FREE ESSAY ON THEORIES OF INEQUALITY

THEORIES OF INEQUALITY

In briefly evaluating the classical and modern explanations of social inequality, it is
essential that we step outside the realm of our own lives, class position, and discard
any assumptions we might have about the nature of inequality. This process of critical
pedagogy allows us to view our world, not from our perspective, but from a wider, more
critical analysis of inequality's nature. Also, it should be considered within this wider
perspective that all theories of inequality have a class perspective, where the theorist,
based on the position their theory takes, is making claims from (or for) a particular
class (whether they want to or not). 
With this in mind, it seems that most of these theories come from fairly elite class
perspectives and, in turn, tend to be more pessimistic about bringing change to the
inequalities they are evaluating. Of the classical (elite) explanations of inequality,
Max Weber's seemed to be most accepted within the domain of sociology and other social
sciences dealing with modes of inequality. Weber, who believes that we are living within
a sort of "iron cage" which cannot allow us to look beyond the rules and regulations of
our capitalist system, emphasizes the importance of power relationships in society. Those
who are in class positions at the top of the apex (of power distribution) are the people
who, one, hold most of the power in society, and two, make the choices for the direction
and reproduction of society. The majorities at the bottom of the apex, with very limited
power, are unable to make choices that would bring them to their ends.
The core attributes of the economic system are alienation and the bureaucracy, which
create a dehumanizing effect on the characters within the system. The bureaucracy, with
its rational legal authority, clear division of labor, career systems, and impersonality,
is technologically more perfect than any other system (according to Weber). Within this
structure, Weber describes there being three dimensions of inequality: class (which
correlates with the economy), status (which correlates with the social aspects of
society), and party (which correlates with the political aspects of society).
I believe most of the modern explanations of inequality, at most, help build upon Weber's
general theories, and at least, reflect the same elitist pessimism that Weber also holds.
The dual-labor market thesis contends that there are two labor markets (in terms of
income), in which the higher income market is of primary importance and the lower income
market is of secondary importance. This tries to justify those people within high power
positions by (somehow) trying to prove that our system is objectively rewarding higher
incomes to professions that have higher social importance than lower income professions.

Similarly, the functionalist theory of stratification "views societies as social systems
that have certain basic problems to solve or functions that have to be performed if the
society is to survive" (243). So the reason for inequality, for functionalists, is
because our system must reward (with significantly higher incomes) those individuals who
are motivated enough to yield the stresses of such functionally important positions. The
fact that our system reproduces classes into the same class assumes the neo-classical
labor-market theory is correct, in which we have a perfect system based on an equal
opportunity playing field. So, according to these elite theories, the problem of
inequality is an individual problem. If an individual is not motivated enough, then
someone else will be, in so that the crucial functions of society can be carried out by
the most competent, talented individuals.
Clearly, I think, these theories are poor analyses of inequality. These theories,
especially the functionalist theory, are based on solely subjective measurement schemes,
and are in no way objective (nor does it seem that these aspects can be objectively
measured). If the theory requires that society must measure class and power positions in
terms of importance, then who will be the measurers? Always, it seems, the power elite
will be the ones who really have the control of measuring importance-and doesn't it seem
likely, if not natural, that they would perceive themselves as being the most important
people within the whole of society? Surely the underpaid educator would disagree with
societies ability to rate importance through income, believing that they are among the
most important, since education, it can be argued, is the most important aspect in
society (especially for reproducing the system of inequality). Also, these theories
assume that we are all equal in opportunity, when, in fact, there is no such thing as
equality in a system which needs to reproduce itself in every aspect of the social realm.
By reproducing itself as it does, it generally maintains control to be held by those who
have made, and have been born into money-while those without struggle to simply survive,
let alone profit.
Though few theories of inequality made by non-elitists have been acknowledged, the works
of Karl Marx have sustained itself over a century in time. Marx believed that capital
produces profit-which accounts for why we have inequality. Because capitalism produces
both wealth and poverty, society creates the stratification of social classes. Marx
believed there to be two types of classes: the bourgeoisie (the power elite) and the
proletariat (the working class). Though about 90% of the people in a capitalist society
are working class, most believe that they are able to become part of the class of
capitalists (and are, of course, encouraged to believe this by the capitalists). This can
be illustrated today by all of the people pouring their income into the stock market,
which ultimately gives the capitalists much greater proportions of wealth than the
working class receives. 
The whole basis of class, Marx believed, is through exploitation-those who have the
money, have the control to exploit those who have little or nothing. In this form, the
capitalists decide what, when, & how the conditions of labor are to be performed. The
working class, on the other hand, are trading their labor for capital-making them
basically products for capitalists to exploit. So, in terms of surplus, the capitalist
receives all surplus (and is trying to maximize his surplus) while the working class are
providing the capitalist with the means for his end (profit). 
In this system, Marx believes that these positions of class are maintained by the very
structure of the capitalist system. This system is geared to reproduce itself, as it
must, in every aspect of the life it provides-socially, ideologically, politically, and
so on. Therefore, wealth and material gains become more important than moral and social
improvements, and we begin to value our world in terms of efficiency, profitability, and
material worth.