Legal And Ethical Issues In Robotics

With the development of the technology over the past decade the Robotics has become one of conversational subject areas. As a result of mankinds ultimate innovations and accomplishments regarding to the Robotics, the social, ethical and professional norms have been affected in both positive and negative manner. Therefore, identify and analyze issues which might occur when implementing robot technologies an important and contemporary need.

According to the VEX Robotics, Inc. (2012) the robotics is the science and technology which is used for inventing, accumulating, manufacturing and information processing of robots. With the robots, the tasks which are performed by humans can be automated in order to gain higher effectiveness and efficiency. “A robot is an electronic device controlled by a program and able to carry out tasks of various kinds-it is a machine made to perform that humans might otherwise do” (Wilson, C. 2007). In the current society robots are used in many different areas like education, entertainment, surgery, surveillance, military, farming, factories etc. The robots are capable of performing tasks accurately, high quality, speedily, safely than human beings and also they can perform dangerous tasks without much effort. Thus the robots and related robot technology provide various advantages for human lives and society with its technology.

Currently robots are used to handle sensitive, critical and complex surgeries in accurate and effective manner. The robots are capable of performing surgeries with less pain, miniaturization, decrease blood loss, smaller incisions and quicker healing time. Unlike human surgeons these machines can perform tasks more smoothly with fewer side effects. It is true when there are fewer side effects patients’ lives will not get negatively impacted in the future after having a surgery. With the use of robots the surgeries can be done remotely, anywhere in the world without requiring the presence of a surgeon. This is very useful when handling surgeries where the surgeon and patient are not in the same geographical location. The technology made specialized surgeons to be accessed globally at anywhere in the world. Thus the robot science enhances the flexibility and availability of the medical field.

Although Robots provide numerous benefits for human beings, on the other hand it might lead to create several ethical issues which may affect the patient’s condition negatively. Will people like to get treated from a soulless, emotionless machine? Most of the people will not like to get treated from robots because those machines don’t have any idea or impression about the patient’s situation. Valuable human qualities like sensitiveness and carefulness is unforeseeable from robots. Another main issue is robots will not get trusted like a human surgeon. But in these cases patients are forced to trust on a machine. Thus, trust and freedom ethical principles are getting invaded. Robots are created by assembling heavy metal arms and other metal gadgets. Occasionally patient will get scared after seeing the robot because its appearance is not pleasant and familiar like a human surgeon. The situations like this might impact negatively for the patient’s condition. During a surgery, if machine gets malfunctioned or misused who will take the responsibility? The soulless, emotionless machine cannot take the responsibility like a specialized, well experienced surgeon. Thus moral responsibility and liability ethical principles are invaded. The researchers at the Harvard University has developed tiny organic DNA robot device to destroy cancer cells by sending important molecular instructions to infected cells (Mowatt 2012). This is significant invention in robot technology which can provide greatest benefit for human being by saving thousands of lives. Although these types of robot devices provide remarkable advantages, the technology can be misused. For an example if robot collected data (DNA) is used for further researchers or tests without having permission from the owner might leads to raise several privacy and security issues.

DNA is strictly sensitive and confidential information of an individual where characteristics of a person can be fully exposed by analysing information. According to the Data Protection Act UK 1998 the information must be kept secure and must not be routed in any mode incompatible with the original use. When the data about a patient’s health is used for further researches without their knowledge, the Data Protection Act will get violated.

Under the Public Interest section, British Computer Society (BCS) code of conduct defines to IT professionals that “have due regard for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment”. When robots are used as surgeons, the professionals who design those robots should concern about public health and wellbeing because it will be used to treat humans. Robots actions are very important during a sensitive and complex surgery as human life will depend on the tasks done by robot. Therefore professionals who design robots should accept the professional responsibility of their creation or design.

In present robots are used for military purposes in many countries because it reduces the number of human involvement by saving lives in war. According to the article written by Marchant, G.E. et al. (2011) there are number of robots used for several wars. For an example U.S. military used unmanned aerial vehicles for unmanned air attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries. Further the article mentions that self-directed robots may be able to act more effectively than human beings because they can be designed without emotions, able to act independently, conservatively and also can process more information. When looking at the theoretical perspective according to the Deontological theory killing is wrong as destroying human life, freedom and property is not a right action. But the consequences of the action will be positively impacted on the massive number of people. Because of that from the perspective of Consequentialist theory the war can be a right action.

Although robots provide various advantages for military purposes, on the other hand several ethical principles will raise. War is something about killing people and destroying their property. Human lives and property will get severely impacted though use human soldiers or robots. As a result of that right to life, liberty and security ethical principles are getting invaded. Sometimes war can be very unethical when one party uses military unmanned vehicles and other party use humans as soldiers. The situations like that become a war between humans and machines. The value of the human life will be compared with the value of soulless, emotionless machine. Human life is precious because once it lost we can’t have it back. But once a machine damaged or malfunctioned, it can be repaired or replaced by another machine. Human life cannot be regenerate or replaced like robots and it is valuable gift. When using military unmanned vehicle robots against human soldiers, the value of human life will be degraded in front of those metal machines. Thus human recognition and dignity ethical principles are getting invaded.

The Public Interests section in BCS Code of Conduct mentions that IT professionals should have care for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment. When robots are used in wars human lives, privacy and security will be invaded and as a result of that public interest section of the code of conduct is getting violated. Avoiding injuring others, their property by false or malicious action or inaction is mentioned under Professional Competence and Integrity section of BCS Code of conduct. When robots are used to destroy human life and property in wars, the associated code of conduct is invaded.

In wars, human life and property will be severely damaged and destroyed. According to the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone has the right to life and protection of property. Thus destroying human life and their properties in war will violate the act. The article 5 in Human Rights Act mentioned that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. When war destroys human lives by depriving people’s liberty and protection that will also violates the Human Rights Act.

Tracking someone via a robot equipped with surveillance camera can create both positive and negative issues in society. For an example tracking a criminal or terrorism suspicious person by authorized party to expose drug trafficking information and many more illegal activities can be identified as positive effects while secretly spying a person with intent to cause or harm is a negative effect.

On the other hand, the privacy and freedom can get invaded when use robots to track whereabouts of an individual as these robots are capable of secretly spying without user’s knowledge by hiding itself. According to the article written by Hambling (2011), the Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Laboratories has developed a robot which is capable of spying at night, hide itself when hear footsteps of an unseen guard and move again when the road is clear. Using a robot like this for tracking can be very harmful because it cannot be easily detected. When an individual is tracked or monitored by using surveillance robot wherever that person moves will be notified to a third party and that may leads to affect privacy, security and freedom of that individual. When a third party is more knowledgeable about an individual, that person can be easily controlled or blackmailed. Thus individual’s freedom, autonomy and privacy rights are getting affected. Spying or tracking might not only be a risk for the person who is subject to spying but also the people that person interacts or having relationships with. If the tracker has the intention of harm to person’s life, the family, relations and the society around that person might get negatively impacted.

Under the Public Interest section, BCS code of conduct defines that IT professionals should have due regard for public privacy and security. When the unethical tracking is performed through a surveillance robot, the tracker breaks the public interest section of the code of conduct. Avoiding injuring others, their property by false or malicious action or inaction is characterized under Professional Competence and Integrity section of BCS Code of conduct. If the tracker does tracking with the intention of harm to an individual’s life or their property, according to the professional rules the action is guilty. Tracking a person secretly can provide inappropriate ethical, religiously and politically offensive results which may be viewed as the violations of Human Rights Act UK 1998.

Currently robots are used by most industries in their manufacturing processes because it is capable of generating accurate, reliable and high quality products when compared to human workers. Robot’s actions are controlled by programmed computer application or electronic circuit. As a result of that there is a low probability of generating inaccurate outputs unless machine gets malfunctioned. “Due to its mechanical nature and computerized control, a robotic arm can carry out a repetitive task with great precision and accuracy, thus providing improved, consistent product quality” (Bengtson, H. 2010). Unlike robots, human workforce gets tired and bored when carrying out repetitive tasks under long time periods and as a result that the efficiency of generating output will get degraded. When the efficiency of production gets low, the number profits made by company will become low automatically. The mechanical approach and automated control made manufacturing robots more efficient and speedy which redirects business into higher production rate where company can attain competitive advantage than with human workforce. There are some manufacturing industries where humans are required to work at uncomfortable and dangerous environments like defusing bombs, mixing chemical ingredients, attaching equipments under higher temperature etc. But robots will not get impacted by these environmental conditions as humans. Companies can purchase most suitable robots for their working environment and manufacturing process. Thus manufacture will get benefited greatly by reducing costs involve in production process through replacing human workforce by automated robot workforce. When looking at the shareholders perspective, replacing current workforce by robots will leads to make more profits for them as overall efficiency in production gets increased. Thus shareholders are greatly benefited by using robots in manufacturing processes. Consumers will able to experience accurate, reliable and high quality products because of robot workforce.

Although robots will maximise productivity by reducing costs, this might leads to create serious social issues like unemployment, employee relationships and attitudes towards to the work. When current workforce is replaced by robots the employees will become jobless. According to the studies carried out by American Psychological Association (2009), 78% of Americans reporting money as a significant source of stress. The stress created as a result of unemployment will not only affect negatively for an individual but also individual’s family and well-being. The trouble of unemployment can also affect unexpected conclusions for children like sicknesses, distress and depressive symptoms. The unemployment will also create social divide within society by increasing the gap between families with children that both parents are get paid and families with children both parents are not get paid. This is terrible social issue which has indirect relationship on poverty and inequality. When poverty within a society gets increased, there is a high probability of increasing illegal activities like burglary, theft, fraud etc. According to the researches carried out by Carmichael and Ward (2000), there were high accretion in burglary, theft and robbery in 1992, 1993 and 1994 years because overall rates of youth and adult men unemployment get increased during those years. The article illustrate in 1989, 1990 and 1991 the youth unemployment rate varied between 12-18 per 100,000 population and total number of crimes were about 6562.7, 7845.8 and 9213.7. Between 1992 and 1994 the youth unemployment rate has increased and varied between 21.94 -19.5 per 100,000 population and total number of crimes were about 9816.8, 9727.5 and 9234.0. According to the statistics there was a visible increment of crime activities along with the growth of unemployment. It is true there is a fine impact on illegal activities with unemployment and poverty of a society. When human workforce is replaced by robots, there is a high possibility of amplifying illegal and crime activities in the society because of the increased unemployment population.

Robots in a workplace will also create negative impact on human relationships, employee attitudes towards to the work and employer. When human workforce replaced by robots, the faith that the employees have kept on the organization will be dented as employees will began to think the employer only concerned about the efficiency and productivity of the work not the relationships or friendly working environment. Thus employee attitudes towards to the work and employer will get negatively affected. Robots can’t be friendly or emotional like human workers and as a result of that there will not have a pleasant working environment filled with employee relationships. As robots are not able to communicate like humans the relationships and bonds among robots and rest of the employees will remain in a lowest level.

Actually it is hard to justify whether the work or individual life is more important but the employer is always responsible for protecting relationships and job security of employees. What will be the impact when employees are fired from job without prior notice and compensations? The situations like this will create pathetic condition around individuals and their families. However in the social perspective, organisations can validate the importance of the robot workforce relating it to rising productivity, efficiency and minimise the wastages.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, UK dismissing an employee without giving prior dismissal notice is illegal. The law also give right for employees to complaint the tribunal about unfair dismissal. Therefore employers are legally bound to take the responsibility of dismissing an employee.

Currently robots are mostly used as human companions for elderly and childish people. Assist elderly or disable people, clean household equipment are some of core functionalities of robot helpers. United Stated National Institute of Standards and Technology (US NIST) has developed a robot to help disabled people move around their home. This robot acts as a wheelchair but also gives a helping hand to get out of bed and get on and off other seats. The robots like this are really useful to overcome physical difficulties that are faced by disable people when performing day to day tasks. The Nuresebot, Pearl is another multi-disciplinary, multi-university effort aimed to provide assistance for elderly people at homes. This robot is capable of reminding elders about regular activities such as eating, drinking, taking medicine, using the bathroom, guiding them through their environments, calling for help if they fall and display messages on the screens for people with hearing loss (Carnegie Mellon University n.d.). Elders need more care and attention because they are more vulnerable to abuse and also physical changes in old age reduce the ability to conduct activities of daily living by maintaining independence. Robot helpers or robot companions mentioned above will be a fair solution for taking care of elders and protecting them by being abused. Using robots for taking care of elders and children is very helpful in current busy life styles. Unlike Asian countries, Europeans are not having strong relationships with their parents after get married or being matured. In a situation like that robot helpers would be a best solution where protection of elders is assured.

Although using robot helpers for elders is an effective, opportune solution this will leads to create several ethical issues. Elders will not able to get same experience and exposure like having companion with human being because these robots can’t gossip, share ideas, emotions and communicate like humans. Therefore robots will not able to fulfil the emptiness in old heart like a human companion and as a result of that human relationships will get negatively affected. When using robot companions for children, their personality, behaviour and attitudes will get impacted. The robot will do everything that child command without questioning. Then the child began to think everyone will do everything that command without questioning and he/she can get everything without any interference. Thus robot companions will lead to create drastic negative attitude and behavioural change in child. During the infant and child years, children grow quickly and tend to learn about the environment they are interacting with. Without having a proper guiding adult to teach and guide in to the right path, child personality will also get degraded. Soulless, emotionless and inexperienced robot will not able to teach values and norms associated with human lives. Parents are the most important character in child’s life and they are capable of understanding child’s needs than anyone does. Love, affection and caring are critical requirements for better growth and development in a child. A metal robot is not able to fulfil these emotional feelings which are unique to living beings. Thus effects on human relationships, human personality and changes in attitudes social issues are raised when using robots as human companions or home helper. “Experiences with touch, movement, voice sounds, and chances to see faces and their changing expressions– these seem to be essential contributors to emotional and mental development” (Mercer 2009). Without having these factors, the language development, ability to understanding in the child will be weakened and as a result of that child will become socially isolated.

Robots are expensive and everyone can’t get the technology experience because of its high price. That will create a digital divide in the society, where only rich people can have robot’s experience. According to the Public Interest section in BCS code of conduct, the professionals should support equal opportunities and benefits of IT by including all sectors in the society. When robots are unaffordable and cannot experience for every human being as equal, this will breaks the following BCS code of conduct.

Every technology has associated limits and vulnerabilities which may create severe negative impacts on individuals. Robots are reacting according to the limited set of tasks they are programmed into and any action that is out of the program might not be fulfilled. For an example a human companion that is programmed to take care of elderly or childish person might not be able to respond emergency situations like fire, explosion, theft etc. The situations like above can harm for people who are vulnerable to abuse. Elders are more vulnerable to abuse because physical changes appear with the age, made them to slow respond or inability of responding properly for actions. Children are also vulnerable like elders because they don’t have knowledge or experience to respond emergency situations like matured people. These vulnerable groups may tend to trust on robot machine because it will be the only companion they have to interact in most of their time. If machine gets malfunctioned, the life of these vulnerable groups will be in a danger. Thus the negative implications and possible risks which may arise when adopting technologies like robotics should be much concerned.

The individuals have to face both positive and negative Ethical, Social, Legal and Professional issues related to robot technology. The negative implications of robot should be clearly identified by IT professionals in order to make human lives more comfortable via secure information technologies while protecting ethical, social and legal rights of human being. By analysing and understanding both negative and positive impacts prior adopting technology may assist to reduce several issues which may arise related into robotics. In the conclusion, I recommend organisations and individuals to implement suitable policies when using new robotic inventions in their business and household that is transparent to ensure negative effects of the technology has been controlled and prevented.

Leder Conceptualisation Of The Absent Body Sociology Essay

In order to examine sociological theories of the body we need to know what sociology is and what its interests are. Sociology therefore can be defined as “the study of the social lives of humans, groups and societies”. Sociology’s main focus is of the social rules and processes that place humans in associations, groups, and institutions. (wordIQ.com, 2010) As can be seen with the definition through sociology’s development it has took a disembodied approach within its research. Traditional sociology has been seen to overlook the body and regarding it as merely as a way of gaining social control. Bodies were seen to lack social interest and when they were included in sociological research it was only the way that we externalise, objectify and internalise the institutes of society that was examined. However the body is arguably central in all sociology studies and over the past thirty years there has been a growing interest in the study of the body. (Shilling, C, 1993) One of the most important sociological debates that have been investigated is that of the relationship between the body and self-identity. Due to a rise in consumer culture there has been a growing increase on the amount of attention that individuals dedicate to their bodies. Consumer culture in the post-modern society that we now live in as placed emphasis on the “healthy” body through the help of the media. Today people are faced with images of the ideal, healthy body that they are expected to have. The rise in the cosmetic industry, the plastic surgery industry and the fashion industry are all products of consumer culture. (Featherstone, M, et al, 1991)

Leder therefore proposes his theory of the dys-appearing body. “Dys” is Greek prefix that suggests illness or a failure to function (dysfunctional). However Leder uses his term dys-appearance when talking about the reappearance of the body. For Leder the body will remain in the “corporeal background” for as long as it functioning properly. When our bodies act in a way that is not normal to us then we will be removed from the social world and will enter the limited world that is our bodies. There are different reasons that this can happen and the most obvious is pain. If we suddenly experience extreme pain we will shift out focus from the task that we were engaged in and all our focus will be on where the pain is coming from and finding a way to stop it. Strong emotions such as sadness or excitement can also make our bodies dys-appear as can unexpected sensations. Examples that Leder provides are when adolescents enter puberty and have their first period, or when a boy’s voice breaks. Both of these situations will cause the body to dys-appear as a feeling of anxiety and a fear of the unknown as common in this sort of situation. (Shilling, C, 1993)

Dys-appearances can range from being acute or chronic, they can be threatening or motivating and they can also be social. Social dys-appearance is where the body re-appears as a result of self-consciousness that comes from social situations. A prime example of this is when a person experiences embarrassment. This could lead to the individual being insure of themselves and will pull the body into the main focus of that individual. Social dys-appearance can be very problematic and can lead to illnesses such as eating disorders. If the person involved feels that their body is not what is socially classed as they “norm” they will try and fix this in order to return the body to the corporeal background. However this can be detrimental to their health if they go to extreme measures to achieve this. This can be seen in the rise of eating disorders in young girls, particularly those that are bullied as they are constantly trying to remove focus from their bodies. (Shilling, C, 1993) (mirror-mirror.org, 2010)

Chris Shilling has an alternative view from Leder with regards to the body and self. Shilling argues that we see the body as a project which can be worked upon and that the body is central to our self-identity. This is the opposing to Leder who sees self-identity as being latent. Shilling agrees with Anthony Giddens and argued that as a result of “high modernity” the body has become an object that can be gained through the increase of technologies and choices available to us. The body is open to the sensation that is fashion and that alone brings the body into great focus and allows for an extensive amount of choices to made with regards to the body. Again this is a differing view point from Leder as according to him the main interest of the body is to return it to the background, whereas choices such as fashion put lots of focus on the body. (Featherstone, M, 2000) (Gimlin, D, 2006)

There are two main characteristics of high modernity that Gidden’s (1991) argues has impacted on the growing idea of the body as a project. Firstly is that there has been a decline in grand narratives such as religion and politics which has led to a rise in individualism. Secondly is that the body is another means in which social control can be exerted. Bodies were generally just accepted in the past, but now the body is examined in terms of shape, size, colour and many more factors. Late modernity has been responsible for the rise in means of which people work on and gain their ideal bodies. Example of these means include, fashion, plastic surgery, diets and body care products. However these means may have negative effects and can lead to problems with the body which in turn makes people focus even more attention on them. If Leder’s theory is one-hundred per cent correct then people’s unhappiness with their bodies would mean that the body would very rarely be in the background. Rather it could be argued that with the amount of attention and time and money that is spent on our bodies it is clear that they are very much at the forefront of our attention. (Giddens, 1991).

However other sociologists argue that despite the opportunities and choices that are now available, aspects such as class and culture can be a main factor in the decisions we make regarding our bodies. Bourdieu (1978) studied Shilling’s theory of the body project in terms of class. He argued that those in the working class use their bodies as a tool and see them as a “means to an end”, whereas those in the middle and upper classes see their bodies as an “end in itself” (Gimlin, D, 2006 p.701). This is due to them having more opportunities to look after their bodies in comparison to those in the working class who use their bodies as a way of gaining capital. This again suggests that a lot of time is spent on (Gimlin, D, 2006).

Means of body management are largely available in today’s modern world. We are inundated with new types of diets, fashions to follow, ways to wear our hair and many more. However the cosmetic surgery industry is one of the most extreme options in achieving body management. With regards to body management Leder would argue that it is purely a means of eliminating bodily disappearance. Whereas Shilling would argue that it is a way of presenting our self-identities and that they are no real reasons for it other than wanting to work on the body. (Gimlin, D, 2006)

According to feminist sociologists, plastic surgery is often seen as oppressive for women and those who engage in it are seen as being victims to the patriarchal ideology. Kathy Davis however conducted research in Holland looking at women who have had breast augmentations and argued that rather than being victims, women see plastic surgery as a means of gaining control over their bodies. Davis argued that surgery “serves as an intervention of identity”. (Jefferys, S, 2005 p.16) That is, it is a means of women creating an alternative sense of self. Davis found that even when surgery wasn’t successful patients were still satisfied with the results. These points all relate to Shillings idea of the body as a project. These women feel that by constructing and changing their bodies they are gaining a moral imperative. In terms of Leder’s theory Davis’ research is also relevant. She argued that it allows for women to become embodied rather than feeling like they are constantly being objectified. By getting breast augmentations women were able to put their bodies back in to the background and avoid any unwanted attention that they were facing. For Leder plastic surgery is a means of reducing suffering that stems from appearances that are deemed unacceptable. (Jefferys, S, 2005) (Negrin, L, 2002)

Leder’s theory of the absent body has faced many criticisms for other sociologists. Shilling offers three main criticisms to Leder’s theory of the absent body. Firstly stating that while his theory of the body project emphasises the relevance of the body has to self-identity, Leder sees the body of being irrelevant to a person’s sense of self-identity. Secondly Shilling argues that Leder underestimates the growing phenomena of the body as a project and the work that people put into their bodies. The third criticism that Shilling proposes is that Leder ignores how social inequalities can influence people’s experiences of embodiment. Leder has also faced criticism from Nettleton and Watson (1998) for the idea that is the body is absent most of the time. This would therefore mean that there are limited amounts of time in which the body can be studied. However Leder recognises this and adds that there are many other time in the day which the body can dys-appear. For example when the body experiences hunger, thirst or tiredness. Leder also acknowledges that there are differing durations that disappearing can occur for. Leder recognises gender differences within his theory, arguing that women may experience more bodily dys-appearance than men. This can be the result of the social situations that women are exposed to and the pressure that is put on them to look a certain way. (Gimlin, D, 2006)

Therefore in conclusion it can be argued that Leder’s theory is accurate in certain aspects, such as the body being able to work successfully without us having any knowledge of it, or that in certain situations whether social situations or in moments of extreme pain or emotions the body does come to the very forefront of our attention and prohibits us from functioning in the tasks that we were previously engaged in. However it is arguably the centre of attention more frequently than what Leder would believe and Shillings theory therefore could be seen to be more fitting in modern day society. It is clear that everyday there is a certain amount of attention and time spent on the body. Whether is it only limited to the basics of having a shower, cleaning our teeth and brushing our hair everybody does it in order to be socially accepted. However there are many people who will take their bodily appearance more seriously and in turn spend lots of time and money achieving the looks that they deem as being socially acceptable. They are therefore using their body as a project and this could also relate to Leder’s theory as many people do this in order to fit in and feel comfortable, therefore keeping their body in the corporeal background. Therefore it can be seen that Leder’s theory of the absent body and Shilling’s theory are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Leadership ethics of legalizing marijuana

Introduction

Marijuana, also known as “weed”, “grass”, “bud”, or “pot”, is the second most commonly used “recreational” drug in America, behind only alcohol, a legal substance. The drug comes from the leaves of the hemp plant, “cannabis sativa”. It has a high concentration of the drug’s active ingredient, Tetrahydrocannabinols, also known as THC. While many users smoke the leaves of the plant to get “high” (psychologically impaired), studies show that marijuana has many legitimate medical uses. These uses include alleviating nausea due to chemotherapy, improving the severe weight loss of AIDS patients, and treating pain which may not respond to mainstream opoids such as Morphine.

Marijuana has been used throughout history for both medical and spiritual purposes. It has been used to relieve stress, reduce pain, and cure fatigue, however United States Federal Law classifies marijuana as a schedule I substance in the Controlled Substances Act. This act defines schedule I drugs as having three traits:

“The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” (Controlled Substances Act 2002)

This act does also define Tetrahydrocannabinols as a schedule I drug, thus making the possession of marijuana illegal under federal law.

However, some state governments have gone against the federal precedent and legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California was the first such state, under Proposition 215. However, even within these states, some counties may choose to not support the legalization. This had led to the arrest of many patients who may have unknowingly travelled into the wrong county.

Outside the United States, the legislation regarding marijuana possession and use is much less restrictive. Parts of Canada and several countries in Europe have legalized the use and possession of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes. The figure below shows several legalization levels for nations around the world. As one can see on the map, a majority of European nations as well as most of South America have decriminalized marijuana use whereas most of the United States are red, meaning marijuana is confirmed illegal.

There are three possible options for legalization, each with its own benefits, drawbacks, and ethical issues for our leaders. The three options are complete prohibition (US Federal Law), legalization of medicinal marijuana (California Law), and the complete legalization.

This paper seeks to not only analyze the three options for legalization (or prohibition), but more so to evaluate the issue’s implications for the ethical decisions of leaders. The issue of marijuana becomes an ethical issue when you consider the fact that prohibition of the drug also prevents patients from getting the aid they need. Leaders of the United States and any other government dealing with this issue need to consider the ethical implications of their decisions.

As discussed in Defining Moments, these decisions can be considered “right vs. right” decisions or decisions where both options seem to be “right”. In the case of marijuana legalization, leaders and lawmakers are considering the ethical weight of allowing patients the medicine they need or completely preventing the abuse of an “illicit” drug. Both decisions seem “right” in their own ways but the options exclusive of each other. This forces leaders to evaluate their own morality and utilize their ethical decision making capabilities to make a decision that, based on all ethical factors, they can consider “right”.

Through the examination of ethical, legal, and economic factors, this paper will reveal that the legalization of marijuana is the most “forward thinking” and ethical option for dealing with marijuana. However, in order to enact this change, transformational leaders who recognize the benefits and drawbacks of all options must be a part of the decision making process. The paper strives to reveal significant insight to the following question. Why do leaders choose to support or oppose the legalization of marijuana? Considering pertinent evidence, what option for the legalization of marijuana is most ethical? And, what type of leadership is necessary to do the right thing?

Leadership in Theory

Leadership ethics and the moral decisions they are forced to make have long been a topic of philosophers’ discussions. The way that leaders reveal themselves through their ethical decisions affects how their followers view them. Additionally, the morals which a leader portrays will be mimicked among much of the population. In this way, leaders have the power to mold the morals and views of those they lead. This power can be either beneficial or destructive to the leader’s power depending on how it’s utilized. Adolf Hitler used this power, for horrific purposes, to create a sense of extreme pride and nationalism which caused them to follow him somewhat blindly.

Plato, a Greek philosopher, argues that leaders must make ethical decisions based on the greater good of the people affected by the decision. That is, rule not with self interest, but the interest of your followers. This frames the analysis of the legalization decisions because, if leaders believe that the use of marijuana can benefit their citizens then, according to Plato, legalization is the morally “right” option. In The Ethics of Leadershipip, Joanne Ciulla provides a passage from Plato which states, “because our bodies are deficient rather than self sufficient, the craft of medicine has now been discovered. The craft of medicine was developed to provide what s advantageous for a body.” (Ciulla, 19) Therefore, if marijuana were proven to be a medicine it would then be considered by Plato advantageous to the citizens. Therefore, providing the ability for the suffering to get this medicine would be “good” leadership.

Ayn Rand would disagree with Plato, however. Rand argues that leaders must rule with their own self interest as their primary motivator. She says, “Accept the fact that the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness…is the proof of your moral integrity.” (Ciulla, 51) She believes that the pursuit of one’s self interests is indicative of their dedication to their morals and values and that, Rand argues, is the proof of your morality. This frames the analysis of the ethical implications of marijuana legalization, because, as Rand would argue, unless the leaders and lawmakers were somehow benefitting from legalization they should not choose to enact such laws, regardless of what others want and/or need.

However, there is one theory that seems to be key to enacting any sort of change in marijuana laws. The necessity for transformational leadership is vital to the cause of bringing about change. Transformational leadership is a type of leadership where leaders use their power to enact “valuable and positive” change in the people they lead. (Bass) This consideration is important for two reasons. First, in order to reform marijuana laws, transformational leaders will be needed to enact the changes. Secondly, these transformational leaders will be compelled to enact this change if they can see it as “valuable and positive”. So, if you consider this theory with Plato’s thoughts, the medicinal purpose of marijuana would be advantageous and, thus, the legalization of it would be a “valuable and positive” change because it would allow people to get the things their bodies need. So, for the sake of this evaluation, I will examine the presence (or absence) of transformational leaders.

Therefore, the framework for this paper will be the three theories of leadership that I have outlined in this section. For each “option” of legalization, I will discuss the ethical issues that leaders face when dealing with the question of legalizing the use of marijuana. I will also add discussion on each option with respect to each theory; Plato, Rand, and the idea of transformational leadership.

What this paper serves to prove is that, under the theoretical framework outlined in this section, the legalization of marijuana appeals to all three of the theories discussed above. So, under this framework, legalizing and taxing marijuana is the most feasible and potentially successful option. However, during this discussion, I will answer the questions of how each option of legalization discussed in this pertains to the three theories of Plato, Rand, and transformational leadership.

Option 1: Complete Prohibition

The first option I will discuss is the complete prohibition of the possession and use of marijuana for any purpose. This is how a large portion of the United States operates. Marijuana is considered “taboo” to mainstream culture, so its use outlawed. However, cannabis is still the second most used recreational drug in America. (Joy 1999)

Pros

Now, this does accomplish some important goals. First of all, it serves as a mode to limit the abuse of the drug. By criminalizing the possession and use of marijuana, law makers will deter some citizens from using the drug.

Many people do view this deterrence as a good improvement and they cite the harmful effects of smoke inhalation as their justification. One of the most popular argument is the effects that smoking marijuana has on the lungs.

As with inhaling any type of smoke, carcinogens in marijuana smoke can cause damage to the lungs and respiratory system. Tan argues, “Participants who had smoked at least 50 marijuana cigarettes but had no history of tobacco smoking were not at significantly greater risk for either outcome.” (The “outcomes” were respiratory symptoms and COPD) This statement suggests that smoking marijuana has similar effects on the respiratory system as smoking tobacco. Further, he says, “Those who had smoked both tobacco and marijuana had a significantly greater risk of COPD and respiratory symptoms.” (Tan, 2009) Tan is proving is that, while solely smoking marijuana is no more dangerous that smoking cigarettes, combining the two significantly increases the risk of respiratory issues. Therefore, the prohibitionists justify criminalization by claiming that the use and abuse of marijuana has degenerative effects on the lungs.

Another claim cannabis prohibitionists make to justify their stance is that marijuana use has addictive properties, similar to nicotine. They claim that marijuana addiction is a critical issue in the legalization discussion. Their main focus is the addictive effects on youth. In a study by Iain McGregor on the effects of THC injections on the brains and behaviors of adolescent and adult male rats, McGregor found that “adolescent brains are still maturing, and say they seem to be more vulnerable to THC” (“Youngsters”, 2007). The article cites that after the injections of THC, the adult rats avoided the injection area, however, the adolescent rats “showed no such aversion” (“Youngsters”, 2007). This observation, McGregor says, shows that the adult rats, contrary from the adolescent subjects, found the THC “unpleasant”. Since the test was set up to mimic human conditions under heavy cannabis usage, this would suggests that youths are more susceptible to becoming addicted to cannabis since they show no disdain for the effects of the drug. This conclusion is underscored by the fact that, according to the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, adolescent cannabis use is rising. This means that more youth are trying marijuana and, based on McGregor’s results, becoming addicted to the effects of THC.

Cons

However, the complete prohibition of marijuana, along with the arguments that prohibition supporters use to justify it, has flaws. One of the largest such drawbacks of prohibition is the matter of getting medicinal marijuana to patients. Additionally, marijuana has been shown to have preventative medicinal purposes. An experiment by Prof. Raphael Mechoulam showed that the use of marijuana can significantly slow the effects of Alzheimer’s Disease. In this experiment, Mechoulam’s team found that cannabinoids not only prevented cognitive decline, but also reduced the inflammation associated with the disease. Inflammation is normal says Gary Wenk of Ohio State University, however, “in some cases, this inflammation gets out of hand and causes serious damage” (“Pot May Help”, 2006). “There is a solid link between chronic inflammation in the brain and the progression of Alzheimer’s” Wenk says, but mentions that the anti-inflammatory properties of marijuana can help to prevent this. However, all of this is null if the drug is criminalized. Those with family histories of Alzheimer’s are forced to accept the onset of the disease because lawmakers deemed the drug “illicit”.

The justification, discussed above, of the prohibition of marijuana is also flawed. For example, the argument regarding the respiratory damage from marijuana is hypocritical. The study discussed above demonstrated that marijuana smoke is equally as destructive as tobacco smoke. Tobacco, however, is legal. So, how can the prevention of respiratory damage be a viable justification if you are not going to prevent the damage from an equally as dangerous substance?

Ethical Issues

These benefits and drawbacks of prohibition are part of the ethical struggle that leaders have to face. On one hand, prohibition does what iss morally right by protecting citizens from a harmful drug. However, the proof of the harmfulness of marijuana is light and many studies show it to be no more dangerous than other, legalized, substances. In 1988, then DEA Judge Francis L. Young said, “Marijuana is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man… safer than many foods we commonly consume” (Armento, 2009). So, if it is in fact safer than most foods and, at the very least, it has therapeutic benefits, why is there a need for it to be prohibited?

Additionally, the attempt to stop the use is failing. Youth usage levels are rising and the use of marijuana is not isolated to those states that have since legalized medical marijuana. In fact, marijuana usage is no regionally exclusive in this country. The map below shows the states with highest reported marijuana usage in the United States. The graph shows a rather even distribution across the countries, with high usage rates in the Northeast, West, and Midwest. This is a demonstration that the prohibition of marijuana is not successful.

In regards to leadership, the leaders supporting the prohibition of marijuana are “playing it safe” and staying with the “status quo.” No signs of transformational leadership are being demonstrated by lawmakers who aren’t striving for change, but instead leading to remain in power. This is despite the fact that data such as the figure above show that the citizens see marijuana as a positive and are yearning for change to the current laws. Transformational leaders would recognize this and work to enact this positive change in government. This means going against the status quo and transforming the legislation into something the people support.

The other side of the ethical debate over prohibition is that it limits the ability for patients to receive the medicine they need. I explained earlier how marijuana can be used as a preventative medicine to prevent Alzheimer’s and in later sections I will discuss, in further detail, the beneficial effects of medicinal marijuana. However, prohibition offers no permissions to patients to obtain the drug. Nor does it allow any judicial allowances to those arrested for the possession or use of marijuana, even if they are using it for medical reasons. Ethically, this is the weakest part of the argument in favor of prohibition.

Let’s analyze this piece using sleep test ethics. In his book, Defining Moments, Joseph L Badaracco discusses sleep test ethics as a means of evaluating ethical decisions. Badaracco explains sleep-test ethics as “a person who has made the right choice can sleep soundly afterward; someone who has made the wrong choice cannot.” (Badaracco, 1997) If we apply this to the idea of prohibition, we can see the ethical issue involved in prohibition. If you had to deny a dying patient the medicine to ease their suffering in order to continue a feeble attempt to control the recreational use of the medicine, would you be able to sleep soundly at night?

These are the issues that prohibitionist lawmakers face when dealing with marijuana in their districts. It seems to be a policy vs. people debate, but at the heart is the a moral and ethical battle between right and right. Badaracco explains these “right vs. right” situations as “defining moments” which are used to not only reveal but shape a leader’s character. How our lawmakers handle the issues of marijuana prohibition will affect how others view their morality.

Option 2: Legalization of Medicinal Marijuana

The second option for marijuana legalization is to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana only. Currently, there are 13 states that have disregarded the federal prohibition laws and have legalized the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. These states, with the year in which they legalized medicinal marijuana are shown in the table below.

Pros

Marijuana has been used as medicine since ancient times. It has pain relieving and anti-inflammatory properties when smoked. This is because the heat of burning the cannabis activates the THC in the plant which then enters one’s body with the smoke. Through most of the 80’s and 90’s, the United States federal government prohibited the testing of marijuana smoke for medicinal purposes. However, in 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration granted approvals to scientists for the “limited use [of marijuana] in scientific experiments.” (Hilts, 2002) In his article, Hilts said, that scientists at the University of California will begin testing the effects of smoking marijuana on the limb pain experiences due to Multiple Sclerosis and AIDS.

Scientists have found evidence that links marijuana, specifically THC, with medical benefits, both curative and preventative. As I have explained above, THC has shown to have preventative effects against Alzheimer’s disease in older people. Additionally, it is a drug of interest because it is one of the few prescribed for neurological decay that doesn’t just focus on the symptoms, but instead, the root cause, the inflammation due to age.

However, marijuana also has very significant curative benefits as well for patients. In his review of the “Dying to Get High”, Ellis cites a story from 1992 where a woman was using marijuana “with success…instead of pharmaceutical drugs to control her seizures.” (Ellis, n.d.) The seizures, Ellis said were caused by a car accident 20 years ago and the woman, Valerie Corral, had successfully controlled them for those 20 years with marijuana. Ellis elaborates on some of the other proven medical uses of marijuana. He says, “In practice, this includes nausea and appetite loss in Cancer and AIDS treatments, chronic pain, glaucoma, and seizures related to multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, and epilepsy.” (Ellis, n.d.) Studies have shown that intra-ocular pressure can be reduced by 45% through the use of marijuana (Hanrahan, 2006) This reduction is particularly important to the treatment of Glaucoma. The studies also show that cannabis also has “antimicrobial action and antibacterial effects” such as being able to “destroy and inhibit the growth of streptococci and staphylococci bacteria.” (Hanrahan, 2006) These bacteria are responsible for staph infections more common and in severe cases MRSA. The results suggest that cannabis, or specifically THC, can be used to eliminate and prevent staph infections.

Additionally, by legalizing the use of medicinal marijuana, it is allowing more studies to be done, which may lead to more discoveries and cures. But most importantly, your helping the lives of patients with AIDS, Cancer, MS, and other to be made a little less strenuous and easing the suffering from their disease.

Cons

Legalization of medicinal marijuana is a somewhat “meet in the middle” option, meaning that it tries to appease as many people as possible. This option allows for the government to still attempt preventing the recreational use of the drug without denying patients the treatments they need. Therefore, the cons of this option are limited and weakly supported.

Ethical Issues

By legalizing cannabis for medicinal use, you are recognizing that the drug has beneficial uses for the prevention of many serious diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, yet you are still deeming it “unsafe” for recreational use. However, if the drug is being used for preventative measures, then recreational use would actually be beneficial to the population. Granted, abuse may become an issue over time, but so is the case for alcohol, yet that is not currently prohibited. Also, it may be harmful to the lungs and respiratory system, but no more so than tobacco smoke, which is also legal.

Ethically however, it appears to be the moral thing to do. While there are some initial signs of transformational leadership, the changes are not significantly affecting all citizens. Leaders, while changing the laws in their state, are not pushing for the change in the federal law, which legally overrules the state laws. Therefore, in reality, the leaders are acting in their own self-interest, as Rand would suggest they do. They are maximizing their “votes” without taking a firm stand on either side of the argument. This is a way to keep them in office and ensure their own interests. However, they are showing no dedication to their own morals and values, which Badaracco says is how one reveals their ethics, by remaining dedicated to their set of values.

Option 3: Complete Legalization

Complete legalization is the more sparsely used option of the three. Only certain areas of Canada, such as Montreal, and few nations in Europe, such as Netherlands, have completely legalized the use of marijuana for any purpose, medicinal or recreational. This option shows the highest potential for economic benefit by allowing for the taxation while freeing up funding from the War on Drugs.

Pros

Throughout this analysis I have made several comparisons of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is no more addictive or harmful physically than these two legal substances. So, marijuana could yield similar financial benefits through taxation as cigarettes and tobacco. Currently, tobacco is taxed by federal, state, and local governments which generate revenue for all organizations. Some places, where medical marijuana is legal, have begun taxing medical marijuana to benefit from its legalization. Oakland, CA was the first such city to do so, with support of 80% of the population. Once President Obama promised that the federal government would not interfere with a state’s regulation of the drug, transformational leaders, such as Tom Ammiano of California, introduced a bill to “legalize the cultivation of marijuana and its distribution and sale to people over 21.” (“Puff, Puff, Pay”, 2009)

It seems that in our current economic crisis, any additional revenue would be viewed as a valuable and significant opportunity and some leaders are realizing that marijuana can be one of those opportunities. The California Board of Equalization estimates that, if Assemblyman Ammiano’s bill succeeds, the state of California could generate $1.4 billion in revenue. (“Puff, Puff, Pay”, 2009) The legalization of marijuana would also help to spur a boost in cannabis related tourism. For a state such as California, struggling through the economic turmoil our country has been in, these financial benefits are very appealing. And, if the policy were enacted nationwide, the revenue generated would simply multiply.

Cons

There are some noticeable drawbacks of the legalization of marijuana, but none nearly as significant as the financial gain from the legalization, sale, and taxation of cannabis. One such concern is that of addiction of people to cannabis. A Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study has shown that the number of cannabis addicts has risen from 12% to 16% since 1997 (“Puff, Puff, Pay”, 2009). While this is not a particularly significant increase, this is a valid consideration when discussing the concept of legalizing marijuana use. This number would most likely increase more if marijuana were legal, however, the significance of this increase cannot be estimated.

Ethical Issues

This option for legalization requires the highest level of transformational leadership. The lawmakers need to realize that the legalization can be a valuable and positive change if executed properly. This positive change could not only allow the medical use of marijuana to cure and ease the suffering of significant diseases but also help their economy.

Alcohol and tobacco are currently some of the most profitable industries for the United States government. Marijuana could generate revenue equal to, if not greater than tobacco and alcohol. This concept plays directly into Rand’s advice for leaders. Creating revenue for their state would secure their place in office as well as possibly affording our leaders some financial gains, such as pay raises and tax breaks due to increased revenue. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana to secure financial gain would be ruling in one’s own self-interest, a concept that Rand is very adamant about.

Additionally, Plato’s theories regarding ruling for the greater good come into play in this option as well. By legalizing marijuana completely, you are giving people the right to choose if they want to use marijuana and what they would like to use it for. Giving people more rights can be considered to be for the greater good. Also, it boosts the economy and creates jobs as retail, manufacturing, and shipping organizations will need to be developed to support the legalization.

Conclusions

This paper analyzed the three options of legalizing (or prohibiting) the use of marijuana for both medical and recreational reasons. It has presented the benefits and drawbacks of both marijuana and it’s legalization/prohibition. It has framed the analysis within the writings of Plato and Ayn Rand as well as against the ideas of transformational leadership.

But what option is “best” or “more right”? In order to answer this question we must think of our criteria, or the framework of the analysis. We must judge each option based on this framework. A table below shows each option and how it pertains to the pieces of our framework.

From this table we see that, each theory helps to support the case for complete legalization. Both philosophers’ views are present in the effects and consequences of this option. Allowing people the right to choose and the right to select their medicine is Plato’s view of ruling for the greater good. The tax benefits that leaders will undoubtedly see (though may never be “officially” attributed to the legalization of marijuana) is Rand’s view of ruling with self-interest. And the fact that they are transforming the values, morals, and ideas of what is “acceptable” of a society for “valuable and positive change” demonstrates their understanding of and dedication to the theories of transformational leadership.

Under these criteria, the prohibition of marijuana completely does not support any of the theories by which we are evaluating.

Therefore, in conclusion, the legalization of marijuana seems to be the best option for dealing with this issue. The legalization would allow the people who need treatment to get it and it could help with the economic crisis which is currently ravaging the world. Additionally, since marijuana has proven to actually have benefits, unlike tobacco and alcohol, it is a positive change in the culture of society. While laws pertaining to marijuana will need to be developed (similar to tobacco and alcohol), the regulation of marijuana use by the government will, in the end, prove to be a very profitable decision.

I think it is the best decision ethically as well. The people, who want to use it, are. The people, who don’t want to use it, aren’t. I don’t feel as though this will change significantly by legalizing the drug. Therefore, the consequences of such a decision are minimal, as its almost a case of realizing the current situation and making legislation to benefit from it.

References
Armento, Paul. “Marijuana Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?” Marijuana Law Reform – NORML. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .
-. “The Voters Have Spoken aa‚¬” Again!” Marijuana Law Reform – NORML. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .
Badaracco, Joseph L., Jr. Defining Moments. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Print.
Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed. N.p.: Psychology Press, USA , n.d. Print.
Boulder Planning Board: Tread Lightly on Medical Marijuana.(Nov 6, 2009).TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime (Blogs on Demand),p.NA.RetrievedNovember 12, 2009,fromHealth Reference Center AcademicviaGale: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=lom_gmstar
Catherine Laughlin. (2005). U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Ashcroft v. Raich Background.The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics,33(2),396-9. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. (Document ID:860574931).
Cops injured in clash with drug traffickers; Two SOG officials were assaulted after they caught two youths carrying ganja by train.(Nov 8, 2009).DNA (Daily News & Analysis),p.NA.RetrievedNovember 12, 2009,fromEducator’s Reference CompleteviaGale: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=lom_gmstar
Could Medical Marijuana Benefit Fort Hood Trauma Victims?.(Nov 6, 2009).Digital Journal (Blogs on Demand),p.NA.RetrievedNovember 12, 2009,fromHealth Reference Center AcademicviaGale: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=lom_gmstar
CRIMINAL PRACTICE: Marijuana Possession.(Nov 6, 2009).Fulton County Daily Report,p.NA.RetrievedNovember 12, 2009,fromGeneral OneFileviaGale: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=lom_gmstar
Ellis, B H(Sept 2009).Dying to Get High: Marijuana as Medicine.Contemporary Sociology,38,5.p.433-434.RetrievedNovember 22, 2009,fromGeneral OneFileviaGale: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId= IPS & user GroupName=lom_gmstar
Hanrahan, C.&Frey, R. P..(2006).Marijuana.Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed.,Vol.3(3rded.,pp.2351-2355).Detroit:Gale.RetrievedNovember 22, 20

Modern and Postmodern Traditions in Power and Law

The Law and Power Relations in Society: A Brief Review of Modern and Postmodern Traditions

To achieve an understanding of how, at the beginning of the 21st century, law has come to be understood as a manifestation of social power, it is necessary to place the question within the framework of the dominant intellectual paradigms of the past one hundred years. Such a consideration is relevant because the two major paradigms – namely, modernism and postmodernism – have operated according to contrary assumptions about reality in general and social reality in particular. Modernism, which dominated Western society throughout the 20th century until the 1960s, assumed that all human enterprises should be conducted according to the principles of universal rationality, with a strongly centralizing tendency emphasized in all social institutions. Postmodernism, on the other hand, assumes that human beings are mainly motivated, not by rationality, but by a virtually endless diversity of individual and cultural values. Thus, any overarching theory about how people do, or should, live in society is bound to be inadequate, and social institutions must allow for the full range of human diversity.

In the discipline of sociology Functionalist Theory dominated the modern period, but during the past few decades Critical Theory has come to dominate the postmodern period. To put it simply, Functionalism assumes that society works, because of its inherent harmony, while Critical Theory assumes that society does not work, because of its inherent conflicts. As far as law is concerned, during the modern period a rationally independent and fair distribution of justice was supposed to characterize the legal system. But during the postmodern period the legal system has come to be regarded by many of its critics as the source of often inequitable i.e. distributions of power, specifically motivated by, and ultimately working for, the interests of the state in general and the cultural elite in particular.

The writings of Max Weber (1864-1920), one of the founding spirits of sociology, illustrate the modern conception of law perfectly. According to Mathieu Deflem (2009: 45-46), Weber argues that the law, like all modern social institutions, including politics and the economy, is dominated by purposive rationalization, posited as the standard for both jurisprudence (legal theorizing or lawmaking) and adjudication (law-finding) in the courts. Rationalization leads to the establishment of the principle of “the rule of law.” This means that all social conflicts are to be settled in the courts according to established laws that are written down and codified. The rule of law is intended to be impersonal and objective, giving rise to a adage “Justice is blind,” a central value of Western democracies, sometimes phrased as the sayings “All are equal before the law” and “No one is above the law.”

According to Joyce Sterling and Wilbert Moore (1987: 68-69), Weber accepts law as “creating its own sphere of autonomous social reality,” but its influence is relative, not absolute. “The more a legal system looks to itself rather than to external social, political, and ethical systems in making and applying law, the greater the degree of relative autonomy.” In the United States legal system The Exclusionary Rule and The Miranda Rule are examples of the law defining itself and acting independently of other social concerns. A second characteristic of legal autonomy is the principle of “equal competencies” whereby counsel is provided for those who cannot afford it.

Weber distinguishes between subjective rationality, in which values influence individual decisions, and objective rationality, in which principles determine social decisions. He also distinguishes between formal or purely legal law, and substantive or extra-legal law. Similarly, Weber distinguishes between rational law, determined by general principles, and irrational law, determined by individual and contextual considerations. Formal rational law is called positive law, while formal irrational law is called charismatic or revealed law. Substantive rational law is called natural law, while substantive irrational law is called traditional law. In the words of Sterling and Moore (1987: 75), “Although Weber denied that he was posing a unilineal process of rationalization, he did tend to view legal systems as moving from irrational to rational, and from substantive to formal rationality.” Moreover, Weber links his typology of law to his typology of politics. He identified three types of political legitimization: traditional, charismatic, and legal. Once again, according to Sterling and Moore (1987: 76), “As law becomes rationalized, it becomes its own legitimizing principle” – in other words, the rule of law, what Weber calls “formal legal rationality.” This is aided by bureaucracy and professionalization, ensuring “calculability” or predictability in legal matters and making the system self-contained and seamless, almost totally isolated from moral, economic, political, and cultural interests. Weber’s modern rationalistic conception of law has suffered a severe critical attack on various fronts since the 1960s. Austin Turk (1976: 276) sums up the critical legal position perfectly: Contrary to the rational model, law is actually “a set of resources whose control and mobilization can in many ways . . . generate and exacerbate conflicts rather than resolving or softening them.” In short, power is the “control of resources” and “law is power” (280). The mere mention of power in relation to law is bound to evoke the spirit of Karl Marx (1818-1883).

According to Alan Hunt (1985: 12, 20-22), the content, principles, and forms of law are all matters of “ideology” – that is the reflective distortion of reality in any human claim to knowledge, making Weber’s political legitimation by rule of law nothing more than one opinion among many (sometimes irrational) competing opinions about the proper relation of law and power. Moreover, as Elizabeth Armstrong and Mary Bernstein (2008: 75-76) point out, the modified Marxist argument whereby governments are the only rule makers and social reformers define themselves solely in relation to the state has now become obsolete. According to these authors, culture itself is constitutive of power. If this is true, then law has already lost much of its supposed power merely by definition.

Kim Lane Scheppele (1994: 390-400) provides an excellent overview of critical jurisprudence theory, all of it based on the foundational belief that rational jurisprudence theory masks the fact that political interests or power relationships are what really drives the legal systems of Western democracies. An attack on liberal legalism argues that rights, neutrality, and procedural justice are all fictions designed to maintain social inequalities. The indeterminacy thesis argues that contradictions and inconsistencies within the law make purely rational adjudication impossible. There are many particular manifestations of critical jurisprudence theory. Feminist jurisprudence, for example, contends that the way gender is defined socially often makes the law patriarchal and oppressive to women, especially in regard to such issues as abortion, rape, domestic violence, pregnancy, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, child custody, and pornography. Feminists are divided on how to right the wrongs of rational jurisprudence. Some advocate treating women exactly the same as men, while others argue that women should be treated differently. In either case, the objective is to achieve equality with men through the law. Similarly, critical race theory argues that people of color have been oppressed by the law by being silenced or having others speak for them, and they have pleaded vigorously for the opportunity to “tell their stories,” so their culture and their lives can be treated fairly by the law. In fact, the theme of the relationship of power to the law has been most compelling addressed in terms of the indeterminacy of language itself – an argument expressed by Jacques Derrida in his theory of deconstruction. If the rational rule of law is enshrined as a written code, but language itself is open to a diversity of interpretation, how can the rule of law be trusted not to be abused by the judges and lawyers representing a powerful political elite? Critics would argue that such an abuse is inevitable.

References

Armstrong, E. A., & Bernstein, M. (2008). Culture, power, nad institution: A approach to social movements. Sociological Theory, 26 (1), 74-99.

Deflem, M. (2008). Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, A. (1985). The ideology of law: Advances and problems in recent applications of the concept of ideology to the analysis of law. Law & Society Review, 19 (1), 11-38.

Scheppele, K. L. (1994). Legal theory and social theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 383-406.

Sterling, J. S., & Moore, W. E. (1987). Weber’s analysis of legal rationalization: A critique and constructive modification. Sociological Forum, 2 (1), 67-89.

Turk, A. T. (1976). Law as a weapon in social conflict. Social Problems, 23 (3), 276-291.

Key Elements Of Parsons Concept Of Society Sociology Essay

The society is regarded to be the key element of research of such science as history, sociology, philosophy, economics, etc., but there is no one theoretical understanding of this concept yet so far. Since the times of Plato and Aristotle the society was identified with the state and this concept was true up to the New Time (Hobbes Th., Locke J.). Only in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Kant I., Hegel G. there starts the separation of these concepts, when the society is regarded independently and perceived as the idea of mankind and moral-political unity. Gradually within the frames of sociology the definition of the society, that becomes the classical and universal one, is fixed. The key criterion of the concept of society is the presence of people and certain communication between them. In other words, the society is considered as a community or union of people that possesses such features as territory, developed culture, political independence, etc. But this definition is controversial as primitive societies do not have developed culture, and nomadic societies do not have single territory. So the question arises – how is it possible to define the society? There are many attempts and directions in studying and systematizing sociological opinions and outlooks of the concept of society. Modern western sociology is presented by abundance of different schools and trends, and each of them has its own approaches and theoretical views on the concept of society. The school of structural functionalism turned out to be one of the most fruitful in this trend, with the American sociologist Talcott Parsons as its representative. He uses a system approach while analyzing the society and considers the society as a social system which, in its turn, is a subsystem of the system of social act. In the theory of social action, the society is analyzed as a complex system along with other subsystems such as culture, personality and organism. All these subsystems interact with each other and with subsystem of the society. At the same time the society is regarded as the system that rises over individuals and does not depend on their thoughts and acts; individuals come and go, they are born and die, but nevertheless the society exists, keeps on functioning, developing and evolving. The main function of the society is using of the balanced combination of mechanisms of the control in the course of the relation with five environments surrounding it, and also a degree of internal integration. This can explain the self-sufficiency and isolation of the society as a complex system. This work concludes that the key elements of Parsons’ concept of society is the Theory of Action, that is the bench mark for further development of the whole concept of society; structural functionalism as the key tool that reveals the essence and interaction of the elements of the society from the point of view of their functioning; and the concept of social order, which is a kernel of society as a system.

Parsons uses a system approach to analyze the society as a type of social system. He regards the society as a system consisting of different interrelated elements that make integrity. At the same time the society as a system possesses a certain structure and function. Comparatively firm tie of the elements in the system and relations between the system as a whole and its parts make the structure of the system. The function of the system is in the role that the element performs; the contribution that a certain activity makes into common activity. In its turn, each element of the system can form a new system and as a result within one system there can be several subsystems. The system is the integral unit and it can interact with environment and in the process of interaction it can be an active side. Parsons (1966) noticed that “aˆ¦the society is a special kind of social systemaˆ¦ treat the social system as one of the primary subsystems of the human action system, the others being the behavioral organism, the personality of the individual, and the cultural system” (p. 5). The system is understood as something integral that confronts its environment, that is segregated from its environment and that exists independently from other things. The society of Parsons (1966) is a «self-sufficient» social system isolated from other subsystems (p. 9). As a self-sufficient system it must possess certain features. Parsons (1966) explains self-sufficiency as the function from balanced combination of control mechanisms over the relations of the society with the environment and the degree of its inner integration. The society is able to institutionalize some elements of culture that are specified from outside – by the system of culture; to grant a wide spectrum of the roles of the individual and also to control economic complex and territory.

The period from the Second World War until 1960s, as notes Alexander (1987): “was marked by the emergence of structural-functional theory” (p.35). Structural functionalism while considering the society underlines that any system aims at balance as it is characterized with concordance of the elements; it always affects the deviations the way to adjust them and return to equilibrium position. Any dysfunctions are overcome by the system, and each element contributes something into supporting its stability. While analyzing the society Parsons constantly feels instability that was intrinsic to a social system and while writing his works he concentrated on problems of supporting the balance, self-regulation and self-organization of the society. As Edward C. Devereux notes (1961): “One cannot ever take for granted, Parsons argues, that the motives, goals, capacities and values of individual actors will automatically move them toward the sorts of adequate role performances necessary for the functioning of this or that particular social system” (Black, p. 35). He is not interested in what processes exactly influence the society and overbalance it, or break the relations of separate elements and subsystems in the whole system. He pays attention to the way the system eliminates the negative interference in the processes of its functioning, how the system manages to survive and function in the complicated and changing conditions. How and to what extent the system manages to preserve its ability to self-healing. According to Edvard C. Devereux, “Parsons does indeed postulate an equilibrium-seeking tendency as a property of systems of any sort, partly as a generalization from experience, but more particularly for heuristic purposes” (Black, 1961, p. 33). In his works Parsons pays special attention to the problem of order that is closely connected with preserving the society in the stable condition and achieving the balance. According to Parsons (1966), the core of any society as a system is a special organized normative order with the help of which a collective life of people is organized. Obeying the norms and laws that exist in this society by each member of the society, is understood under the social order, i.e. the individual should perform the roles that are expected of him. Within the social system Parsons (ibid.) distinguishes one of four subsystems – societal community which represents the single collective that obeys certain established normative order, some set of statuses, rights, and obligations. By means of police functions and various sanctions are implemented the control over observance a normative system of order by collective. The collective forming the societal community represents an association of the people rallied on a basis of the accepted order. According to Parsons (ibid.), integration of people is the basic function of the given subsystem, that is, the process of association of different elements into a single whole. To achieve and preserve the balance and order in the social system it is necessary to solve some functional problems that arise in the process of existence and functioning of any system. Parsons calls these problems “motivational problem of order”, their solution is in satisfaction of biological and psychological needs of the individuals, in effective activity of organs of social control and in coincidence of personal motivations of the individual with the norms of the society with the aim to perform the roles and objectives prescribed by the society (Black, 1961, p. 35). The concept of the social order characterizes the society as an internally interrelated and self-sustained social system that works and functions in external environment.

Proceeding from the structural-functionalism Parsons (1966) defines five types of the system that surround the society as a social system: “ultimate reality” includes religious and moral norms, cultural system – value-normative structures, personality system – needs and interests, system of organism – instincts, temperament, etc., and physical-organic environment – geographical conditions for the society to exist and national environment. In his work The Social System while analyzing interaction of the society and the systems that surround it Parsons faces the problems in building and defining surrounding systems, depending on the level they enter the social system from. This scheme gets even more complicated when these interrelated systems function differently, i.e. each of the systems performs different function in the total system of action. Parsons uses structural-functional approach while analyzing the society. This approach bases on the ideas of Durkheim E. and Marx K. and analyzes the structures and systems of the society at macro-level. Structural functionalism presents the society as a system consisting of large subsystems – economics, politics, law, religion, family, etc. These subsystems are interrelated and mutually dependent. Representatives of structural- functional approach analyze social subsystems and basing on this analysis reveal how these subsystems are mutually dependent, what good or harm they do to the society. Proceeding from Parsons’ structural-functional analysis each social system has a number of functional requirements or prerequisites that are met within the frameworks of social subsystems:

Considering a whole society (e.g., the United States) as a type of social system, Parsons imagined four subsystems emerging to satisfy the four functional needs. Thus, the economy specializes in securing the material conditions of society (adaption); political institutions prioritize the goals of society and ensure that they are attained by mobilizing social resources (goal attainment); the legal system plays a key role in maintaining social regulation and solidarity (integration); and the family, religion, and education aim to produce individuals who have the appropriate needs, values, motives, and skills (pattern maintenance) (Seidman, 1998, p, 109).

Thus, the system must adjust to the environment, achieve the aims, have inner unity and be able to preserve this state, to reproduce the structure and relieve a stress in the system. Thanks to the defining these four functions it became possible to analyze the systems of any level in terms of functional subsystems.

Talcott Parsons has developed very difficult and extensive concept of society. It is based on a paradigm of social action which Parsons worked all long life in a science. He used a system approach for understanding the society as entire system. At the very high level there is a system of social act – a self-organizing system, the specific character of which, unlike the system of physical or biological action, is expressed in the presence of symbolism in the first place (language, values, etc.), secondly, of norms, and finally of irrationality and independence from environment conditions. In this system of social act Parsons defines four subsystems: organism – subsystem that ensures the adaptation function and gives the system physical and energy resources to interact with the environment; personality – subsystem ensuring achieving the aims; social system that is responsible for integration of the actions of lots of individuals; cultural system that contains values, beliefs, knowledge, etc. Proceeding from structural functionalism, within the frameworks of the social system Parsons, in his turn, also defines four subsystems and each of them performs one of four main functions: economic one called on to ensure the system adaptation to the environment, political one, the meaning of which is to achieve the aim, societal community, that ensures inner unity and performs the function of integration, and cultural subsystem the function of which is to preserve institutional cultural models, that is responsible for legitimization of normative order and preserving the state of unity. Thus, each subsystem specializes in performing certain function and the results can be used by another, wider system. Besides, each subsystem depends on other subsystems; they exchange the results of their activity. Talkott Parsons’s theoretical works do not differ by a surface, the heritage of the classical period of sociology is characteristic for them, which topical in our days too.

Karl Marxs Influence on Sociology and Political Thought

There can be no doubt over the wide-ranging influence of Karl Marx’s theories on sociology and political thought. His concept of communism overcoming the socioeconomic pitfalls of capitalism has not been a theory that has seen the light of day in the way that he may have hypothesized. There have been many throughout history that have misrepresented Marx’s writing, which begs the question, if pure communism in the original Marxist sense is at all possible given that humanity appears to have an innate ‘need’ for hierarchy and a thirst for power.

Capitalism appears to satisfy the ‘need’ for power and acquisition above all else, and the evidence is seen in the growth of global wealth, which certainly does not amount to equal wealth. The gap between affluent and poor is ever increasing, which includes inequalities of life chances and participation in mainstream society. However, harsh evidence does not appear to change or transform capitalism, hence, Marx’s concept of economic class struggle remains a contested issue.

This essay will explain and explore the concept of capitalism and how Marx believed that the origins and the dynamics of capitalism were intricately woven into the fabric of class struggles throughout history. In fact, this notion opens the first part of the Communist Manifesto with the now famous quote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels 1967, p 79).

An understanding of the historical basis of capitalism is essential given that Marx based his work around the concept of historical materialism, originally derived from his development of Feuerbach’s “Hegelian inversion”. Historical materialism is a concept explaining the vital function of human production for the sole purpose of basic subsistence. Without the means of subsistence, humanity would fail in all other activities and functions. Marx rejected Hegel’s dialectics based on a movement of human thought and ideas, and argued that dialectics involved contradictions based on an economic system, otherwise known as dialectical materialism. Therefore, the dynamic for change eventually created by a process of dialectics lies in the conflict between two opposing factors (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 114 – 119).

Marx conceived the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base relates to all that is a function of production in society and conversely, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, relates to the values, culture, ideology and the governing bodies of society. The former creates and supports the latter by a process of legitimization of the economic activities, and in turn, the superstructure ensures the processes remain in place. Class domination plays a large part in this process of organization; for example, private education providing better opportunities for advancement and primary socialization into the higher echelons of society. However, a counter argument claims that the state is just as involved in the stresses and “struggles of civil society” as opposed to being a mere extension of it for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, p 113).

According to Marx, the act of production and means of organization thereof, including the relationship between members of the opposing classes, is key to society and social development and this can be supported with analysis of per-industrial societies.

Feudal societies organized production based on the relationship between the ruling class, the nobility and the subject class, the serfs. The monarchy ruled by divine right and a strict system of traditions commanding complete faithfulness and honor. Church involvement supported and emphasized this early form of social organization and any deviation from accepted behavior would amount to blasphemy. Social hierarchies were fixed and generally as immovable as the land owned by the nobility. Society consisted of small groups living in small agricultural communities. In the absence of an organized economy and bureaucracy, surplus production was seen by the landowners as theirs by right. The serfs were dependent on the grace of the landowners for their means of subsistence, which created a dominance and dependency relationship. As such, Marx asserted that conflict is inevitable in any society based on class (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 188-189)

A shift in modes of production was gradual and evolved over hundreds of years of activity, which saw the creation of the stock-holding East India Company (circa 1600) and British colonization of the Americas in the late sixteenth century. Later, Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his work, The Wealth of Nations, created a theory in favor of a free market in direct opposition to mercantilism and the monopoly of land ownership. In contrast to ‘tied’ labor, a free labor would benefit all members of society. Smith believed that all individuals were “profit-seeking” but this created “harmony” in the interests of society as a whole. A free market and free trade would require a division of labor, which ultimately meant a more economically efficient mode of production in a competitive market (Brown 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001 pp. 145 -149). As such, mercantilism saw the accumulation of capital that gave rise to Capitalism.

Industrialization was not solely responsible for capitalism but most certainly provided the impetus for it to become more widespread (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 79 – 80). The industrial revolution saw the emergence of a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and following in the hierarchical traditions constructed by previous societies, the proletariat found their place at the lower end of the social scale.

For Marx, the idea of class struggle is based on the antagonisms present in the differences between the classes and he considered the emergence of the new ruling class, with its “new conditions of oppression” as being the catalyst for greater divide in society than had gone before (Marx and Engels 1967, p 80). The industrial revolution changed the reasons for work and the meaning of the act of labor, which demanded the sale of personal time and effort in exchange for wages, otherwise known as the communication of labor power. In contrast to feudal times, which existed on a form of agricultural ‘economy’, the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat, was based on the intensity of production for profit, which led to the ultimate exploitation of the workers. Production shifted from the feudal privately owned land to the industrial private ownership of capital. Given the proletariat’s exclusion from ownership of the means of production, they had no choice but to sell their ability to produce in exchange for tightly controlled wage labor, in order to survive. The conflict created by such an antagonistic system could only be resolved through transformation brought on by revolution.

Conflict must also be understood in context of the social relationships, which became based on a wages versus labor dichotomy. During the Victorian era, the term ‘class’ created social realities that ensured members of society ‘knew their place’ according to their economic health. For Marx, the term ‘class’ defined individuals and groups based on objective principles. Marx believed that consciousness, rather than being a determinant of social being was actually determined by social being. “The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes”(Marx 1975 in Lee and Newby 2000, p.115).

According to Marx, a revolution to transform capitalism into socialism could only take place once class consciousness replaced false consciousness. Class consciousness is defined as comprehension and awareness of the true situation of inequality brought on by exploitation, which ultimately leads to proletariat solidarity. An alternate viewpoint, based on consensus rather than conflict, would argue that a collective conscience derived from shared moral and ethical values is required to achieve solidarity. Durkheim’s (1858-1917) functionalist perspective claims that the different levels of society operating in the name of shared interests can fulfill the needs of the social system (Giddens 1971). However, poverty does not contribute to functional unity because of the existence of inequalities. This is most certainly evident in contemporary society, even if we consider the buffer in place through the welfare state; the poor are far from integrated into the rest of society.

The bourgeoisie, in the name of profit, demanded a high intensity of production, which was possible through a division of labor. This in turn created tedious, repetitive work, which amounted to the oppression and exploitation of the workers. The working class were ‘free’ to sell their labor to the highest bidder, but the ruling class benefited through economic supremacy. It would have been impossible for the working class to transcend their lowly position on the economic social scale as long as the ruling class owned the modes of production. In contrast to Adam Smith’s idea that competition and profit would be a benefit to all of society, the capitalist dream is to own the monopoly leading to ever increasing profit and personal wealth. The workers become totally dependent on the smaller unfair ‘share’ through wages that do not recompense the reality of their efforts. Furthermore, Marx highlighted that rather than being ‘free’ to sell their labor, laborers are a “commodity exposed to the vicissitudes of competition, and as such, to the highs and lows expected from an economic market” (Marx and Engels 1967, p 87). However, Max Weber (1864-1920) conceived another dimension to ruthless accumulation of wealth, which he termed ‘rationalization’. Rationalization underpinned the spirit of capitalism. Weber theorized that greed and profit was intricately woven into a deep sense of “disciplined obligation of work as a duty”. This ‘irrational’ duty is the objective of the rational organization of capitalist activity. It is worth noting that Weber wrote of this dimension as only one of many possible components that contributed to capitalism in industrial Europe (Giddens 1971, pp.125-127).

Surplus value, a result of surplus labour, leads to products ‘surplus to requirement’, specifically in terms of basic need for subsistence. The high intensity of production leads to the inevitable alienation of the worker. Alienation can be defined as a state of detachment that relates to two areas of production. The first is the alienation of the worker to the actual product created through his or her labor. The second refers to alienation from the actual task of production; a complex division of labor creates standardized processes and simplification of labor tasks for the ultimate end of increased production. The presence of alienation suppresses individuality and the process of creativity through monotony. Whereas once skill and craftsmanship gave credence to a certain sense of fulfillment, in contrast labor under capitalism, divorces the self from the powers of creation that exist within. Furthermore, Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism supports alienation in the sense that as workers labor under tedious conditions, with no opportunity for creative expression they find new ways of satisfying a sense of expression and this is through the accumulation of commodities. This serves and strengthens the power and drive of capitalism (Lee and Newby 2000, p.117). Bythell (1983) goes as far as claiming that the “common man of the relatively classless world of the cottage industry was certainly happier” (p.18).

If mass production “brutally displaced” an earlier, kinder, more family orientated organization of production (Bythell 1983 p.18), then according to Marx and a theory of dialectics, communism would eventually displace capitalism. The process of dynamic change would take place because of the contradictions created by capitalism and this would be an inevitable process. Capitalism would always strive to maximize profit through the process of exploitation of the working class. An over production of goods would eventually lack movement on the economic market owing to increased competition of market forces which drive down exchange value. Marx asserted that “too much” of all that drives capitalism is the crisis that will see its downfall (Marx and Engels 1967, p 84). Marx claimed that each economic crisis that takes place would ultimately lead to weakening of the hold of capitalism. A combination of bourgeoisie activity, the inevitable compounding effect of further poverty of the working class and a process of development of a class consciousness, helped in part by the gathering of large numbers of workers under one roof, gives rise to a revolutionary movement towards a socialist society (Giddens 1971, pp. 58 -60).

The transcendence of capitalism to socialism has not happened. Large organizations have increased in power and capitalists have found new ways of driving down costs, for example relocating production to countries where lower wages, longer working hours and questionable work practices are a relative norm. In addition, economic lows receive the involvement of the state as a means of protection from failure. This is evident in recent months with the government subsidizing Northern Rock.

Furthermore, Weber observed noteworthy reasons why a revolution did not take place. Complex capitalist function required bureaucratic systems, which saw the emergence of the office worker, who commanded higher salaries than their working class cousins. Although the petite bourgeoisie could not lay claim to ownership, they added a further dimension to class structure through competitive activity towards a rewarding social status. Weber believed this situation powerful enough to prevent the downfall of capitalism (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 196 -197).

It is impossible to do justice to the work of Karl Marx without years of concrete research, yet this essay has attempted to outline the process of theories that led Marx to assert that capitalism was based on a system of class struggles. There has been reference to important historical developments, which laid the foundations for capitalism and its inevitable rise through the industrial revolution. We have seen a shift in modes of production from the means of subsistence to the means of production in the name of profit and desire.

Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism would hold true in current productive activities and society’s relentless demands for consumer products. The relationship between consumer and rates of production is symbiotic in the negative sense; as society produces, society wants what it doesn’t need, therein lays the irony. Observation suggests that alienation has taken hold of humanity; acquisition has transformed social interactions, which support a ‘live to work’ ethos. Relations within a capitalist society are stitched together with fiscal threads of steel. Proliferation of constant media images desensitizes society to the poverty-wealth divide and individualism aids us in justifying its existence. The collective human soul appears to be numb to an innate creative ability. Perhaps it is too much to ask for all that is egalitarian in Marx’s theories to become widely accepted for the good of all, given that the power and prestige of economic status is deeply embedded in the psyche. The Communist Manifesto acknowledges the immense influence of economic power “aˆ¦..is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world” (Marx and Engels 1967, pp. 85 – 86 ).

Karl Marx: The Structure-Agency Problem

A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher, Marx did not live to see his ideas carried out in his own lifetime, but his writings formed the theoretical base for modern international communism. Karl Marx (1818-1883), was a German economist, philosopher, and revolutionist whose writings form the basis of the body of ideas known as Marxism. One of Marx’s most important intellectual influences was the philosophy of George Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel’s signature concept was that of the dialectic, a word that originally referred to the process of logical argumentation and refutation. Hegel’s influence on Marx is evident in Marx’s belief that history is evolving through a series of conflicts in a predictable, unavoidable direction. Hegel also influenced Marx in his characterization of the modern age. Marx’s theory, which he called “historical materialism” is based on Hegel’s. Hegel claims that history occurs through a dialectic, or clash, of opposing forces. Hegel was a philosophical idealist who believed that we live in a world of appearances, and true reality is an ideal. Marx accepted this notion of the dialectic, but rejected Hegel’s idealism because he did not accept that the material world hides from us. With the aid of Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) he produced much of the theory of modern Socialism and Communism. Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism holds at its core a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The powerful and innovative methods of analysis introduced by Marx have been very influential in a broad range of disciplines. The economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism. A Marxist’s thought is based on this daily practice, a philosophy called dialectics Thus, Marxism is both a theory and a practice. The theories of Marxism are sometimes called dialectical materialism; theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited. To test the validity of theory, Marxists rely on practice as the criteria of truth. Using such a methodology Marx and Engels examined history, which lead them to elaborate theories of the class struggle, the basis of social relations through economics, and the form of society that could follow capitalism.

The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to accumulate or expand their capital. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no resources other than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds. Marx studied the differences arising between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie are interested mainly in developing a capitalist society, using advanced methods of production. The bourgeoisie are the capitalist who own the factories, the product made in the factories and controlled all the trade. The Proletariats have gained nothing in society but the thrill of their own labour. The proletariats feel that they are treated poorly from bourgeoisies; they receive only enough in life to survive and have no chance of achieving a higher, class status. The proletariats helped to improve production in society, which developed Capitalism and helped it to grow faster. The proletariats were not getting the wages they deserve for the labour that was accomplished. Marx wanted the proletariats to stand up to the bourgeoisie and cause a class conflict. The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e., capital). Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and in the mature capitalist society, the state’s business is that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation of production, on ownership of the means of production. Marx used the term mode of production to refer to the specific organization of economic production in a given society. A mode of production includes the means of production used by a given society, such as factories and other facilities, machines, and raw materials. It also includes labour and the organization of the labour force. The term relation of production refers to the relationship between those who own the means of production (the capitalists or bourgeoisie) and those who do not (the workers or the proletariat). According to Marx, history evolves through the interaction between the mode of production and the relations of production. The mode of production constantly evolves toward a realization of its fullest productive capacity, but this evolution creates antagonisms between the classes of people defined by the relations of production-owners and workers.

Capitalism is a mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists produce commodities for the exchange market and to stay competitive must extract as much labour from the workers as possible at the lowest possible cost. The economic interest of the capitalist is to pay the worker as little as possible, in fact just enough to keep the workers alive and productive. The workers, in turn, come to understand that their economic interest lies in preventing the capitalist from exploiting them in this way. As this example shows, the social relations of production are inherently antagonistic, giving rise to a class struggle that Marx believes will lead to the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat. The proletariat will replace the capitalist mode of production with a mode of production based on the collective ownership of the means of production, which is called Communism. Marx describes how the worker under a capitalist mode of production becomes estranged from himself, from his work, and from other workers. Drawing on Hegel, Marx argues that labour is central to a human being’s self-conception and sense of well-being. By working on and transforming objective matter into sustenance and objects of use-value, human beings meet the needs of existence. Labour is as much an act of personal creation and a projection of one’s identity as it is a means of survival. However, capitalism, the system of private ownership of the means of production, deprives human beings of this essential source of self-worth and identity. The worker approaches work only as a means of survival and derives none of the other personal satisfactions of work because the products of his labour do not belong to him. These products are instead expropriated by capitalists and sold for profit. In capitalism, the worker, who is alienated or estranged from the products he creates, is also estranged from the process of production, which he regards only as a means of survival. Estranged from the production process, the worker is therefore also estranged from his or her own humanity, since the transformation of nature into useful objects is one of the fundamental facets of the human condition. The worker is thus alienated from his or her “species being”, from what it is to be human. Finally, the capitalist mode of production alienates human beings from other human beings. Deprived of the satisfaction that comes with owning the product of one’s labour, the worker regards the capitalist as external and hostile. The alienation of the worker from his work and of the worker from capitalists forms the basis of the antagonistic social relationship that will eventually lead to the overthrow of capitalism.

The labour theory of value states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour that went into producing it. Marx defines a commodity as an external object that satisfies wants or needs and distinguishes between two different kinds of value that can be attributed to it. Commodities have a use-value that consists of their capacity to satisfy such wants and needs. For the purposes of economic exchange, they have an exchange-value, their value in relation to other commodities on the market, which is measured in terms of money. Marx asserts that in order to determine the relative worth of extremely different commodities with different use-values, exchange-value, or monetary value, must be measurable in terms of a property common to all such commodities. The only thing that all commodities have in common is that they are a product of labour. Therefore, the value of a commodity in a market represents the amount of labour that went into its production. The labour theory is important in Marx’s work not because it gives special insight into the nature of prices but because it forms the foundation of Marx’s notion of exploitation. In the simplest form of exchange, people produce commodities and sell them so that they can buy other commodities to satisfy their own needs and wants. For Marx, the enterprise is the nucleus of class war both capital and labour are united by certain latent interests which, being contradictory, places them on the opposite sides of a conflict relation. Classes are conflict groups under conditions of absence of mobility, superimposition of authority, property, and general social status, superimposition of industrial and political conflict, and absence of effective conflict regulation.

For Marx alienation is a physical and psychological condition which arises out of the conditions of modern work. Since the worker does not own what he produces, since he lives as an extension of the machine, since he hates what he does, then the worker does not own his own life, he is in a basic sense simply a human machine. He exists to himself as an alien object; the reality of capitalism for Marx is that it is not free. For Marx the connections between the theory of capitalism and the conditions of modern life are all too clear.

Marx believed society was an evolving struggle. He believed Capitalism was an evolving structure. However, unlike Adam Smith, Marx did not believe this evolution was always smooth, nor did he believe it evolved for the best. In fact Marx, predicted the collapse of Capitalism. Marx placed great value on economic forces for explaining social structures. Marx examined society and argued that the wealth of capitalists was based on paying labour less than their true labour value (underpaid labour). This difference between the true labour value and the wages paid led to the accumulation of money capital. Workers were abused and disenfranchised. As capitalism developed, Marx predicted, workers would become increasingly alienated and seek to overthrow the capitalist class. Growth was not guaranteed but could become volatile leading to periods of economic slump. Marxists certainly point to the Great Depression of a vindication of how capitalism can fail.

Karl Marx Continuation Of The Enlightenment Sociology Essay

Karl Marx is regarded as one of the classics of sociology. His social thought, considered one of the most important social theories, was a humanistic theory, concentrated on the condition of society and a place of individual in social structure. Marx is known as one of the greatest ideologists of the nineteen century. His political theory was revolutionary. As a sociologist though, he is regarded to be a “great heir of Enlightenment” [1] , using and developing key concepts of the eighteen century thinkers. This paper is aimed to discuss Karl Marx’ theory in comparison to the Enlightenment philosophy. I will try to answer a question: to what extend Marx’ work inherited from the Enlightenment thinkers? In order to that I will discuss the key concepts of the Enlightenment that were further developed in Marx’s works. In the following part of the paper I will compare the ideas of the eighteen century thinkers with Marx’ theory, in regard to notions of progress, social structure, religion, science, materialism, state and individualism.

Social development, progress and social change

The theory of social development and progress was the key concept of the Enlightenment [2] . The experience of Renaissance – recovery from the “dark ages”, rediscovery of antique philosophy, the expansion of colonialism and exploration of non-European cultures, violated established order and lead to expansion of new ideas doubting tradition. The Enlightenment recognized that human history changes and that societies experience material and mental, moral or philosophical progress. It became clear, that modernity is just another stage of development, that does not lead the end of history, but might be as well a beginning of some better, new society. Eighteen century thinkers considered reason as the leading force of change, believing, that human knowledge and consciousness may develop linearly. Since the Enlightenment was an age of science and reason, philosophers tend to classify and order possessed knowledge. That lead to a few theories of historical stages development of societies that arranged historical periods in progressive order [3] .

Marx inherited from the Enlightenment that linear and deterministic perspective on development of societies, building his theory on the idea of progress. In his works he wrote about successive stages of development of societies: primitive society, feudalism, capitalism (bourgeois formation), socialism and communism. He abandoned the concept of reason as the leading force of progress, though. For Marx’ the key force of development was ownership and mode of production emerging from it. HeEach of the stages presented different social relations, policies, politics and consciousness – all of which resulting from economic relations. The mode of production representing each of historical formation of society was regarded as a base, and resulted in different superstructures – culture, religion and politics. Every stage of history was more complex than another and lead to the next one. For Marx it meant that the history of all societies is inevitable and must lead through the same phases.

The Enlightenment’s attachment to the notion of progressive development of societies lead to the ideas of future utopia – final, goal stage of social evolution. It was a very optimistic concept of history, beginning in dark, oppressive periods of the past, through ambiguous and chaotic modernity, leading to some “enlighten”, better and just future. Such utopian vision was described by Condorcet, for whom future society would prevail tyranny by changing tradition and superstition into reason [4] . Delany wrote of the Enlightenment as “aˆ¦characterized by a certain utopianism, which was a reflection of the belief in the promises of modernity to bring about freedom. Unlike earlier social thought, it displayed a great belief in the power of human action to shape the future” [5] . The same was true for Marx, who saw communism as the perfect and most of all – just, social system. For Marx the end stage of human history – communism – represented the most desired and final phase of human development. As Sideman wrote: “Marx never gave up his Enlightenment faith in the coming of a new era” [6] .

But contrary to the Enlightenment philosophers, for Marx, the utopia was not to be obtained through evolution and development of reason, but through revolution of working class. The idea of revolution was not present in eighteen century before the experience of French revolution. Though it is sad, that the Enlightenment prepared the ground for the revolt in France, works of eighteen century thinkers did not appeal to force or violent change. Marx shared the romantic vision of revolution with socialist thinkers and activists supporting French strife. Moreover, unlike his eighteen century ancestors, Marx sought emancipation in proletariat – the working class of modernity. The Enlightenment was an age of intellectuals, giving special role to philosophers in the process of development of society [7] . In eighteen century thought, reason had the emancipatory force. Marx violent vision of revolution did not reserved place for intellectuals, though Marx was one of them.

Social structure

The Enlightenment was a period of a great expansion of egalitarian theories. The idea of natural laws developed and notion of equality had spread. Eighteen century philosophers attempted to find and describe origins of social order as well as discover best social conditions to maintain and expand individual freedom. Especially the latter – freedom, understood as unconstrained development and expansion of reason – was an important issue in the theory of state and governance. The Enlightenment cherished the idea of liberated individual in the society – free from state, church and other collective forms of organizations. To reconcile the concepts of state and freedom, the idea of civil society was developed. Individuals became citizens – residents of a state that had their natural, internal rights, individuals who through that civil rights gained freedom. Though human beings were not equal, especially because of different kinds and sizes of ownership, they had the potential of equality internalized through their natural, inalienable rights.

For Marx idea of equality was a goal of the development of societies. Contemporary social structure was far from egalitarian one. To describe social structure Marx used a concept of class as sets of people or parts of society that differ by the “effective control over the means of production and property ownership” [8] . The class designated people who lived in similar conditions. For bourgeois stage of development social structure was basically dichotomous, consisting of two classes – owners (capitalists) and workers. Since individuals within one class shared alike economic positions – they also shared the same interests. Individuals from different classes, on the other hand, remained in permanent conflict as they interests were opposite. For in Marx’ theory class structure is a structure of permanent class-conflict. As E.C. Cuff and others expressed it: “Since the inequality between the owning class and the labouring class is not simply an economic one, narrowly defined, but involves a social relationship of power and control, the difference of interest between these classes refers to freedom” and further: “The conflict of interest between owning and labouring classes is, then, a conflict over power and freedom.” [9] Once again Marx’ theory rejected peaceful and optimistic assumptions of the Enlightenment.

Ideologies and religion

The end of the Middle Ages ended the era of god’s laws and theological explanation of social order. The Enlightenment separated religion from politics. Eighteen century brought to life the concept of public – private spheres. Religion became private matter of citizens. God’s rights no longer decided on political questions and social relations. Secular society was based on secular rules. The Enlightenment believed in reason and science, and through them sought emancipation from religion and superstition. “Social change required that cultural traditions be weakened to allow for new ideas and attitudes favoring social progress” [10] . Religion and tradition constrained social change and overruled the utopian vision of future. It does not mean that the Enlightenment was a truly secular era. Rejection of religion covered only public, political sphere. None of the great philosophers of the period – Becon, Diderot, Locke – postulated atheism [11] . The issue was to separate religion from science, theology from logical reasoning. Religion intruded cognition, so had to be abandoned in the sphere of knowledge.

Marx also shared with the Enlightenment the concept of secular society, though he brought the idea of secularization further. For Marx every ideology and meta-narration of society, in every stage of its development, was a product of current economic relations, and so was religion. Religion – internalized rules, regulations and prohibitions – served justification of the conditions of production and hence, the justification of exploitation. In this sense religion was a mechanism of oppression. It was no longer a private issue, but a political one, that justified bourgeois order. As in the eighteen century – religion obstructed change, but this time, though, it was not suppose to be withdraw from public life, but destroyed absolutely. That is why, according to Marx, emancipation not only required rejection of theological order of the world, but also complete rejection of religion. Once again this emancipation required revolution – dramatic and sudden change of economic conditions that would change social relations, including execution of religion.

The role of science

The Enlightenment was the era of development of sciences. A great expand of sciences such as mathematics, medicine, natural sciences changed the view of modern philosophers on the world and human kind. Science revealed mystery of existence and the order of nature. That is why science became one of the ways to obtain individual freedom. Eighteen century philosophers presumed that one day science will lead to discovery of logical, rational order of human and societal relations.

For Marx science also had an important role in revealing the rules of organization of society. Marx knew that “in order to change, it is necessary to understand the social forces – institutions, cultural traditions, social groups” [12] . In Marx’ theory science held the explanatory role by revealing the real nature of social order, gave information about social classes, modes of production and rules of historical development. According to Marx, science should be based on rational assumptions and logical laws, it should reject common sense and superstitions.

When discussing the role of science in Marx’ theory, his contribution to scientific methods is worth mention. The Enlightenment admired achievements of modern mathematics and physicists, especially those of Newton. Philosophers were dreaming of finding scientific method, similar to methods used in physics and mathematics, to investigate and describe social world. Modern thinkers presumed that since the complex world of nature can be characterized through clear rules and patterns of numbers, the same can be done with human environment.

Marx’ sought different path of inquiry. His scientific method characterized as “historicism” [13] postulated investigation on every social phenomena in their historical context. Marx claimed that all individuals and their actions are embedded in broader setting, since none human being exists separated from his environment. Moreover he posed the question of a researcher as a social actor, entangled in social reality beside investigated objects. Marx claimed that scientist shares common consciousness to the same degree as all other members of society. True scientific method required from the researcher detachment from false, superstition knowledge embedded on the surface of social life [14] . Here again Marx expressed belief in reason and logic, similarly to his eighteen century ancestors.

Economic perspective

Though Marx’ theory shares materialistic perspective, he was not the one to introduce economic interpretation of social life. Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and others eighteen century thinkers saw the leading role of economy in social life. Those early economists wrote about dehumanization of work and disintegration of society through modern specialization of production and technical development of the production process [15] . Industrial revolution of eighteen century brought to light new phenomena that were not overlooked by present-day thinkers. Negative effects of industrialization, demographic explosion and urbanization were thoroughly discussed by that time.

As we can see, the importance of material conditions for human individual and collective life was not the Marx’ invention, though he also observed that technology destroys social relations. According to him, innovations, machines and devices used in the process of production serve the dominant class for exploitation of workers [16] . Nevertheless, with his materialistic view on society, Marx went further with the idea, claiming that: “the reproduction of material life precedes the production of culture” [17] . For Marx material conditions of existence were the basis for all other characteristics of life. In this concept, living conditions determined social structure, policies, rules and morality. Marx showed that certain social conditions shape certain forms of consciousness. That was a great contribution of Marx’ thought to social sciences. Since Marx, social scientists began research on the role of material conditions on human thoughts, believes and attitudes, giving a start to many disciplines of social sciences, as sociology of thought, sociology of knowledge or sociology of religion [18] . Moreover, since then, social scientists considered development process and ownership relations of societies as some of the most important criteria of social studies analysis.

The concept of state

Eighteen century philosophy was critical towards the old order or regime. The Enlightenment developed several state theories [19] , all connected with the concept of social contract. Hobbes, claimed that the states are made on the basis of common agreement in which citizens give their rights to absolute power. John Locke postulated conception of liberal state based on tolerance, private ownership and freedom of economic action. In this conception it was not the absolute ruler but society that hold the power. Kannt, on the other hand, proposed peaceful republican regime of federation of states. Finally Rousseau wrote about egalitarian regime of equal chances, conditions and rights of citizens. All the eighteen century concepts of authority were positive ones, assuming rationality of power and universality of interests.

Marx’ concept of the state was not the optimistic one. In his works state power had class character [20] . Regime authority served class interest of dominant group of society – capitalists, through organized violence towards the suppressed class. There was no possibility to gain freedom through or within the state. Unlike the eighteen century theories, Marx’ project of desirable future assumed abolishment of the bureaucratic, oppressive, class regime. Decomposition of the state should be accomplished through a proletariat revolution that would lead to class-free society of common owners.

Individualism and collective action

In earlier philosophy, the status of human being in society was constant and determined, not by human himself, but by external forces – the world order, god’s will, some kind of justice and internal sense of social existence. Enlightenment and especially the French revolution, brought the idea of civil society and civil rights [21] . The Enlightenment claimed that all human beings share some common characteristics that are independent of external, historical or natural conditions. It was the kind of individualism, that claimed that human nature in general have some common qualities inherited from the state of nature. That is what makes society egalitarian – differences between human status in society are merely secondary, in a sense that all (male) human beings are equal and share the same civic rights. Emancipation in this context was a political emancipation of citizens from feudal, traditional relations.

Marx connected human position in social structure with material conditions and idea of work and ownership. For him the idea of society was not based on the idea of civil rights, but on the idea of economic relations between different social groups – classes. It was dichotomous vision of society made of workers and capitalists – the owners of means of production. Emancipation was possible not on the basis of civil rights, but on the basis of changing economic relations. This was a revolutionary perspective, leading to turnover of social order. Unlike the Enlightenment, Marx’ did not perceived emancipation and concept of freedom in individual actions. He clearly rejected individualism – both in terms of individual social actions and as the method of inference about human conditions. Marx claimed that every individual is rooted in his collective history and society, and his consciousness, as well as beliefs, goals and needs are shaped through that heritage. That is why not only analysis of human conditions, but also the projected change of social relations, has to take into consideration collective baggage and collective effort.

Conclusions

As we can see, Marx benefited much from the Enlightenment philosophy, though we have to keep in mind, that issues presented in this paper are merely examples of eighteen century tradition in Marx’ thought. Marx indeed was “a child of the Enlightenment” in a sense, that he took form that tradition in different ways, sometimes directly, sometimes developing further ideas and sometimes criticizing and negating the eighteen century thought. This heritage however seems somehow natural, since we cannot abandon of our history and are always influenced by previous discourses. What we have to remember about is, that eighteen century tradition does not exhaust Marx’ thought but merely enriches and embeds it in historical context.

Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels On Religion

Karl Marx was born in Germany in 1818. His family was Jewish but converted to Protestantism. Marx rejected religion in his youth and made it very clear that he was an atheist. Marx studied under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich von Hegel. Hegel’s theories and philosophies influenced much of Marx’s thought and later, his theories. Hegel believed that mental concepts such as ideas and thoughts were the fundamental part of life and the universe, not matter. Material things, to Hegel, were just representations or expressions of the mental, of the Absolute or the Universal. Marx, along with other “Young Hegelians,” critiqued Hegel’s ideas as well as studying them. Marx and others argued that matter was of primary importance and that mental ideas were a reflection of material necessity. Marx is well known as a materialist and in the field of relgion, a functionalist reductionist. Marx also worked Friedrich Engels who also had similar beliefs about economic determinism.

Background and Biography of Friedrich Engels

Engels was born in Germany in 1820. In 1844, Engels met Marx when he was writing for a journal called “Franco-German Annals” in France. They had similar ideas about class struggle, economics, society, and capitalism, so it was a perfect union. Also because Marx was great at abstract thinking and Engels was a good communicator to the masses. Also, Engels supported Marx financially. They wrote many articles together, including the Communist Manifesto. After Marx died, Engels wrote many more articles and edited much of Marx’s writings and published them.

Book Information

This book is a compilation of articles, letters, journals, written by both Marx and Engels, some together and others independently. The layout of the articles and letters are based on chronology. Much of Marx’s works are well known, but was difficult for me to read. They were abstract and overall sarcastic and full of contempt for religion. Engels’ articles are much easier for me to read and although it is clear he was not a religious man, he did not seem to hate religion as much as Marx, although he thought it a tool to control people.

Economic and Social Theories

Marx and Engels postulated that in the primitive era of human life, people were not thinking of grand mental conceptions or thoughts, but more concerned with material needs such as eating and surviving. Unity and working together in this way was an important part of their lives. Marx thinks that this is something to work toward in today’s society. Once the concepts agriculture and private property arose, there resulted a division of labor and separation of classes based on wealth and power- thus, causing conflict. Capitalism increases the harm done by class struggle. It also causes surplus value, which is evil, in Marx’s point of view. Engels and Marx believed in an equal value system. Value is determined by the amount of work done to produce the product. Marx and Engels also believed that economics are the base of human life. Superstructures are the social institutions that are based in economics and completely dependent on it. Some examples are government, art, philosophy, and of course, religion. They are just expressions of class conflict.

Dialectics of Nature

Marx and Engels are materialists and they believe that science can discover everything about matter, so that matter can explain everything, or the essence or reality. In the “Dialectics of Nature,” (152-192) Engels and Marx try to answer three main questions:

What is the origin of energy or motion in nature?

What causes galaxies, solar systems, planets, and animals of nature to constantly increase in number?

What is the origin of life, species, and mind?

They answer this with three laws:

The Law of Opposites: The world is comprised of opposites which cause energy or motion. For example, electricity has a negative and positive charge. There is feminine and masculine qualities (gender) and biology (sex) in the world as well. This is not an original idea of Marx and Engels, but borrowed from Hegel who said: “Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and life.”

Law of Negation: The idea is that in nature there is a tendency for the quantity of things to increase. Engels and Marx found that in order to reproduce in a larger amount, the entity will negate itself. For example, a plant such as the barley seed will germinate and when it dies (negation), a plant is produced. Nature is increasing due to death.

Law of Transformation: The fact that life increases by number, developments occur, thus making “leaps” in which a new form is created. This is a parallel to Darwin’s evolution theory.

Critique of Religion:

Marx states that “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” Since Marx and Engels are functionalists, they believe that religion is a tool to keep society running the way it is. Marx and Engels state that religion is irrational because it worships something not in reality, at least not material reality. Religion is the opposite of all that is dignified in a human being because it renders one as a servant and more docile to the status quo. Marx and Engels also criticize Christianity and Judaism as hypocritical die to its high moral values, but oppressive capability. For example, Jesus helps the poor, sick and lame, but the Church merged with Roman state which enslaved people. The most famous quote that Marx wrote about religion appeared in his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.” The quote is as follows:

“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, and just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of the religion is therefore in the embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion” (41).

This quote means that the poor can use illusion of religion as comfort during their struggles. Since the poor cannot find happiness in this life, religion tells them that they can find it in the next life. Marx concludes that just as opiate based drugs, religion is only a temporary solution to suffering and can be extremely harmful because it helps one forget the real cause of the suffering. The enemy, the oppressors, are administering the drug and they are ultimately responsible for the pain.

John Stuart Mill History And Influences Sociology Essay

John Stuart Mill has been regarded as an influential philosopher of the nineteenth century, as a result of his contributions to psychology. Though aspects of his early education and family life are noted as less than pleasant, he has been described as one of the great British liberal thinkers (King, Viney, & Woody, 2009). John Stuart Mill is the son of James Mill, a well-known philosopher, who subscribed to the fundamental mechanical method of association, founded by David Hartley (King et al., 2009). James Mill subscribed to the ideals of John Locke, suggesting that at birth, a child’s mind is without knowledge, which only experience would fulfill (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). As a result of his beliefs, John Mill ensured that his son was educated and provided with numerous experiences, neglecting other important aspects of his emotional and social growth (Schultz & Schultz, 2011).

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 and was strictly and systematically educated by his father from an early age, failing to experience pleasures of childhood and emotional sanctity (King et al., 2009). It may be assumed that due to his intensive lifestyle and lack of emotional expression, Mill suffered from severe depression. In the midst of his depressive state, Mill began utilizing arts as a way to explore his feelings, before overcoming his state (King et al., 2009). After establishing a friendship with Harriet Taylor, Mill was able to express his emotions, while furthering his intellectual work (King et al., 2009). Eventually, they married and Mill attributes much of his philosophical work to Taylor (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). Though he felt strongly on aspects of gender equality, it was not until after her death, that he was inspired to write about the disparities experienced by women (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). The main themes of Mill’s philosophical life work, regarding the advancement of psychology, are centered on association and utilitarianism (King et al., 2009).

Associationism

James Mill and John Stuart Mill have been noted as the founders of “associative psychology” by many (Shiraev, 2011, p. 99). John Stuart Mill maintained a similar belief as his father, regarding association as the principal law of human mind, but added an important distinction (Wertheimer, 2012). His father’s view of associationism centered on the premise that complex ideas are made up of simple ideas (Hergenhan, 2009). When those simple ideas repeatedly occur together, they come to be associated as one idea (Hergenhan, 2009). Hergenhan (2009) elaborates this view and notes that a complex idea can always be broken down into the simple ideas that comprise it.

John Stuart Mill modified his father’s mechanistic view, comparing it to a chemistry of the mind, where chemicals combine and result in a different element (Hergenhan, 2009). He viewed ones knowledge base, as a result of experience and in terms of calculations, emphasizing one’s ability to reason, as a result of making generalizations from experiences (Shiraev, 2011). Mill’s reformed view, focused on the notion that basic ideas could occur together, producing an idea that was vastly different from the components that originally were comprised of it (Hergenhan, 2009). Since ideas occurred together in the past, one idea could induce another and even enable one to have a belief about the connection, creating an association (Shiraev, 2011).

Furthermore, Mill argues that associationism can account for how humans learn. Mill compared causal relationships to the minds ability to expect what will happen in the world, enabling a basis for learning to anticipate events (Wilson, 2007). Additionally, Mill describes anticipation of pleasure as a motivating factor (Wilson, 2007). Through various instances of success at obtaining pleasure, individuals will seek pleasure because an association has already been established (Wilson, 2007). Mill’s philosophy that new ideas can result from combined experiences brought about changes in the field of psychology.

Utilitarianism

As a result of the work of Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism is regarded as a principle of moral basis, which states that actions should provide the greatest good for the largest amount of people (King, et al., 2009). However, Mill differed in his views of utilitarianism, focusing on the consequences of an act and judging its worth based on the happiness it provides (Shiraev, 2011). Futhermore, Shiraev (2011) describes Mill’s view of utilitarianism as a basis for determining if an action is correct, and if and only if, it affords pleasure for all who are influenced by the event. Mill regarded only those individuals who were knowledgeable, as having the ability to decide whether an action is in the best interest of all (Shiraev, 2011). Progressivism has been largely impacted by the utilitarian principles, which have contributed to social equality.

The ideals of progressivism were becoming largely influenced by women’s role in the industrial realm. Nearing the twentieth century, large numbers of psychologists were recognizing similarities in their roles to social reformers, who were interested in the role of government in society (Shiraev, 2011). Mill was regarded as a scholar, whose role in progressivism was benefiting the greater good. His beliefs regarding feminism were comprised of empirical and utilitarian philosophy (King et al., 2009). Mill supported the equality of all women, declaring that the only differences that existed between men and women were those of social customs (Shiraev, 2011). Mill, alongside social scientists, challenged society’s view of women as singularly subservient (Shiraev, 2011). Mill focused on society’s view that women were deficient, by arguing that one is unable to have such a basis of knowledge, while women are unable to exert their abilities (King, et al., 2009). Though Mill demanded for changes in the view of women in society, inequalities remained prominent.

Epistemology

Mill’s belief regarding human understanding and the means by which information is acquired, is based on a posteriori knowledge (Wilson, 2007). Mill argued that the knowledge we acquire is based on experiences. He viewed human interaction in the environment as inductive, by which humans tend to make connections among features of unrelated experiences (Wilson, 2007). From those specific connections, humans begin to develop generalizations about their experience (Wilson, 2007). Mill uses his belief about induction, while working out the principles of investigative science, in the System of Logic, Book III (Wilson, 2007). Mill argues those generalizations about the world, as we come to understand, are used as a way to satisfy our needs; however some generalizations may be false (Wilson, 2007). Among the many different generalizations we maintain, patterns begin to develop. Mill declares that we begin to understand that among all the generalizations, are laws that describe various events and we modify our beliefs, in order to detect the actual cause about an event (Wilson, 2007). The process that Mill describes is the foundation of the experimental method of science, which begins with a few hypotheses and a search for data by experimentation, ultimately concluding one true hypothesis (Wilson, 2007).

Empiricism

Mill’s view of empiricism, places limits on what he thought humans were capable of thinking (Wilson, 2007). He placed great emphasis on consciousness, asserting that humans can have knowledge of things that they are not conscious of, as a result of not experiencing all parts of the world (Wilson, 2007). More specifically, he explained that there are some things that are too small to be observed, without assistance or deliberately attending to them (Wilson, 2007). Mill concluded that the knowledge we acquire is not always a result of direct experiences, but conclusions we make from direct experience (Wilson, 2007). Furthermore, Mill clarifies his philosophy, by stating that our beliefs about things we have not observed, are processed as similar to what we already are conscious of (Wilson, 2007).

Psychological Contributions

John Stuart Mill has contributed in numerous ways to the progression of psychology, as we know it today. The all-encompassing premise in his view of psychology is “association and the pleasure principle” (King et al., 2009, p. 139). Mill’s view on association can be applied to the principles of classical conditioning, clinical and applied psychology, cognitive-behavioral psychology, and experimental psychology. Similarly, his views on utilitarianism are related to the principles of social psychology. Though Mill’s considerable influence on philosophy has impacted various aspects of human knowledge, his contributions to psychology have been fundamental in the development of psychology as a science.

Associationism and Psychology

Mill’s philosophical ideals can be compared to the model of classical conditioning. More specifically, his belief in the basis of learning is centered on the idea that one stimulus can signal another stimulus or idea, after being paired together. Mill’s principle of association was based on the premise that ideas, which have occurred together in the past, have the ability to establish a relationship. As a result of his principle, he secondarily influenced other progressive thinkers, such as Ivan Pavlov, in regard to conditioned responses.

Mill’s view of scientific psychology not only included the influence of the mind-body relationship, but ethology as well (King et al., 2009). Mill’s new concept of ethology resembles the basis of clinical psychology studied today. Ethology was based on how individual personality traits among humans differ from one individual to another, enabling observation and experimental processes, to be utilized for study (King et al., 2009). As a result of Mill’s ethology, he supported the theory of an “applied psychology and a basic psychology” (King et al., 2009, p. 139). Also, Mill reasoned that science of the mind has the ability to be studied, enabling future changes in the field of psychology (Schultz & Schultz, 2011).

The fundamental aspects of associationism can be paralleled to the current study of cognitive-behavioral psychology. Though Mill provides little insight into his belief regarding the mind-body problem, it has been assumed that he believes the mind affects the body and vice-versa; however no causality is implied (Wilson, 2007). He regards these reciprocal events as practical, with no mystery to their actions (Wilson, 2007). Mill’s assumption can be compared to the modern view of cognitive-behavioral psychology, in which thoughts impact our feelings and behaviors. Alternatively, aspects of our bodies can influence the way we feel, as well as our mental processing of events.

Associationism has further contributed to learning, enabling experimental psychologists to apply the principles, while studying human processing. Investigations were conducted on the association of a stimulus and response in learning, thus testing the association of mental thinking (Singh, 1991). The philosophical ideas of earlier associationists, enabled modern thinkers such as Hermann Ebbinghaus to investigate and develop a theory of learning, which is regarded as prominent knowledge in psychology today (Singh, 1991).

Utilitarianism and Psychology

Mill’s utilitarian principles on gender equality suggested an early foundation of social psychology. His perspective and writings on feminism enabled a greater understanding of women and how their equal role in society, could provide benefits and new perspectives (King et al., 2009). He discussed society’s perception of women and how influences of greater society maintain the inequality experienced. He ascribed to the principle that improvements in society will augment the general good of many (Wilson, 2007). Furthermore, he asserts that each individual intends to make the most of his or her own happiness, subsequently increasing the happiness for all (Wilson, 2007). Among his many philosophical ideals, Mill supported various social agenda’s, including freedom of speech, worldwide education, and a women’s right to choice birth control (King et al., 2009). Each of Mill’s various ideals focused on the interaction of society and how negative social perceptions impact the morals of social order.

Summary

John Stuart Mill’s philosophical work contributed to various aspects in society, but none more than the field of psychology. It is apparent that his strict upbringing and education were crucial in developing his philosophy of human nature and social agendas. Many aspects of his liberal thinking and psychological principles were ahead of his time and became the foundation of other progressive theories. His philosophical work has impacted many more progressive thinkers throughout history. Mill’s philosophies remain engrained in the history of psychology, learning, and social thought, which continue to be debated today.