Historical Change and Social Transformation

Like any other form of change, the human social transformation and historical change has been triggered and affected by numerous internal and external factors, including violence, theology and politics. This paper focuses on two major social and historical transformation theories by Marx and Weber in a bid to evaluate the transformation. Marx’s Theory Verses Weber’s Theory Karl Marx social theory was majorly based on conflict and social classes among people. He believed and argued that people relate to each other in a conflict-based kind of interaction instead of a mutual consensus or harmony (Wallerstein, 2011). He portrayed conflict as a necessary agent and trigger of change throughout the whole period of human transformation. He believed that people or a group of people interpreted and resorted a particular aspect of reality that they deemed to give significance and meaning to their way of life.

Thus, he believed the concepts that people used to give meaning to life came from different cultural values hence the variation according to different social groups. He also believed that these concepts change over time. He focused on the processes of rationalization, disenchantment and secularization that he accredited with the evolution of capitalism and thus modernity. He thought the origin of capitalism would be better understood by examining the importance of cultural influences embedded in religion which was a sharp contrast to the Marx theory which favored materialism as a better way to look at social change. This ensured that those in the upper classes protected themselves and the privileges they enjoyed and the society continued to operate on the same social structures.

He believed that the model of social structures dictated that the people of the higher classes maintained control over the available resources whilst oppressing those of the lower classes. Thus, social structures survived mostly on oppression which explains the existence of master slave relations in the ancient societies. Marx argued that some of the institutions put in place in the society such as the legal system and political structures were tools used by the ruling class to stay in power by enhancing their domination and furthering their interests. On the other hand, the people of the lower class do not have anything to protect but fight to gain access to the same resources and privileges enjoyed by those in the higher social class.

However, unlike Marx’s theory, Weber believed individuals have the power and will to act freely and not as part of class positions and social roles. He argued that through an individual’s thinking and perception and by extension the actions of the individual, then social development is realized not as the individual being part of a social status or group, but through his own effort and will. People were grouped into social classes and structures that exploited those in the lower classes hence making the future predictable according to Marx’s theory, where those in the oppressed class will revolt against those in the ruling class. This is not the case in Weber’s perspective where according to him the future is undetermined and thus unpredictable.

Weber felt that social change should be open minded as it is based on the actions of individuals and according to his theory the actions of individuals are unpredictable. Viability of Classical Theorists in Understanding the Social Structures and Attitudes in the United States Today Classical theorists like Karl Marx, Weber and Durkheim have played a major role in trying to explain and understand the behavior of the society through social development and historical change. In the wake of the Second World War, some of their theories and philosophies came into action. For Marx, capitalism thrived and American workers were making progress though uneven. Through pressure exerted on the state by workers via their unions, the state was liberated by reformers, and fostered for economic growth and shared prosperity previously unimaginable.

As much as oppression didn’t completely go away the system was reconciled with democratic ideals. For example, they live in neighborhoods with better security, cleaner water and environments and enjoy better medical care as compared to the regular citizen who bears the bulk of the tax burden. As much as measures were integrated in the system to elevate and bring about equality, capitalism has continued to flourish and there is no foreseeable change in that trend. With a growing population and continued reduction in resources, those in the ruling class as depicted by Marx continue to accumulate the necessary resources with ease and those of the lower classes are still struggling to survive. This therefore makes the fight for social and economic equality harder for the lower class and frankly quite impossible.

The current United States social structure has seen the rapid emergence and growth of corporations, large-scale markets, and other organizations of indirect social relationships. Conclusion Classical theorists and their sociology theories on social development and historical changer were necessary as humanity tried to understand the changes that were taking place in the society. However, all these theories have their shortcomings and they do not sufficiently offer an adequate account of society in terms of social integration. Most of their accounts contradict and there is no particular standard theory that gives a complete insight into social development, sociology that is, over the years. However I believe the Marx theory was better placed to explain the social change as it attempted to predict the advancement of capitalism which is widely experienced in the modern society.