Weber differed from Marx: whilst Marx saw society as controlling humans, Weber saw the possibility of "social action" whereby humans could control their social status and choose a place for them to occupy within society. He saw humans as having more control over their circumstances than Marx did.

Finally he also saw emotion as intrinsic to class conflict (an demotion could also exist in religious differences) as well as Weber acknowledging that state and economy together set up conditions for conflict (it wasn't economy along as per Marx).

The state provides the legitimate resources for operating and maintaining the conflict (as well as, in terms of economics, granting power to corporations and legitimizing their influence. People must be emotionally motivated, too, to sustain their 'Us / them' differences and to remain united in their specific groups.

The Saudi Women for Driving & Weber's theory

Change.com records that Saudi Women for Driving petitioned Hilary Clinton to support women's driving rights. 22,000 people joined after Clinton declined to provide her public support thus gaining media attention fro the drive. The effect of the publicity caused Clinton to reverse her stance ultimately becoming the highest-ranking official to publicly support women driving.

This snippet indicates both holes and support of Weberian theory at least in terms of contemporary America (although Weber does say that an individual's strength depends on conditions of the historic geopolitical milieu). Firstly, Hilary Clinton, representing both power and economic affluence, was overruled by a group of individuals who were nonentities in terms of influence and affluence. This contradicts Weber's theory, which posited that the economically buttressed individual wins.

On the other hand, we see how the emotional drive of the organization (stated by Weber as necessary) accorded it its power and sustained the conflict.

Weber's definition, again, that power is fought for status too, was proved wrong by this (and other instances), which indicate that power can be fought for simply having one's say (in this instance to right a wrong). On the other hand, power, as Weber said, was the aim to "to realize their own will in communal action, even against the resistance of others." (Kasler, 1988, p.20). Also congruent to Weberian theory was the concept of the significance of "social action" where human's actions can impact their position in society. The protest group succeeded in winning Clinton to their side, and in that it is state and influence that counts. The protest group was enabled to be successful only due to American polices and attitude that grants power to the people.