Liberty Defined, and Re-defined “The Communist Manifesto” and “On Liberty” - Literature Essay Samples

The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848 [1], precedes the writing of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty by more than a decade. Although Mill and Marx were both living in England by the time On Liberty was published in 1859 [2], the two authors moved in different circles. Whereas Mill was a high-ranking employee of the East India Company [3], Marx had emigrated to London in 1849 and was living in relative poverty despite his hard work and notoriety [4]. Thus, to Marx and Engels Mill was more a contemporary than a comrade. Like the two authors whose paths overlapped in space and time without really touching, the Manifesto and On Liberty address some of the same themes but interpret them in different ways. Although both The Communist Manifesto and On Liberty created massive paradigm shifts in the social sciences and they have many themes in common, they were written for different audiences to accomplish different goals. The Manifesto is chiefly a socioeconomic treatise while On Liberty concerns itself more with civic structure and morality. Although politics, economics, and moral philosophy all seek to explain and possibly optimize the behavior of people in groups, they are not the same field. The two papers, accordingly, ought not be considered as being opposed to one another except perhaps on the subject of Kantian moral theory. Both writers place a high value on personal liberty. They share an optimistic view of a free individual’s ability to judge what is best for his or her own best interests, but they also acknowledge the power of â€Å"society† at large to act as a moral or legal authority. They both make optimistic predictions about how human beings in a state of freedom (that is to say, not excessively oppressed) will choose to conduct themselves. Each author expands on his assumptions to describe an optimal state of affairs that would bring as much liberty as possible to as many people as possible. Yet the authors differ so profoundly in their definition of just what liberty is, and what states of affair are necessary for its existence, that the differences outweigh the similarities. Marx and Engels present liberty chiefly in economic terms. But for Mill liberty is more of a civil and legal phenomenon related to the interactions between a state and the individuals that comprise it. It is clear that Marx, Engels, and Mill all believe personal liberty is valuable. In The Communist Manifesto, the value of being able to do as one likes is assumed to be so obvious that Marx and Engels speak of freedom chiefly in the negative. They depict the proletariat or working class as lacking economic freedom, explaining that they are being â€Å"exploited† [5] by the bourgeois class. According to the Manifesto, bourgeois control of the means of economic production enables that class to control the price of labor, to the detriment of the laboring proletariat. Forced to compete for work and income opportunities, proletarian individuals are subjected to increasingly degrading, dehumanizing work experiences and are not free to choose more satisfying or profitable work or living conditions. This, according to Marx and Engels, is a bad thing. In On Liberty, Mill describes a struggle between individuals and government so as â€Å"to make fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control† [6]. Instead of regarding this struggle as evil or heretical, and instead of condemning people for questioning or seeking to limit the authority of a government established by divine right, Mill presents the conflict between individuals and their government as natural and appropriate. He thus assigns personal liberty the same moral value as government. He also states clearly that â€Å"[i]t is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself.† [7] In both papers, the authors have an optimistic view of a free individual’s ability to think rationally and to judge what is best for himself or herself. They are also optimistic about how human beings in a state of freedom would behave. Marx and Engels do not question whether a working-class individual is capable of making intelligent decisions about where and how to live, or how to manage such parts of the means of production as come under his or her control. Once the bourgeoisie are safely eliminated and the last vestiges of bourgeois culture and values swept away, Marx and Engels claim that the proletariat will create a community in which â€Å"the free development of each person is the condition of the free development of everyone.† [8] In other words, the community as a whole, and the individuals in it, would be so anxious to protect the freedom of their peers that they would not consider themselves free or prosperous as long as any individual were not developing f reely to the best of his or her own ability and desire. To this end, the Manifesto proposes free public schooling. The authors assume that people who have access to these education options will choose to exercise them, and that workers will gladly and voluntarily continue to work even without economic pressure or incentive to do so. Like Marx and Engels, Mill is optimistic about universal education. Although he does not name the government as an appropriate provider of education except to the poorest students, he recommends that it force parents to purchase the education they believe is appropriate and affordable for their children. He offers no suggestion as to exactly how such policies would be enforced or how the public schools would be funded. Unlike Marx and Engels, Mill acknowledges that some individuals will abuse their liberty. He does not pretend that freedom will produce right and morally appropriate actions except in the long term. Although he dismisses most violations of social norms as â€Å"eccentricity†, he admits that when an adult wallows in drunkenness, improvidence, and other destructive behaviors, the people who rely on that adult get hurt. But he stops short of recommending legal sanctions against the irresponsible. Instead, he relies on social â€Å"disapprobation†. He proposes to limit the state’s ability to punish an offender proportionately with that offender’s impact on others. Exactly how that impact could be measured or paid back especially in the case of violent crime, Mill does not say. Yet unlike the Manifesto authors, Mill at least acknowledges that free individuals will not always conduct themselves with consideration for the well-being of others. The authors disagree more than they agree. They do not even define liberty the same way. To Marx and Engels, liberty is an economic matter. A person can choose, wish, and decide, but unless that individual has the economic or physical power to enforce his or her will, the freedom is illusory. This is classic Kantian theory from the Grounding on the Metaphysics of Morals [9]. What a person â€Å"ought† to do is constrained by what he or she actually can do with the resources available. Thus, in order to have the freedom to choose where and how to live, a worker must have the economic resources to do so. Given that there is obviously a finite amount of wealth in the world, and any individual who has significantly more than another enjoys proportionately more freedom. The wealth disparity accordingly reduces the relative freedom of the have-nots. Thus, the way to create as much â€Å"good† as possible for as many people as possible (again, a Kantian precept) is to make sur e that everyone has roughly the same resources and assets. According to Marx and Engels, the only way a worker can enjoy the same level of economic autonomy as a factory owner is if he or she is actually a factory owner, or co-owner, with an equal share in the means of economic production. Hence their recommendation for a massive economic leveling and redistribution, or collectivization, of resource ownership. To Mill, liberty is a legal and intellectual matter. The first liberties he proclaims are liberty of thought and liberty of speech. Liberty to act (which is of primary concern to Marx and Engels) is more of an afterthought. To Mill, liberty is not an economic matter except to the extent that an individual may choose to engage in work for remuneration, or to invest resources in some profitable venture. Certainly a wealthy person has freedom that a poor person lacks, yet the fact that one person has more financial options than another does not appear to concern him. Mill assumes that people in a free society will exercise such options as are available to them given the education, resources, and opportunities they possess. He at no point suggests that these options are equal, or that they should be. Although Mill does not speak out against wealth redistribution or leveling, he begs the question as to whether economic equality is a necessary precursor to liberty. To Mill, it is not. Nor is the question a particularly significant one to him, even though to Marx and Engels it’s the only question of importance. Mill’s discussion of money and property is limited to the moral and legal obligations he believes an adult in a free society ought to have. For example, Mill recommends that parents be required to provide education and financial support for their children. If one child should therefore benefit from a more thorough (and possibly more expensive) education, creating better opportunities for employment or investment, clearly some families would advance financially from one generation to the next while other families would deteriorate or barely survive. This, to Mill, is not a problem that requires optimization or interference. Instead of redistributing wealth or ownership so as to create the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people, he proposes to remove artificial legal and social barriers to individual achievement or experimentation. Mill’s argument is that, in the long run, the best and most sound innovations eventually prevail even when popular opinion i s against them. He cites the rise of Christianity, the heliocentric view of the solar system, and various other innovations as evidence that it’s impossible to keep a good idea down. Like an early Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Mill asserts that although it’s impossible to predict exactly where the next brilliant invention will occur, the best way to cultivate such an advance is to create a fertile environment in which innovation and excellence are encouraged, or at least not punished, and where the incentive to excel is not taken away or artificially reduced. When a person is not allowed to profit from initiative or risk-taking, and when the benefits of it are redirected to others who did not participate in the effort, the incentive to excel is definitely reduced. This could be one reason why Mill does not address wealth redistribution: his entire essay is so permeated by the laissez-faire mentality that he may actually be begging the question as to whether a modicum of equal ity is necessary to liberty by assuming that it is not. Only from a position of relative socioeconomic privilege is such a mentality possible. The authors of both papers purport to be looking at what today might be called â€Å"the big picture†, but they disagree as to how it is composed. Mill never addresses the issue of whether, in his â€Å"free† society, an individual might be constrained by economic forces to the point where he or she cannot survive, much less participate productively. His assessment of one individual’s negative impact on another ends at the level of direct interaction and direct responsibility. Mill does not explore indirect causality. He never discusses whether decisions based on individual self-interest might, in the aggregate and on a large scale, might create bigger economic patterns and wide-scale social conditions detrimental to the liberty of far more individuals he or she has never met. Perhaps his faith in an individual’s ability to proactively change his or her own situation took precedence, or perhaps he simply met a genuine victim of circumstance. Either way, he ignores complex consequences that are the cumulative effect of millions of smaller individual decisions. Yet Marx and Engels completely understand the phenomenon by which the smaller decisions can, in the aggregate and over a long period of time, create a larger system that takes on a life and behavior of its own, creating an outcome not necessarily predicted or intended by the decision makers. They present the plight of the working class as the result of generations of self-interested bourgeois decision making. The authors’ proposed mechanisms for achieving liberty in a society could not be more different. Marx and Engels require a massive restructuring of society, possibly with an actual revolution. Mill recommends not revolution but a healthy development of personal initiative on the part of the populace. That a government should exist only at the pleasure of the governed is definitely part of his formula, but whereas Marx and Engels present this consent as something that has not been given, Mill treats it as manifest fact. To Mill, an optimal level of social and legal liberty can be achieved by proactive individuals participating in a democratic process with minimal restrictions on other activities such as commerce and industry. Both texts point out ways in which contemporary society fell short of the authors’ ideal. The social problems addressed by each author are different, yet both are amply supported by primary and secondary sources. Therefore, in order to rank one paper’s presentation of the social ills and conflicts in 19th century Europe above the other, it is necessary to determine not which position is better supported by the facts but which facts are the most important. To Marx and Engels, the most urgent social problems related to liberty are those that affect people’s day-to-day lives. In the Manifesto they write about the poor living conditions and the lack of opportunity for the working class, particularly when contrasted with the more comfortable lives of the elite. Engels performed his own field work and research, describing the unhealthy, physically dangerous, and degrading lives of the working class in England, the most heavily industrialized nation of the time. His observations in â€Å"The Conditions of the Working Class of England† [10] support the pessimistic view. Although one might be tempted to consider Engels biased in favor of his own research, he was not alone in his criticism and his observations were not unique. Robert Southey likewise condemned the English working-class standard of living, citing not only disease and filth but also the depressing monotony of factory life [11]. Later historians generally agree that working-class life at the beginning of the industrial age was unpleasant and often short. For example, Olwen Hufton supports Marx and Engels in their description of the effect of the European working-class lifestyle on women and families of the early 19th century: The lower classes, dependent upon a multiplicity of expedients to produce enough to sustain a family, were of course condemned to a remorseless struggle to make ends meet, and poor lists make abundantly evident the plight of families reduced to want by the death, disappearance or incapacity of the male breadwinner. The consequences of a system which insisted that women should work but not have a professional career mentality produced then, as it still does, innumerable victims when the ideal family model crumbled. [12] John Stuart Mill did not have Marx’s personal experience of poverty or Engels’s desire to personally document the living conditions of the poor. Prior to writing On Liberty, he would have been unlikely to have to read Engels’s â€Å"Conditions†, which was not translated into English until 1886 [13] or possibly even 1892 [14] (historians differ) despite the fact that the research was done in England. Mill was born into a privileged family. He received a sound education and lucrative work opportunities, married the widow of a very wealthy man, and served in Parliament [15]. As with Marx and Engels, Mill’s perception of the world around him came largely out of his own life experiences. The challenges and injustices he saw as a rising employee (and later an officer) of the East India Company gave him a thorough view of the negative effect a government can have on free enterprise. Yet his later years as a Member of Parliament (MP) enabled him to see gove rnment’s side of the issues and the necessity of some form of regulation to limit abuses of freedom on the part of industry and individuals. That he should present the most pressing social conflicts of Europe as a contest between individual (or industrial) liberty and government regulation is therefore reasonable. For Mill to condemn industry or industrial practice would have been absurd. Steeped as he was in logic, reason, and utilitarianism, he would have relied heavily on quantitative measures of the working class quality of life when determining the merits of industrialization. Period author Thomas Babington Macaulay, in â€Å"A Review of Southey’s Colloquies†, cites numerous facts and figures to show that life in industrial England was improving for everyone, even the factory workers, because a rising tide floats all boats. He cites the poor rates as determined by the tax rolls of 1825 and 1828, and also the mortality rate in the industrial centers. Whereas Engels and Southey relied heavily on qualitative statements to paint a picture of working class life, Macaulay is purely quantitative. He does not attempt to argue that the working classes have equal advantages or opportunities, but bases his entire argument on the fact that the proletarian situation, while not idyllic, i s better than it was before industrialization. Nay, the rate of mortality in those three great capitals of the manufacturing districts is now considerably less than it was fifty years ago, over England and Wales, taken together, open country and all. We might with some plausibility maintain that the people live longer because they are better fed, better lodged, better clothed, and better attended in sickness, and that these improvements are owing to that increase of natural wealth which the manufacturing system has produced. [16] Citing Neil McKendrick, Sir John Plumb, Roy Porter, and John Brewer, Tim Blanning describes an increase in the standard of living across all classes, at least in terms of material goods. â€Å"What in the past had been seen as luxuries now became ‘decencies’ and what had been decencies now became necessities†. [17] In addition, the bourgeoisie now had money to invest. Speculation, previously the province of the independently wealthy, was now accessible to tradesmen and shop owners. The influx of uninformed, relatively unsophisticated investors to the market, combined with the expansion of European economic interests, made it easy for frauds to wipe out unsuspecting investors. John Law’s Mississippi Bubble of 1719 helped bankrupt the French monarchy, and the South Sea Bubble of 1720 bankrupted many British investors. [18] Mill would have seen the demise of the East India Trading Company first-hand, and as an MP from 1865 through 1868, he would have seen the result of the Opium Wars which began in 1839 to protect a British company’s monopoly on the Chinese opium trade. How he would have voted on the 1970 bill to condemn the opium trade is unknown. Sir Wilfred Lawson’s bill was soundly defeated 151 to 47 due to the huge taxes made by the drug sales [19]. Yet this is the environment in which Mill operated. People fought and died for British commerce and British industrial and economic interests. Also, in the not too distant past, philosophers s uch as Mill had been put to death for daring to speak their minds, especially on the subject of religion. To Mill, the conflict between the interests of the individual and that of the state was a life-or-death struggle, and freedom of speech and thought were the most fundamental liberties and the most deserving of protection. The troubles of the working class, removed as they were from his daily life, would have been just as academic to him as Utilitarianism would have been to a workers in Engels’s father’s factory. Ultimately, the authors created their definitions of liberty based on what they themselves understood and valued. Their understandings, and their values, came out of their own personal experience. That both authors’ definitions of liberty are supported by both primary and secondary sources is evident. Yet both Mill’s position and the Marxist position are dialectical enough to be both supported and refuted by primary sources. So the fact that Mill and the writers of the Manifesto lived in different worlds with radically different influences does not discredit the world view of either. The question as to which definition of liberty best suits the social and economic issues of the times therefore depends on which world view, and which set of values, best aligns with the reader’s own point of view. Endnotes [1] Morgan, Michael L. (ed). Classics of Moral and Political Theory. p. 1158; Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co. 1992. [2] ibid. p. 1043 [3] ibid. p. 1042 [4] ibid. p. 1159 [5] Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. From The Collected Works of Marx and Engels. International Publishers, Inc., 1975. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., 1992. See Morgan, op. cit. [1], p.1195 [6] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. From 1869 4th ed., Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., 1992. See Morgan, op. cit. [1], p. 1047 [7] ibid. p.1078 [8] Marx, op. cit. [5] p. 1207 [9] Kant, Immanuel. Grounding on the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by James W. Ellington. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co., 1981. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., 1992. See Morgan, op. cit. [1], p.1032. [10] Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in England. (1845). Translated by W.O. Henderson and W.H. Chaloner (1958). Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Penguin Books of Canada, Markham, Ontario, 1962. pp. 1625-33. [11] Southey, Robert. Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society. (1829). Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Penguin Books of Canada, Markham, Ontario, 1962. p. 1622. [12] Hufton, Olwen. The Prospect Before Her: A History of Women in Western Europe 1500-1800. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1996. p. 175 [13] Blanning, Tim. The Pursuit of Glory: The Five Revolutions That Made Modern Europe 1648-1815. Penguin Books, New York, NY. 2007. p.126 [14] The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Penguin Books of Canada, Markham, Ontario, 1962. p. 1625. [15] Morgan, op. cit. [1], p. 1042-43. [16] Macaulay, Thomas Babington. A Review of Southey’s Colloquies. Published in The Edinburgh Review, 1830. Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Penguin Books of Canada, Markham, Ontario, 1962. p. 1621. [17] Blanning, op. cit. [13], p. 137 [18] Ferguson, Niall. The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2008. pp.152-157 [19] Hanes, W. Travis III., Sanello, Frank. The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another. Sourcebooks, Inc. USA, 2002. pp.293-294. Bibliography Blanning, Tim. The Pursuit of Glory: The Five Revolutions That Made Modern Europe 1648-1815. New York, NY: Penguin Books. 2007. Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in England. (1845). Translated by W.O. Henderson and W.H. Chaloner (1958). Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Markham, ON: Penguin Books of Canada. 1962. Ferguson, Niall. The Ascent of Money: a Financial History of the World. New York: Penguin Books. 2008. Hanes, W. Travis III., Sanello, Frank. The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another. USA: Sourcebooks, Inc. 2002. Hufton, Olwen. The Prospect Before Her: A History of Women in Western Europe 1500-1800. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1996. Kant, Immanuel. Grounding on the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by James W. Ellington. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co., 1981. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., 1992. Macaulay, Thomas Babington. A Review of Southey’s Colloquies. Published in The Edinburgh Review, 1830. Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc. Markham, ON: Penguin Books of Canada. 1962. Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. From The Collected Works of Marx and Engels. International Publishers, Inc., 1975. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis/Cambridge: 1992. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. From 1869 4th ed., Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis/Cambridge. 1992. Morgan, Michael L. (ed). Classics of Moral and Political Theory. p. 1158; Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co. 1992. Southey, Robert. Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society. (1829). Reprinted in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Markham, ON: Penguin Books of Canada. 1962. The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 5th ed., vol. 2. W.W. Norton Co., Inc., Markham, ON: Penguin Books of Canada. 1962.

Nazi Germany And The World War I - 1265 Words

The Second World War had changed the future of the world. Almost every county in the world participated in this war. The world divided into two parts and fought each other. The allied powers against the Axis powers. The leader of the axis powers that includes Italy, Japan, and Germany. The Germany were defeated by the British and French in world war one so the new leader of Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler became allies with two countries the fascist Italy and the militarized Japan. At the beginning the whole world didn’t take the new leader of Nazi Germany very seriously, the United States of America did not want to be involved in European matters , and the united kingdom did not thought that the Nazi Germany will start another war because of†¦show more content†¦But because of all that his army force was weakened. Mussolini planned to re-create the Roman Empire, and lead Italy to greatness but in fact, the country was in bad situations, like national poverty and scientific -industrial weakness and resource dearth. On the other hand, in Germany the Nazi party rise to power and the leader was Adolf Hitler. When Nazi party rise to power, Adolf Hitler become the leader of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini share similar ideology, and similar goals. On 22 MAY 1939 the fascist Italy and Nazi Germany signed an agreement known as pact of steel. Pact of steel was a military and political alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. At the begging the Empire of Japan was part of the agreement but Japan wanted to focus more on the Soviet Union but Italy and Germany wanted to focus on Franc and Britain . Due to the disagreement Japan didn’t join the alliance until September 1940. After the agreement was signed, Mussolini didn’t want to start the war immediately due to his army weakness, he want more time to rearm his military force. But Hitler have another plans. On August 23 1939, Hitler singed a Nonaggression pact with Soviet Union, in

Toxic Waste Negative Effects - 3059 Words

Toxic Waste - Negative Since the time man has grown accustomed to manufacturing goods, toxic waste has been an issue to our quality of life, and the surrounding natural environment. While the degree has not always been understood as to what effects toxic waste can have, there is no excuse in the present. Methods of disposing toxic waste in the past have shown the negative impacts such waste can have on the health of humans, wildlife, and nature in general. Without proper mitigation, and methods of dealing with the issue at hand, the situation will only continue getting worse in the future. There is a significant array of environmental issues affected by toxic waste. Toxic waste refers to things that are products not just of dangerous production materials, but also of all sorts of products in the environment. Major products in the environment include plastic products, batteries, computer equipment, leftover paints, and pesticides. These different items contribute negatively to the environment through p rocesses such as groundwater infiltration, or if the items themselves become buried in the ground. In these ways, the products enter into the ground and become an integrated part of the environmental system, creating negative impacts on the entire environment. Toxic waste can come from places we may not expect it. The production of Greek yogurt uses four ounces of milk for every one ounce of the final product. The other three ounces become acid whey, a wasteShow MoreRelatedWaste Pollution Essay : The Environmental Effects Of Waste Solution?1132 Words   |  5 Pagesthe ocean. Waste disposal is an important environmental issue at hand. Without a major change, it can hurt the earth and the people who live on the planet and even the environment. What many people fail to realize is the effect that they have on the planet. If they don’t take care of it can lead to many detrimental effects. In this report, it will cover firstly what waste disposal is. Secondly how it affects every day people, and how it can harm the environment. Thirdly what kinds of waste is out thereRead MoreE Waste And Its Impact On The Environment1749 Words   |  7 PagesWilliam Holmes Ecology 11/24/2015 E-Waste and its Impact on the Environment Electronic waste, also known as e-waste, is comprised of the electronic devices that are discarded by the individuals either for the purpose of recycling or salvaging. E-waste is found to be remained untreated in the developing countries due to their lack of recycling ability and thus, it incorporates the prevalence of environmental issues in the developing countries, which eventually impacts the global environment in a broaderRead MoreEnvironmental Issues Of Environmental Justice1746 Words   |  7 Pagesdominant group and the abuse of weaker minorities. The effect of these privileges and biases are only one of the reasons that landfill and high pollution projects seem to be located in mainly minority inhabited areas. Throughout history, environmental discrimination has been seen in the development of environmentally harmful sites, including  waste disposal,  factories, and power plant facilities. An extremely large number of minority communities host waste-management projects such as incinerators, landfillsRead MoreThe Subjugation Of The African American Race879 Words   |  4 PagesAmerican Race: Living in Poverty/ Health Effects In America, it is to no surprise that a large percentage of the African American race has and still is struggling financially. Many African-Americans are subjected to live in poorer areas where sanitation isn’t as heavily emphasized compared to more prosperous neighborhoods. Due to this blatant divide there has been many detrimental effects this has to minority communities. In specificallyRead MoreEnvironmental Racism : Environmental Discrimination1677 Words   |  7 PagesBalogun Grace Dr. McCray Sociology 210 August 28, 2017 Environmental Racism Environmental racism refers to the inappropriate exposure of low-income or minority individuals to heavy chemicals, pollution, toxic wastes, pesticides, and, most importantly, clean air. According to Bullard, environmental racism refers to racial discrimination in environmental policy making, decision making, and/or any practice which results in equitable distribution of environmental burdens borne by society and based onRead MoreThroughout The Course Of The Years, The World Has Been1306 Words   |  6 Pagesaffected by many detrimental factors. Many of these detrimental factors include fossil fuels and pollution are having a negative impact on our planet. Luckily, engineers have developed new and innovative technology that can potentially help lessen pollution and other detrimental factors. Green technology has the immense potential to generate a new method to help produce a less toxic environment ( What Is Green Technology ). Our world is slowly decaying as a result of our human a ctions everyday. YetRead MoreEnvironmental Effects Of Plastics : Environmental And Environmental Impacts1083 Words   |  5 PagesEnvironmental Impacts Production and disposal of plastic can have significant environmental and economically impacts. During production, energy and resources are wasted and toxic chemicals are released into the air. Disposal of waste causes air, soil, and land pollution and harm to wildlife. The manufacturing process of plastic produces solid waste, air emissions and waterborne emissions. The raw materials used in creating plastic are derived from oil and natural gas. These are fossil fuels, which produce carbonRead MoreCorporate Environment Responsibility1563 Words   |  7 Pagesunfriendly practices in the world. During production, there are a number of environmental problems; CEMEX has a number of policies and procedures in place to combat their significant environmental impacts; but the damage to the environment and their negative impact on stakeholders is significant, and because of this, the benefits of CEMEX’s positive contributions are often over shadowed. The case against CEMEX. In 2006, CEMEX displayed a lack of commitment to stakeholders, when they were fined aRead MoreFracking And Its Effects On The Environment856 Words   |  4 Pagespermitted because of the harmful effects on the atmosphere. Likewise, some states in the US agree despite the fact that others disagree with this point of view. Fracking can be described as the process used to remove natural gas located beneath the ground. In order to successfully acquire the valuable gas that can replace other sources of energy; water, sand, and unknown chemicals are sent under the ground through a pipe. The purpose is to create enough pressure with this toxic solution to make the gasRead MoreThe Gadget Graveyard By Matt Wade1194 Words   |  5 Pagesmass producing electronics, we have also been mass producing e-waste which has been shipped off to foreign countries, most prominently India. For less than minimum wage, Indian workers scavenge through toxic e-waste to find valuable pieces inside of the waste. As a result, many human rights of the people in India are affected. This paper will investigate to what extent the human rights of these people in India are affected by poor e-waste management In the news review â€Å"The Gadget Graveyard†, Matt

Sociological Theory free essay sample

Compare and contrast the views of three appropriate sociological perspectives to an area of social life of your choosing. Why do we act the way we do? Does the mass media really affect the way a people in a society behave? Sociologists focus on the environment and the social aspects of human behaviour in order to answer questions like these when studying a particular society. A society is defined as a large social group that shares the same geographical territory and is governed by the same political authority and cultural expectations. Culture is defined as the shared values of a society such as language, beliefs and ways of doing things (Burton, 2013, online). When looking at a society there are many different sociological perspectives that can be used, and as people can interpret identical things in different ways more than one perspective could be used at any time. These perspectives include: Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism, Interactionism and Postmodernism. In this paper I will be comparing and contrasting the Marxist, Functionalist and Postmodernist perspectives and applying them to analysing the effect of the mass media upon society. Is the mass media used as a way of controlling society? To begin with I will discuss what is meant by the term mass media, I will then briefly outline the principles of the three perspectives before comparing and contrasting their strengths and weaknesses. Finally I will analyse the effect the mass media has upon societies by applying the principles of these three perspectives. Mass media refers to the various media technologies that are used to communicate with the larger, socially mixed audiences. The technologies through which this communication takes place comes in many forms, including broadcast, print, outdoor and digital forms of media and each of these has their own ways of mass communication. Broadcast media would include radio, music, film and television. Print media would include newspapers, magazines, books, leaflets and comics. Outdoor media would include billboards, placards, signs, blimps and skywriting. Digital media would include all forms of communication on the internet as well as all mobile communication. These are just a few of the hundreds of forms of mass communication that are used daily and worldwide (Wikipedia, 2013, online). All sociological perspectives come in many forms and can all be interpreted differently, however the basic principles remain the same even with adaption for modern society. Marxism was introduced by Karl Marx (1818-1883). The principle is that society is divided into two classes, the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class). Marx fought for the self-emancipation of the proletariat. He believed that the ruling class stayed in power by exploiting the working class. He also claimed that the ruling class use institutions such as the media, the education system and religion to socialise individuals into believing this inequality is normal and natural. Marx wanted the working class to take back power and destroy the ruling class (Blunden, 2013, online). Marx’s theories led to the creation of neo Marxism. Weber (1864-1920), considered the ghost of Marx (Burton, 2013, online), although agreeing with Marx’s theories adapted them with the belief that social classes were shaped by power and status (Ask Jeeves, 2013, Online). The Marxist theory has many strengths including that it looks at society as a whole, recognising all the forces involved. It also considers the different power interests each societal group has. Strength to this theory is that recognises that society is organised under capitalism and stresses the role of class struggle. One final strength is that this theory can be good when explaining conflict and change within society. However with these strengths also come weaknesses, for example the Marxist theory cannot be used to explain some phenomena such as those people from working class backgrounds that have a lot of money. The biggest weakness this theory offers is that it ignores other factors that may help to shape society (Wiki Answers, 2013, Online). Functionalism was introduced by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who is considered by many intellectual thinkers to be the founder of modern sociology. The main principle of functionalism is that each part of a society is interdependent and contributes towards making society work as a whole. Each of these parts has to be working correctly but if something does go wrong then society has mechanisms to deal with them, such as the police and the legal system. Functionalists also believe that every social institution has many important functions to perform (Burton, 2013, online). Durkheim introduced the theory ‘anomie’, or ‘lack of social norms’, that could cause instability or chaos. This concept bought to light many instances that could affect a society in a negative way and especially the behaviour of individuals towards one another (Emile Durkheim org, 2013, online). Another concept put forward by Durkheim â€Å"the sum of all of its parts is larger than the whole†, defined at the introduction of the structural/functionalist theory, is as relevant today as it was when first introduced (Gamble, 2008, Online). Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) is one example of how Durkheim’s theories have lasted through the ages because his theory of ‘anomie’ was taken directly from Durkheim’s perspective and still remains a major theory in the structure of society, both in criminal justice and sociology (cited in Grossman, 2013, Online). The functionalist theory has a few strengths including that it explains all parts of a society have a role, thus if one is affected the other parts will be affected too. Strength is that it claims there is a general consensus of values and norms within a society. However this could also be classed as a weakness in that this theory claims that every individual agrees on the values and norms in that society. The biggest weakness this approach has is that it sees no problem with inequality in a society and may in fact promote this inequality (hrsbstaff, 2012, Online). Interactionism, also known as symbolic interactionism, was introduced to American sociology in the 1920s by George H. Mead (1863-1931), but its origins can be traced back even further than that (cited in Cliffs Notes, 2013, Online). The main principle of interactionism is the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean and how individuals interact with each other (Cliffs Notes, 2013, Online). This perspective suggests that people attach meanings to these daily symbols and act according to their interpretation of those symbols. This leads interactionists to look at how individuals act in relation to these symbols and to determine what meanings an individual gives to their own individual actions and symbols as well as how they interpret other individual’s actions and symbols. Interactionists reduce people’s behaviour to simple acts depending on the symbols and details they interact with, however they fail to take into account the influence of social forces and institutions on individual’s behaviour (Cliffs Notes, 2013, Online). The interactionism theory has strengths as well as weaknesses. Its strengths include how it takes free will and the choices individuals make as well as how they behave. This approach can also give great insight into the small scale interactions between individuals. Some of the theory’s weaknesses include the fact that the interpretation of some symbols could be incorrect, as well as not being able to explain where people get the meanings or these symbols from. It ignores the idea of socialisation. It also does not explain how social order is created or how disorder is dealt with (Wiki Answers, 2013, Online). Although each of these approaches is unique in the way they study a society they do have similarities or shared theories as well as differences. Marxists like functionalists believe it is possible to understand society scientifically and that the findings from this could benefit society. These two theories both offer a macro sociological explanation of society, meaning they look at society as a whole rather than looking at the individuals within a society (Quintessence, 2010, Online). Another similarity between these two approaches is that they both believe human behaviour is directed by external forces, functional forces for functionalism and economic forces for Marxist (Manthew, 2010, Online). The main difference between these two approaches is that for Marxists the fundamental processes of society are competition and conflict rather than cooperation for the good of the whole like the functionalists view. Whereas the interactionism theory is in contrast to these other approaches, firstly, in that it is a micro sociological explanation of society, meaning that the interactionist approach looks at individuals and does not concern itself with the broader questions concerning society as a whole. The functionalist theory also believes human behaviour is directed by internal forces, dependent on an individual’s perception of the symbols around them (nelli625. 2003, Online). These three sociological approaches have different views on the effect the mass media has upon society. At some point in a person’s daily life they will come across some form of mass media, be it at school, work or just walking down the street. I have already covered the many types of mass media used in everyday life, but does this media have an effect on the way people in society behave? Is the mass media a tool used to control the masses? Marxists would say yes to these questions. In the eyes of a Marxist all forms of mass media are controlled by the rich and powerful and are tools used to control how the masses behave. Marxist would say that the mass media are a sign of a capitalist society and stand in the way of social change. Individuals are socialised to accept the way of the ruling class and the mass media contributes to this socialisation. From a Marxist perspective the majority of the mass media outlets are owned by a small number of people, so the media presented is more likely to represent the ideas of the owners and any form of media that opposes their views will be hard to locate. The mass media provide the public with a bias view of events taking place (Beckett, 2013, Online). The Marxist would say the mass media only broadcast what they want you to know, so for example if there is a particular bill going through in parliament regarding violence in society and reforms to sentencing then the media would start printing or showing more stories regarding violence to push the public into supporting the bill. Marxists believe the mass media serves as a way to reinforce the distance and discord between the rich and the working class, rather than promoting social harmony (Knight, 2012, Online). In the ideas of a Marxist the mass media does not reflect public opinion but in fact actively help to form it. They encourage the public to accept a ruling class ideology (Beckett, 2013, Online). From the Functionalists perspective the mass media has four basic functions for society, monitoring the environment in order to provide information, correlating responses to this information, entertainment and sharing culture with multiple people at one time (socialisation). Charles Wright (1959) also outlined manifest (apparent) or latent (non-apparent) and dysfunctional functions of the mass media. Wright suggested with this outline that when the media notify the public to a risk they are serving their news function but if a panic ensues this is also then a dysfunction (cited in McAwesome, 2007, Online). Functionalists may also be concerned with how this mass media serves in the maintenance of social stability (Knight, 2012, Online). Functionalists believe the mass media has taken on the role of maintaining the status quo of society. In this respect the mass media could also be an initiator of socially organised action with the use of amplification. However there is still the fact that as the mass media outlets are supported or owned by great businesses the broadcasted media is geared into the current economic system and the maintenance of this system. This is done through advertisement, censored stories and failure to raise awareness about the structure of society (uky, 2013, online). The Interactionism theory attempts to analyse the contribution the mass media has on not only the shaping of behaviour between members of a society but also to creating understandings of these shared meanings. Interactionists also seek to understand the growing use of mass media on a daily basis and how this shapes members of a society further (Knight, 2012, Online). A symbolic interactionist would say the mass media has a huge effect on society, or rather the individual members of a society. For example there has been a significant increase in the amount of violence shown on the television, in the papers or talked about on radio shows and this mass exposure to violence has now changed the way people perceive violence. The interactionism view is that the many forms of mass media have desensitised the public to things such as violence because of constant exposure and that through this desensitisation we as a society now see certain forms of violence, that where once frowned upon, as normal and common place. However a problem with seeing the mass media and its effects from just this perspective is that the individualist accepts that not every individual perceives all symbols the same so therefore would not react in the same way to the mass media’s amplification of violence. The interactionist would say the mass media ultimately effects individual’s behaviour by altering a society’s values and norms person by person (Lowell, 2011, Online).