ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article provides information about the Marxian historical approach of sociological perspective:
Historical analysis can develop a critical approach to the study of the past, present, and future. It can illuminate the varieties of cultural and social diversity that have existed, and show how changes in these have occurred.
Image Courtesy : upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/parents.jpg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Many historical approaches in sociology have assumed that history is associated with human progress and reaching higher stages of development of society Marxian theories and liberal theories of modernisation generally adopt this approach.
But historical approaches to sociology need not make this assumption and can consider human experience to have many forms of diversity, society to have made great progress in some areas and little in others, and to consider the possibility of regression rather than progression.
It would be best to adopt a historical approach that does not consider human history to have a particular direction or to necessarily evolve to more progressive forms of social organisation. Further, there may be no inevitability or purpose to historical change — change certainly occurs but is a product of myriad influences, some intended and others unintended, with coincidence and chance along with intersection of various unforeseen social circumstances and forces.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There are certainly social forces leading in specific directions (markets, exchange) and powerful individuals and groups attempting to further their influence and power, but people in the social world can also change these social forces. For example, some contemporary analysis assumes that globalisation, standardisation, and the decline of the nation-state are dominant forces that have certain inevitability. While there is no doubt that these forces are strong, there are other aspects such as traditional cultures, resistance to change, local grounding, and communication and discussion that must be considered as well.
Writers in the nineteenth century often adopted a view that human history passed through various identifiable stages. The sociology of Comte with focus on the theological, metaphysical, scientific stage of society and the analysis of Enlightenment writers tended to assume that human history has gone through various stages of development, with each of the stages at a higher level than earlier stages.
The Enlightenment thinkers assumed that the stage that had been reached at the time they were writing was an advance over earlier stages, in that humans had developed a better understanding of the world and could now improve the social world. The view that the stages of history represented progress is reflected in concepts such as primitive and backward to refer to traditional forms, and civilisation and modern to refer to the European societies of the nineteenth century.
Marx and Engels, and later writers in the Marxian stream have generally adopted a similar view and developed a historical analysis as a major part of their analysis. For Marx, the modes of production were historical in nature, with each representing a particular stage of historical evolution, and containing forces for change, but also being limited in form. Thus markets and cities emerged in feudal society, but the power of these emergent social forces required change in the mode of production. As a result, the forces of the bourgeoisie and capitalism broke the power of feudal forms of social and economic organisation, creating a new society in the nineteenth century.
For Marx, each mode of production is historical in nature, having emerged at a particular time, but also having an historical dynamic built into it. Marxian analysis is thus essentially historical in content and form. While it is theoretical, the concepts and models of Marxian analysis are simultaneously historical and theoretical. There had been several criticisms against this Marxian model of development.
Marx has forecasted the disappearance of the State after the successful implementation of the programme of action by the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, historical experiences show that, the state system has not only got reinforced, it has at times taken an oppressive form. Again it is a fact that centralised planning cannot be implemented without well-organised State mechanism. Thus Marx’s idea of the State withering away remains in essence contradictory both in terms of historical experiences and execution of centralised planning.
It is assumed that the dictatorship of the proletariat would usher in an era of classless society. However, after the seizure of state power, not the proletariat, but the political elites occupy the power. Ownership of power is an important dimension of defining social class. Indeed here new political classes emerge with a few occupying the power position, while the vast majority being the powerless. Marx has generalised the idea related to class formation, class transformation and the role of the economic structure in determining the course of history. Marx has defined social collectivities or group in terms of the economy.
Here “class” has been seen as the sole agent to bring change in society through revolution. However, the significance of nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, caste, estate, etc. within these collectives is grossly ignored. Indeed Marx has defined all social relations and conflicts in terms of class relations and conflicts by ignoring the social and historical roles played by these collectives in various societies.
The Marxian idea of capitalism has not taken into cognisance the advancement of new technological inputs and new employer-employee relationship in the changing world. Many of the aspects are covered in the theory of modernisation and the critical theory. The process of advancement of capitalism may also follow the path of rationalisation of religious thoughts as depicted in Protestant ethics, highlighted by Max Weber.