Understanding America: A Sociological Perspective

By Robert C. Hassler

Is America done? Have we run our course? Is the best behind us with nothing but stagnation, turmoil, and decline ahead? Are we living during the fall of the United States, the New Roman Empire? Calls to Make America Great Again motivated millions of Americans recently to engage in the political process for the first time in their lives. Motivated by a concern that they, like the old Romans of the fifth century, were on the precipice of disaster. The ancient Romans, of course, were not naive; they saw the problems, they even had solutions, but they failed to save their civilization. Is this the destiny of the United States? Solutions to health care, taxes, immigration, crime, sex roles, and environmental degradation are numerous and available, but it seems, like the ancient Romans, Americans lack the political and social will, unity, and objectivity to get it done. Part of the problem is that the nation's airways are filled with social commentators espousing liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, progressive, anarchist, and other partisan perspectives for the nation's condition. All of this hyperbole, fake news, spin doctoring, and outright lies are a result of everyone relying upon partial, alternative, or simply made-up sets of facts. If we cannot even agree on the facts, then how in the world can we agree on what should or should not be done? Well, there is a solution to this: old-fashioned, scientifically grounded sociology. Not the current activist sociology, which has helped contribute to the static. But the type of sociology that adheres to the scientific methodology. By understanding and applying the sociological perspective, it is possible to not only understand the true nature of the problems facing the nation, but also how we arrived at this point, and where we can go from here. This is the promise of this book: by understanding sociology, we can then understand not only America, but also Americans. Only by embracing the truth about the nation's status can we get back on the right path to fulfilling the promise of America.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 16, 2018
• ISBN: 9781642987089

Book preview

cover.jpg

Understanding America

A Sociological Perspective

Robert C. Hassler

Copyright © 2018 Robert C. Hassler

All rights reserved

First Edition

Page Publishing, Inc

New York, NY

First originally published by Page Publishing, Inc 2018

ISBN 978-1-64298-711-9 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-64298-708-9 (Digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Sin is not the basic human problem; ignorance is. If we just come to knowledge—if we can eradicate darkness, ignorance and lack of insight—we will do the right thing.

—Marvin Meyer, (2011)

Understanding Sociology

One

The Sociological Perspective

Introduction

People have always been interested in why people do things, why some people seem to get along with others, and why some people are always in conflict. Many people become so frustrated with others that they feel that life would be easier if they could just isolate themselves and avoid any interaction with others. Would it not be great to avoid interpersonal conflicts and instead enjoy the liberating freedom to quietly pursue one’s own individual interests? Unfortunately, that just is not the way it works.

By definition, humans are social animals. This means that we are destined to live our entire lives in association with other humans. We naturally form social groups to more efficiently take care of our most basic needs of shelter, subsistence, education, security, entertainment and, of course, reproduction. In fact, psychologists warn us that isolation can easily cause emotional damage. Humans simply need other humans to live healthy, balanced lives.

If this is true, then why does it appear that every society has certain people within it who are antisocial, who seem to go out of their way to disrupt the cohesiveness of the group? Why murder, why incest, why theft, why gossip? Why is it that humans, with all our reasoning ability and countless philosophical debates over morality, ethics, and the true nature of the human spirit and condition, have created societies that promote social conflict, competition, and stratification? Is it impossible to create a society whereby all humans have the opportunity to reach their own individual potentials without prejudice, discrimination, and conflict? These are the questions that are at the core of modern sociology; a field of study that maintains that progress in human compatibility, equitability, and even equality, is possible. But is it?

Self-Examination

Anthropologists Carol and Melvin Ember (2015) laid out the basic assumption underlining social science in the following:

The idea that it is impossible to account for human behavior scientifically, either because our actions and beliefs are too individualistic and complex or because human beings are understandable only in other-worldly terms, is a self-fulfilling idea. We cannot discover principles explaining human behavior if we neither believe such principles exist nor bother to look for them. The result is assured from the beginning; disbelief in principles of human nature will be reinforced by the failure to find them. If we are to increase our understanding of human beings, we first have to believe it is possible to do so.

Social science, in which sociology is one branch, tries to explain observable human behavior via the scientific methodology. The Embers were noting that it is possible to understand human behavior; that it is not unique or mystical, that there are predictable patterns. The sociological approach, however, tends to focus on these patterns of human behavior; and in many ways, this helps perpetuate generalizations and stereotypes. For some people, this approach seems too vague. They feel that such generalizations resulting from a focus on patterned behavior ignores individuality and the exercise of free will.

The main opposition, however, is that many people still maintain that human behavior is subject to divine intervention, random luck, or other supernatural forces that are beyond the scope of scientific analysis. If one maintains that humans are not subject to natural laws or that individual behavior is too complex, then social science is not going to be your cup of tea. Therefore, instead of looking for the sociological variables that shape domestic violence or drug abuse, one could possibly maintain that such behavior was sinful and driven by satanic temptation; the devil’s work. A social scientist would have a difficult time testing the devil’s influence. How does one quantify the devil’s influence on a person’s behavior?

In contrast, a social scientist could look for religious ideological patterns that shape certain behaviors and attitudes regarding child abuse, violence, and even substance addiction. Faced with these contrasting worldviews, the question becomes: do we just accept that supernatural or mystical forces drive human behavior, or do we examine and test for quantifiable and nonmystical variables to explain human behavior? In other words, is someone abusive because the devil made them do it, or is it because they have chosen to be abusive following a lifetime of exposure to abuse, crime, poverty, and chemical addiction? Which approach seems most likely to shed light on human behavior? Which approach empowers humans to understand and improve society?

Why Sociology?

Sociology is the study of human behavior in the context of group dynamics. It focuses on the interplay between the individual and the group. Sociologists, therefore, are interested in how social groups influence individual behavior. Social groups have the potential to not only help an individual survive, but they can also limit one’s potential by restricting access to material goods and prestige. Many sociologists have concluded that individual choice is not limitless; it has borders; borders that are determined by the group and may even be reinforced through Draconian measures within a formal justice system. For example, the violence triggered by the Protestant Reformation in Europe (ca. 1450–1650 CE) which challenged the status quo of Catholic Europe, is an illustration of the constraint that group think can play on individual behavior. Individuals that questioned the values and norms of their own religious group at the time put their lives at risk. At a time when religion dictated every aspect of one’s life, including the perception of basic human behavior, the suggestion that humans were not subject to God’s will, was unfathomable. Nevertheless, the continual violence and social rigidity of sixteen century Europe, by both Protestants and Catholics, troubled an increasing number of people who could not mesh the harsh reprisals by religious and political authorities while espousing divine authority with their perception of a loving, forgiving, deity. It was not that people were turning away from their faith, but simply questioning the blind adherence to religious dogma championed by religious and political institutions. As a result, in a broad sense the historical development of sociology reflected a desire to find a different approach to understanding human behaver than from a simplistic religious and moralistic perspective. This desire took shape under the four following historical forces.

Age of Discovery

Historians point out that the various voyages (ca. 1400–1700 CE) that Europeans undertook to explore the world, in hopes of finding a quick passage to the Orient (Asia, meaning China, India, and the Spice Islands of Malaysia), had a major impact on the European worldview. In a very short period of time, Europeans were introduced to a vast array of cultures along the coasts of Africa and the Americas. Many of these aboriginal cultures were totally unknown to European scholars and sailors. People wondered about the origins and diversity of these new cultures and how they related to European history. The need to understand this cultural diversity was initially driven by commercial interests but quickly was replaced by a need to justify colonial policies and cultural conflicts. As Europeans colonized and dominated non-European territories in the Americas, Africa, and Asia, the need to understand their aboriginal adversaries and Eastern competitors became paramount in the quest for world dominance.

Judeo-Christian Ideological Gaps

Initially, Europeans looked toward their religious documents, primarily the Bible, to explain the presence and development of cultural diversity. If the Bible did not specifically address an issue, then supplemental texts such as the writings of Sts. Augustine or Benedict helped fill in the blanks. Native Americans, for example, were theorized to be descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, which had been defeated and enslaved by the Assyrians centuries before the birth of Jesus.

The idea that Native Americans were once Hebrews may seem peculiar to us, but for centuries, this theory was seriously entertained because the Bible was felt to be the authentic history of humanity. When the empirical evidence did not support the literal view of the Bible, people proposed other ideas to prop up their religious texts. For example, some proposed that there had been multiple creations of humans by God other than the Adam and Eve version in Genesis. These polygenesists maintained that non-Europeans were a more primitive version of humanity created by God before the creation of Adam and Eve. This circular argument using the Bible and other ancient texts as the starting and ending points frustrated many who simply maintained that the texts were not a complete history of humanity, a dangerous position to hold in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries during the Reformation.

Scientific Methodology

Driven by a desire to understand God’s world outside of the religious texts motivated early scientists or naturalists such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626 CE). Early naturalists were very religious, but they maintained that it was possible to understand the natural world that God created through the application of our senses (i.e., seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling), if we could simply check our biases. They maintained that it was our moral, humanistic, and perhaps, even religious duty to understand and improve our world rather than merely accept through blind faith the mysticism of God. Early naturalists argued that God gave us our senses and our cognitive abilities so that we could reach a higher understanding of God. This perspective, referred to as the Enlightenment, continued to be espoused throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. What was actually taking shape was the development of a scientific methodology that could be employed that would help check our natural biases in the pursuit of objective, quantifiable truth. History of science, of course, has shown this to be easier said than done.

Social Criticism

During the nineteenth century, the fourth variable that drove the development of sociology came out of the massive cultural changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution. In Western Europe and then in North America, the preindustrial agricultural culture that had survived for centuries was rapidly giving way to industrialization. A massive amount of new technology was influencing drastic changes in social institutions and ideology. Many people embraced the changes occurring in manufacturing, living conditions, urbanization, and health care. Others criticized the rapid loss of traditional values, increased urbanization and overcrowding, population growth, abusive labor practices, environmental degradation, and massive migrations of workers. But the biggest concern for social critics, such as Karl Marx (1818–1883 CE), was the growing social stratification between the haves and the have-nots (i.e., rich vs. poor). These social critics asked the basic question: is this the best society for humanity?

Many social critics felt that the answer was no. If we could simply understand human behavior and the structure of society, then we could become social engineers and develop a better society. In other words, the human condition was not predetermined, and we have the power to make the world more to our liking. Others, of course, questioned the wisdom and ability of social engineering. This debate, which still goes on, has encouraged the growth of sociology; for without objective, measurable, verifiable data concerning social behavior and the complexities of society, this debate would remain abstract rather than concrete.

Why Do Sociology?

On an individual level, most people are attracted to sociology because of a personal quest to better understand themselves. On a bigger scale, in line with the nineteenth century social critics, is the desire to become social activists and perhaps change the world. To assume that one has the power to become a social engineer, one must first assume that one can understand human behavior to the point of manipulating it. Sociology, right or wrong, has become the tool for such manipulation.

Manipulating Others?

One branch of every social science is the application of science to real-world issues. Applied sociology, for example, is the belief that sociologists have the right to use their professional understanding of human behavior to help engineer society, to give it a makeover. Such a position, of course, brings up issues of free will, individuality, and ethics if sociologists become activists rather than analysts. In every branch of social science, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc., the discipline is split between those who feel that the role of the profession is to study human behavior and to provide insights only and those that feel that the final step requires application if the profession is to have any real value. But does this come with a price?

Historian Page Smith(1990) observed:

The most serious problem facing academic sociology may be similar to that facing anthropology: we have come to look at human beings differently in recent decades. It is increasingly distasteful to many people to look at other people (or peoples) as objects of study and observation. We are becoming aware that there is something dehumanizing to both observer and observed in looking at individuals (or social groups) like creatures under a scientist’s microscope. We enter into sacred precincts when we approach the other. By what right do we study them?

Sociologist Peter Berger went farther when he warned that sociology dominated from an activist agenda had become the dismal science par excellence in our time, an intrinsically debunking discipline that should be congenial to nihilists, cynics, and other fit subjects for police surveillance.¹ Manipulating people, simply because one can in pursuit of one’s own agenda, or a misguided desire for utopia, is a misuse of sociological insight.

Therefore, even though most social scientists on the surface reject the usage of their knowledge by the social elite to engineer society, it is still a never-ending debate—a debate that has been left up to the individual scientist rather than the scientific community as a whole. In one sense, this ethical debate is somewhat pointless, for in practicality, our scientific understanding of patterned human behavior is already constantly being used by corporations, politicians, and activists, especially through social media, in the conscious manipulation of the uninformed masses through marketing strategies, propaganda, and mass hysteria. It seems that the best advice a sociologist can give someone is to become knowledgeable about human behavior and the intentions of others, only then can one protect oneself from manipulation, for certainly, knowledge is power. In this pursuit, one should look toward the academic goals of sociology for guidance.

Academic Goals of Sociology

Traditionally, the goals of sociology are threefold. The first goal is to describe human behavior. In this regard, sociology has come a long way in developing excellent field methods and analytical and statistical tools to objectively quantify human behavior.

The second goal is to explain human behavior. This has been met with limited success. We have been most successful in explaining human behavior after the fact for this is the time that we can sort through all the variables and highlight those that shaped the behavior. Yes, that guy was sexually and physically abused during childhood, which is why he assaulted that child.

But the third goal, the so-called Holy Grail of sociology, is to predict human behavior. But just like the Holy Grail, it is still elusive. The idea is that if we can predict behavior, then we can intervene to prevent negative behavior and promote good behavior. Thus, the current practice is to highlight the various variables associated with a behavior and illustrate that the more variables that are present, the higher the probability of an outcome. For many, this is still rather wishy-washy but promising once we accept the complexity of human behavior. Bottom line—we are a long way away from arresting criminals before they predictably commit the crime as in the Hollywood movie Minority Report.

---

¹ Quoted in Page Smith, Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. (New York: Viking Penguin Group, 1990)

Two

The Historical Development of Sociology

Introduction

Every academic discipline likes to brag about its historical development and how its unique perspective on the world has helped improve or at least contributed to the modern world. Sociology is no exception. As a result, every student is expected to be acquainted with the early historical figures that helped shape the sociological perspective and at least have a passing understanding of some, if not all, of the formative theoretical frameworks of the discipline. Unfortunately, the history of sociology and science in general, tends to be of interest to few students. Part of the problem is the attempt to make every past contributor (and every sociologist has their own favorites), someone that every student must worship, and to be able to compare and contrast them with other historical figures, in order to demonstrate their seriousness as a student. This usually results in a self-selecting process where students decide that sociology no longer is of interest to them. In other words, if a student is lost in a course, it usually occurs when instructors cover the history of the discipline, followed closely by the exploration of theory and method. With this in mind, the following is composed in an attempt to get to the point and to make the historical overview of the discipline, and later, theory and method, as painless as possible! But it is true, to understand the field, one must understand where it came from. So here goes.

Important Historical Figures

Every discipline has a historical foundation in which the basic concepts and structure of the field developed. While thousands of individuals contribute to the field, there are certain individuals worth noting. Here are some that helped define sociology.

Auguste Comte (1798–1857)

August Comte sometimes is referred to as the Father of Sociology because he was one of the first to use the term to imply that it was possible to discover social principles that could help in social reform. Writing at a time when many still assumed that human behavior was too complex, individualized, or guided by mystical and divine forces, Comte maintained that it was possible for humans to understand human behavior from a scientific perspective. This belief that human behavior could be analyzed and understood developed into a basic school of thought referred to as positivism. Simply put, positivism promotes a positive outlook that human behavior can be understood from sociological analysis; that universal laws governing social behavior would ultimately be identified through the application of the scientific method. Once identified and understood, such laws could be used to guide social change (Comte,1842,1988;Durkheim,1938,1973).

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)

Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Comte, agreed that it was possible to analyze human behavior and the structure of societies. He envisioned society to be like a living biological organism in which all parts of a body (legs, heart, lungs, arms, etc.) have individual functions, but that they all must work together for the organism to survive. Following this analogy, Spencer felt that society was composed of multiple groups that all provided various functions geared at insuring its member’s survival, but ultimately, all these various groups had to cooperate with each other if society was to function efficiently as a whole (Spencer,1897,1973). This view in part helped shape what would later become structural functionalist theory.

Although Spencer felt that it was possible to describe the structure and function of social groups (institutions), he did not support the idea of applied sociology or social engineering. He maintained that natural competition between social groups would shape a society into a more efficient and competitive organism than planned social engineering with its unintended consequences. The forces of what he termed Social Darwinism, driven by competition and natural selection, would create dominant and vibrant societies that were justified in spreading their cultural influence. As a result, Social Darwinism during the nineteenth century became the rationale for the expansion of European industrial colonialism.

Although Social Darwinism has helped justify ethnocentric, and usually racist, attitudes that have led to many cultural conflicts including war, genocide, and exploitation, this, however, does not automatically discount its validity. Even Spencer saw the danger in unchecked colonialism and imperialism driven by cultural competition and expansion, but he still maintained that the forces of natural evolution should be allowed to play out. He did not trust that social reform as manipulated by social scientists in an attempt to create a utopian society could do better than natural selection. In other words, Mother Nature knows best.

Nineteenth Century Unilineal Evolution

During the nineteenth century, social scientists were interested in developing an all-encompassing theory that would explain both cultural diversity and cultural evolution. Influenced by changing aspects of evolutionary theory triggered by Charles Darwin and a need to justify European Colonialism, a theoretical framework was worked out. By the late nineteenth century, the dominant theoretical framework to explain human social history and competition was unilineal evolution (Morgan,1877; Steward, 1955; Tylor,1871).

This theory maintained that there were set stages of cultural evolution that could be defined via technology, social institutions, and ideology. These stages were like rungs on a ladder that every culture had to climb in order to evolve from barbarism to civilization. Some cultures, such as Great Britain, had passed through all of these stages and were at the peak of civilization. Others, like the Shona of Africa, were not fully evolved and were representative of an earlier, more primitive stage of human development. Aboriginal cultures around the world were treated as examples of living history.

Combining this theory with Social Darwinism, it is not surprising that the Western world took an ethnocentric, racist, and patronizing stance in dealing with non-Western cultures. Unilineal evolution was a perfect fit to justify forced assimilation and colonial practices toward non-Western cultures. The ultimate problem with this theory, however, soon became apparent as social scientists, especially anthropologists, began to actually collect sound ethnographic data on non-Western cultures. It soon became apparent that these cultures were not simplistic, primitive, or merely living examples of previous human cultural stages. They were, in fact, unique, highly complex, and evolving cultures shaped by their own social, physical, and historical context. Comparing British and Shona society was like comparing apples with oranges. Sure some similarities could be discovered, like they both have marriage customs, but the details that created the richness of culture could not be simplistically categorized as primitive or civilized. Nevertheless, the importance of unilineal evolutionary theory can be seen in the writings of one of the most influential social critics of the nineteenth century: Karl Marx.

Karl Marx (1818–1883)

As social scientists attempted to define the various developmental stages that cultures supposedly evolved through by looking at various social institutions, such as religion or kinship, Karl Marx focused his analysis on the development of the political economic systems of societies. Looking at these systems, one could propose the following stages by ranking them according to their complexities and supposed degree of social equality.

Reciprocity

The simplest economic system is reciprocity. This form of economic exchange is basically gift giving or sharing of commodities. When someone gives you a present or gift, such as for your birthday, this triggers reciprocity. In most cases, an immediate return of a material item is not expected, but what is expected is the development of a social connection. In other words, when you receive a gift or give a gift, the real purpose of the exchange is social rather than economic. Reciprocity is not a random activity but an activity that links certain people together into a web of social and economic responsibilities. Some cultures, such as traditional hunting and gathering cultures, base their entire economic system on reciprocity. Unilineal evolutionists felt that reciprocity was the most simplistic of all economic systems, but that it would survive within more complex societies because it linked individuals.

Redistribution

The second economic level consist of redistribution systems that require a central authority to collect resources from the group then redistribute them where they are needed most. For example, the federal income tax system of the United States is a huge redistribution system. Theoretically, the government taxes everyone fairly and collects large sums of monies that then are redistributed where they are needed the most in order to insure that everyone in society can survive. The larger redistribution systems become, however, the more inefficient and dependent on forced contributions they become.

Such systems exist in many societies, and anthropologists have documented both tribal and chiefdom redistribution systems that relied more on social pressure than coercion. For example, the Potlatch system used by the traditional nineteenth century Kwakiutl living along the Northwest Pacific Coast of North America used the social and religious power of village chiefs to organize elaborate redistribution ceremonies that gave prestige to those who contributed the most. The more you gave away, the more respected you were. For unilineal evolutionists like Marx, the complex social ranking system used in traditional societies made redistribution systems more complex than reciprocity systems and therefore more evolved.

Capitalism

The next complex level of economic systems, capitalism, incorporates market-based economies. There are several sublevels within market-based systems. The first level consists of local markets based upon bartering in which the buyer and seller must both bring their commodities to the market then negotiate an equal exchange of materials. Such market-based systems using bartering as the exchange medium remain fairly localize due to the difficulty of transporting commodities to the market location.

In contrast, markets that incorporate a monetary-based exchange system naturally expand the market territory and open up the system to more regional and even global trade. Once the value of commodities can be translated into a monetary system, such as gold and silver coinage, the commodity value in the form of money becomes more portable and flexible. This provides merchants and consumers the ability to trade at multiple markets without dragging bulky commodities to areas where the demand is not warranted.

However, participation in a monetary-based market system changes the economic goal. The goal of fair exchange becomes altered as it becomes obvious that to compensate for the risk and effort in visiting various markets, an economic buffer must be acquired. This buffer is simply what capitalists call profit. To gain profit, the trading of goods is no longer based upon a fair exchange of commodities, such as in a barter system, but the conscious attempt to sell products for more than they are worth or to buy products for less than they are worth. The difference in real value and what the market exchange can deliver is profit, and accumulating this becomes the new economic goal.

Marx saw the development of social stratification and conflict inevitable within capitalistic economies since the goal of profits produced market winners and losers. This dichotomy would solidify into class stratification between the haves and the have-nots. Writing at a time when European peasants and American factory workers were striving for better wages and living conditions, and the Industrial Revolution had created a commercial aristocratic class (e.g., the Robber Barons of the American Gilded Age), Marx concluded that an economic system based upon individual ownership and profit was not the best economic system for a stable society because of its inherent social stratification. Thinking like a unilineal evolutionist, he maintained that economic systems had to continually evolve beyond capitalism, forcing a more equitable sharing of wealth.

Socialism

According to critics like Marx, uncontrolled, unregulated, market-driven (i.e., laissez-faire) capitalism allowed those who were good at economic manipulation to become rich and powerful. Those who were not as good at the game would slowly slip into the lower economic classes with decreasing social power. Eventually, if unchecked, such capitalism would create a society with few winners and many losers. Fair competition would be driven from the system as monopolies, and the consolidation of power become the norm. In such a system, many members of society would have trouble meeting their basic needs of food, shelter, education, health care, and security. At this point, there would be increased social pressure upon the ruling class to reform the system. Under such social pressure, according to Marx, capitalistic societies would naturally evolve into socialistic societies in which certain services and materials were removed from the for-profit market. Private ownership would still be allowed; however, those items or services related to basic survival needs would no longer be traded for profit. As a result, everyone in society, simply because they were a member of the group, would receive basic housing, food, education, health care, transportation, and security. In socialistic societies, one still had the option to purchase better housing, food, and education, but at least a social safety net was created for the economic losers, or according to hard core capitalists, freeloaders.

Based upon this definition, the United States is really a socialistic society in that certain services have been removed from the profit-oriented capitalistic economy. In the United States, public housing, food stamps, Medicaid, K-12 public schooling, Amtrak railroads, mass transit busing, and even first-class mail via the U.S. Postal Service are all examples where the profit goal is replaced with the goal of equitable access. The passage of Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) and the proposal to make community college tuition free are further examples of the growing acceptance of socialism with the United States. Recently, many Americans have felt that such programs are unsustainable and need to either be reformed or scaled back.

Socialistic systems would seem to be the ideal situation; unfortunately, the larger the social program the more inefficient the system becomes, and fraud and corruption develops. It also does not limit the continual social stratification as private ownership is still allowed in the other aspects of nonessential services, and the rich have the option to opt out and acquire better education, health care, etc. Marx felt that these problems set the stage for another evolutionary change in the political economic system. This change, however, would involve violent class conflict as the working masses revolted against the ruling class.

Communism

Communism, according to Marx, would be a result of class conflict when the proletariat (workers) finally rose up and seized power from the bourgeoisie (capitalist/owners). Private ownership would be abolished as well as profit. Communism would, therefore, make everyone equal in both social prestige and wealth; the end of social stratification would occur as everyone become interchangeable comrades. Since private ownership is abolished in communism, everything would be owned collectively by the community (group).

Marx felt that this system would have to be ushered in on the heels of a worker revolution because the ruling elite would attempt to stop this natural social evolution. The class conflict between the haves and have-nots would spiral out of control as the rich attempted to control the social institutions to maintain their position of power. Their increasing abuse of power, however, would simply act as a catalyst in bringing about the communist revolution.

When Marx was developing his theory, much of Western Europe and North America was rapidly changing due to the Industrial Revolution, and social conflict between workers and employers was increasing. However, history has shown that the rise of a communist equalitarian society did not occur in the most industrialized societies, as Marx predicted, but in emerging agrarian-based societies such as Russia, China, and parts of Africa and Latin America. These were societies without a vibrant industrialized middle class, but rather an ingrained ruling class generated by preindustrial agricultural society and colonial policies that still relied heavily upon cheap human labor.

When peasant revolts did occur and were successful in toppling the ruling elite, true egalitarian societies, however, did not develop. Instead, the old social stratification was merely replaced by a new form of social stratification as the revolutionary leaders formed a new upper class as the party leaders. Anthropologists have now shown that egalitarian social structure, in which everyone has equal access to prestige and wealth (material items), is only found within traditionally small, nomadic, hunting and gathering bands. In contrast, state systems, both past and present, preindustrial or industrial, by definition, are built upon craft(occupational) specialization and social stratification in which there will always be unequal access to