Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chapter 3
VAL BURRIS
University of Oregon
One could not ask for a stronger statement of the primacy of agency
over structure in the formation of social classes.
Other Marxists place a more equal emphasis on objective structures
and human agency, viewing the two as reciprocally conditioned by one
another. A good example is Przeworski, who analyzes classes as the
effect of concrete historical struggles that are conditioned by objective
structures but also react back upon and transform those structures. In
Przeworski’s words (1977, p. 343),
The class structure itself does not generate a unique pattern of class
formation; rather, it determines the underlying probabilities of different
types of class formations. Which of these alternatives actually occurs will
depend upon a range of factors that are structurally contingent to the class
structure itself. Class structure thus remains the structural foundation for
class formations, but it is only through the specific historical analysis of
74 THE MARX-WEBER DEBATE
UNIDIMENSIONAL VERSUS
MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEWS
The histories of racism and sexism, intimately linked though they are to
that of capitalism, are not subsets of the latter. Accordingly, the dynamics
of racial and sexual divisions require separate analyses (Edwards, 1979, p.
195).
The underlying premise of a Marxist class analysis is that, while the diverse
dimensions of social inequality cannot be reduced to class inequality, class
relations nevertheless play a decisive role in shaping other forms of
inequality. ... The empirical and theoretical problem is to sort out the
complex interplay of racism and class relations, not to absorb the former
into the latter (Wright, 1978b, p. 1368).
Where Marxist analyses differ from Weberian analyses is not over the
question of whether racial divisions are in some measure autonomous
of class divisions, but over how the distinctiveness of racial divisions is
to be conceptualized. Weberian theorists typically subsume racial
Neo-Marxist Synthesis 77
There are valuable features incorporated in both the internal colonial (or
submerged nation) model and the capitalist exploitation (or class) model.
Each describes a portion of reality and provides valuable insights
regarding the American system of racial stratification. Neither is sufficiently
general to subsume the other. Therefore it is necessary to select elements
from each of these two models to develop a comprehensive model with
utility for the analysis of racial stratification in America (Geschwender,
1978, p. 262).
without problems.6 First, there is the simple empirical claim that Marxist
class categories can be shown to have stronger effects on life chances,
cultural patterns, or political consciousness than alternative bases of
stratification. Much of the recent effort in Marxist class analysis has been
devoted to demonstrating this fact, and the results are generally
impressive,7 but this is ultimately a weak defense of the class primacy
thesis. Many Weberians (Giddens, for example) would not dispute the
centrality of class in contemporary capitalist society, but would argue
that this is a wholly contingent state of affairs and indicates nothing
about the general primacy of class.
Second, there is the evolutionary claim that only class relations have
an internal logic that generates systematic tendencies toward cumulative
and progressive social change. This is a much stronger argument for the
class primacy thesis and is defended by such Marxists as G. A. Cohen
and Erik Olin Wright. The problem with this defense is that it typically
requires placing the development of the productive forces at the center
of the historical process—a thesis that most contemporary Marxists are
reluctant to advocate because of its association with “technological
determinism” and its vulgarization in official Soviet Marxism.
Third, there is the straightforward materialist argument that, however
autonomous and consequential various nonclass forms of domination
may be, control over the material means of production remains the
basic source of power in society. Whatever their motives or origins,
effective political struggles must therefore assume a class form in the
sense that they must ultimately draw upon and seek to restructure
access to these material resources. My impression is that this is the
version of the class primacy thesis that most contemporary Marxists
would adhere to, at least implicitly. The problem with this defense is
that it presumes precisely what is most contested by Weberian theory:
that material resources are necessarily more important bases of power
than political or ideological resources. As we shall see in the next
section, this claim is often compromised by Marxist themselves by the
importance they assign to political and ideological relations in the
definition of social class.
CONCLUSION
NOTES
1. In this paper I shall limit my attention to Marxist and Weberian theories of the class
structure of capitalist society. Of course, Marx and Weber also have different conceptions
of the nature and importance of class relations in noncapitalist societies. Marx conceives
88 THE MARX-WEBER DEBATE
of a sequence of different types of class society culminating in capitalism, each with its
own dominant class principle, whereas for Weber it is only with capitalism that class
becomes a central principle of stratification. Here also one could cite trends in
contemporary Marxism that have brought it closer to the traditional Weberian perspective.
For example, contemporary Marxist analyses of existing socialist societies, such as those of
Ernest Mandel (1968) and Paul Sweezy (1982), implicitly acknowledge that noncapitalist
forms of oppression do not necessarily avail themselves of analysis in class terms.
2. Much of this debate has centered on the functionalist character of Althusser’s
Marxism (Thompson, 1978; Appelbaum, 1979; Anderson, 1980; Clarke, 1980; Benton,
1984) and on G. A. Cohen’s defense of functionalist arguments in Marxist theory (Cohen,
1978; Levine and Wright, 1980; Elster, 1982; Cohen 1982; Van Parijs, 1982; Berger and
Offe, 1982).
3. For further discussion on this point, see Cohen (1978), Wright (1983), Van Parijs
(1982), and Callinicos (1985).
4. For an elaboration of this critique of Parkin, see Burris (1983) and Barbalet (1982).
5. See, for example, the critiques of Habermas (1982), Archer (1982), and Callinicos
(1985).
6. The discussion here follows closely that of Wright (1983).
7. See, for example, Wright and Perrone (1977), Wright (1978b), and Johnston and
Ornstein (1985).
8. There are, of course, exceptions to this generalization. The more extreme
structuralist versions of Marxism and the more extreme subjectivist versions of
Weberianism do indeed pose a qualitative difference in methods of analysis. Neither of
these, however, are especially prominent in contemporary class analysis.
REFERENCES
Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel. 1981. Marxism and Socialist Theory. Boston: South
End Press.
Anderson, Perry. 1980. Arguments in English Marxism. London: New Left Books.
Appelbaum, Richard. 1979. “Born-again Functionalism? A Reconsideration of Althusser’s
Structuralism.” The Insurgent Sociologist 9:18-33.
Archer, Margaret S. 1982. “Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining Structure
and Action.” British Journal of Sociology 31:401-418.
Aronowitz, Stanley. 1981. The Crisis of Historical Materialism. New York: Praeger.
Barbalet, Jack M. 1980. “Social Closure in Class Analysis.” Sociology 16:484-497.
Baron, Harold M. 1975. “Racial Domination in Advanced Capitalism,” in Richard
Edwards, Michael Reich, and David M. Gordon (eds.), Labor Market Segmentation.
Lexington Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company.
Barrett, Michele. 1980. Women’s Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist
Analysis. London: New Left Books.
Benton, Ted. 1984. The Rise and Fall of Structural Marxism. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Berger, Johannes and Claus Offe. 1982. “Functionalism versus Rational Choice?”
Theory and Society 11:521-526.
Bonacich, Edna. 1976. “Advanced Capitalism and Black/White Relations in the United
States: A Split Labor Market Interpretation.” American Journal of Sociology 41:34-51.
Neo-Marxist Synthesis 89
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York:
Basic Books.
Burris, Val. 1980. “Class Formation and Transformation in Advanced Capitalist Societies:
A Comparative Analysis.” Social Praxis 7:147-179.
——— 1983. “Review of Frank Parkin’s Marxism and Class Theory.” The Insurgent
Sociologist 11:117-120.
Callinicos, Alex. 1985. “Anthony Giddens: A Contemporary Critique.” Theory and
Society 14:133-166.
Carchedi, G. 1977. The Economic Identification of Social Classes. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Clarke, Simon. 1980. “Althusserian Marxism,” in Simon Clarke, Terry Lovell, Kevin
McDonnell, Kevin Robins, and Victor J. Seidler (eds.), One-Dimensional Marxism.
London: Allison & Busby.
Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
——— 1982. “Reply to Elster on ‘Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory.’” Theory
and Society 11:483-495.
Cohen, Jean. 1982. Class and Civil Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press.
——— 1980. “Weber’s Last Theory of Capitalism: A Systematization.” American
Sociological Review 45:925-942.
Crompton, Rosemary and John Gubbay. 1977. Economy and Class Structure. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Cutler, Anthony, Barry Hindess, Paul Hirst, and A. Hussain. 1977. Marx’s Capital and
Capitalism Today. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and John Ehrenreich. 1979. “The Professional-Managerial Class,” in
Pat Walker (ed.), Between Labor and Capital. Boston: South End Press.
Edwards, Richard. 1975. “The Social Relations of Production in the Firm and Labor
Market Structure,” in Richard Edwards, Michael Reich, and David M. Gordon (eds.),
Labor Market Segmentation. Lexington. Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company.
——— 1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Worplace in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Basic Books.
Elster, Jon. 1982. “Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory.” Theory and Society
11:453-482.
Geschwender, James. 1978. Racial Stratification in America. Dubuque Iowa: William C.
Brown.
Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. New York: Harper &
Row
——— 1981. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Gordon, David M., Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich. 1982. Segmented Work,
Divided Workers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1982. “A Reply to My Critics,” in John B. Thompson and David Held
(eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates. London: Macmillan.
Johnston, William and Michael Ornstein. 1985. “Social Class and Political Ideology in
Canada.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22:369-393.
Larson, Magali Sarfatti. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Levine, Andrew and Erik Olin Wright. 1980. “Rationality and Class Struggle.” New Left
Review 123.
90 THE MARX-WEBER DEBATE
Mandel, Ernest. 1968. Marxist Economic Theory. New York: Monthly Review Press.
McDonough, Roisin and Rachel Harrison. 1978. “Patriarchy and Relations of
Production,” in Annette Kuhn and Ann Marie Wolpe (eds.), Feminism and
Materialism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mitchell, Juliet. 1974. Psychoanalysis and Feminism. New York: Vintage Books.
Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Poulantzas, Nicos. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Przeworski, Adam. 1977. “Proletariat into a Class: The Process of Class Formation from
Karl Kautsky’s The Class Struggle to Recent Controversies.” Politics and Society 7:343-
401.
Reich, Michael. 1981. Racial Inequality: A Political-Economic Analysis. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Roemer, John. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Steedman, Ian. 1977. Marx After Sraffa. London: New Left Books.
Sweezy, Paul. 1982. Post-Revolutionary Society. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Thompson, E. P. 1964. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
——— 1978. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Turner, Bryan S. 1981. For Weber. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Van Parijs, Philippe. 1982. “Functionalist Marxism Rehabilitated.” Theory and Society
11:497-511.
Wright, Erik Olin. 1978a. Class, Crisis, and the State. London: New Left Books.
——— 1978b. “Race, Class, and Income Inequality.” American Journal of Sociology
83:1368-1397.
——— 1983. “Giddens’s Critique of Marxism.” New Left Review 138:11-35.
——— 1985. Classes. London: New Left Books.
Wright, Erik Olin and Luca Perrone. 1977. “Marxist Class Categories and Income
Inequality.” American Sociological Review 42:32-55.