These factors can all influence a person’s lifestyle decisions and health. Inequalities produced through social conditions bring about unequal and unjustified health outcomes for different social backgrounds. Health inequalities tend to be measured along a social gradient. Research has shown time and time again that there is a social gradient in health, which runs from the top to the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum (Moss, 1995).
To explain the health inequality in class, social determinants of health were introduced
Historically bourgeois class has always been the owners of land, by owning the land they are able to control the lower class citizens because one needs land to survive, Marx uses the example of the French Revolution in which feudal property was abolished for the bourgeois benefit. Then he continues to state that communism will support the proletariat in that communism is the abolishment of bourgeois private property. Marx elevates his argument by stating “modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few”(pg 22) meaning that the system currently created consist of a small group of people forcing the majority to work from them in order to survive, the bourgeois would not have this power over the majority if they did not own the majority of the land. Hence the reason as to why the proletariat will eventually lean towards communism because it can be “summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property” (page 22)
Socioeconomic status, described by sociologists, is “any measure that attempts to classify groups, individuals, families, or household in terms of indicators such as occupation, income, wealth, and education.” (Conley, 256). They are classified into general classes that include upper class, middle class, working class, and poor. These classes can also affect a person’s health, as being in the upper class can allow you to access most, if not all, medical treatment necessary, whereas the lower status would not be able to due to the lack of money. Being the minority in a race or having low social status can influence health and longevity in many ways.
Weber believed Marx’s explanation was too simple, and developed a more complex model to explain inequality. Weber stated that there are four social classes in society: working, petty bourgeoisie,
The hierarchy is divided into categories of upper, middle and lower class. These categories can be sub-divided into more groups, for example lower- middle class, etc. An individual’s socioeconomic status can depend on many different combinations of income, education, rank, race and ethnicity, and more. Everything related to socioeconomic status can be strongly related to an individual’s health and there have been many studies comparing these two.
Karl Marx and Max Weber both agreed that capitalism generates alienation in modern societies, but the cause for it were both different. For Marx it is due to economic inequality in where the capitalist thinks that the workers worth nothing more than a source of labour, that can be employed and dismissed at will. This causes the workers to be dehumanised by their jobs (in the past, routine factory work and in the present-day, managing demands on a computer), which leads to the workers finding slight satisfaction and feeling incapable of improving their situation. It was noted by Marx four methods on how capitalism alienates workers. The first, is alienation from the function of working.
One of the most important concepts that defined the capitalist economy is the division of labor. Throughout the years, great philosophers such as Adam Smith, Max Weber, and Karl Marx have discussed theories that have drastically changed and molded the modern labor force. Thus, the ideal of labor division was created. Its purpose is to distribute labor skills amongst groups of people and by doing so it enabled workers to build products quickly. From this ideal, it allowed industries to expand their productivity and create trade on a global scale.
In this essay I will compare and contrast Marx and Weber’s theories on social change and the rise of modern capitalism. Firstly I will provide a brief outline of Marx’s theories relating to social change and capitalism. I will then briefly outline Weber’s theories on social change and the rise of modern capitalism. Finally I will give my own critique of the theories outlining which one I prefer and the reasons for my choice.
° Culture Is knowledge and the features of a special number of people, defined by everything from religion, language, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. ° An individualistic society is determined by the values of autonomy and liberty, while a collectivistic society depends upon consensus and group harmony. The values in every single society play an involved part in developing communicating designs to get a company message targeted at every particular audience. ° U.S. teenagers spend about three fifths the quantity of time on schoolwork that East Asian teenagers do and four fifths the time that European teenagers do.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) considered himself not to be a sociologist but a political activist. However, many would disagree and in the view of Hughes (1986), he was ‘both – and a philosopher, historian, economist, and a political scientist as well.’ Much of the work of Marx was political and economic but his main focus was on class conflict and how this led to the rise of capitalism. While nowadays, when people hear the word “communism”, they think of the dictatorial rule of Stalin and the horrific stories of life in a communist state such as the Soviet Union, it is important not to accuse Marx of the deeds carried out in his name.
Evidence suggests that there is a positive correlation between economic status and a variety of health outcomes (hereafter outcomes), including but not limited to obesity, life expectancy, and child mortality. These outcomes, in addition to others, can be affected by a person’s economic status. However, they can also be affected by any of the other determinants mentioned, some of which may be tied to economic status. For example, economic status may determine where a person lives, or a person’s ability to study at university level. This may be why it has been received more attention than other
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Fertility is one of the major components of population growth. The past few decades have witnessed a major decline in world fertility majorly from developed countries, making global and even regional aggregates have widespread diversity in fertility change. In Asia and Latin America fertility declines over the past half century have been very permeating. Between the early 1950s and the early 2000s, the total fertility rate (TFR) dropped from 5.7 to 2.4 births per woman in Asia and from 5.9 to 2.3 births per woman in Latin America. In these regions just a few nations still have fertility rates higher than four births per woman (Bongaarts, 2011).
They found that the difference in socioeconomic status (SES), as assessed by income or educational achievement, are associated with large disparities in health status(1). In western European countries and in the U.S, the association between SES and health follows a common pattern(2-4). The lower individuals are with respect to SES, the poorer their state of health. Similar results have been obtained in different countries, irrespective of cultural background or economic growth(5). In addition, while most researchers understand they must control for the effects of SES when analyzing health outcomes, many different regard different measures of SES as interchangeable.
With respect to this, social class is perceived in the sociology as the combination of economic and political characteristics that identify the belonging of a person to a definite group. The most common approach to the differentiation of classes is the stratification “according to their relations to production and acquisition of goods” (Textbook, p. 193). This idea was suggested by Karl Marx and offered the basis for his division of the society into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, Max Weber pointed out the weakness of Marx's theory referring to its foundation on economic indicators only and offering a wider perspective including the introduction of status groups that are stratified “according to principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special 'styles of life'” (Textbook, p. 193).
