Conflict Theory According to Max Weber

Weber’s Ideas around Conflict Theory

Weber’s (1905) version of conflict theory differed from Marx’s in several important ways. Weber criticized Marx by claiming that he over-emphasized the influence of economic factors as the main source of social inequality and a cause of social behavior (Marx & Engels, 1847).

Firstly, Weber believed that class was not the only source of conflict in society. He argued that conflict arises as much over values, status, and a sense of personal honor as over class.

While Weber agreed with Marx’s idea that social class is the most important type of status inequality, he contended that Marx ignored and neglected other important types of status inequality and differences based on gender, ethnicity, religion and nationality – which have little to do with wealth or profit (Weber, 1905).

Weber considered these stratification systems to be organized around two important dimensions: status and party. Status refers to a person”s honor or prestige. That is to say, the amount of respect a person receives from society.

This may be expressed in economic reward or political deference. Those who lack status could be subjected to prejudice and discrimination from those with status.

Meanwhile, Weber defined ‘parties’ as interest groups that either exercise power or influence or wish to do so. For example, a worker’s union may exercise striking power to increase wages or better working conditions. Weber believed that these two dimensions were fundamentally independent of each other.

Examples

Weber’s Criticisms of Social Class

Weber defined a social class as a group that shares a similar market situation. Because of their skill-set, those in a particular social class receive similar economic rewards.

For example, a skilled worker and an unskilled worker will receive different wages for their work. However, Weber argued that Marx’s idea of social class failed to explain the status differences that exist within social class strata.

For example, within the upper class, ‘old wealth’ such as that embodied by the Royal Family and the aristocracy seems to have more status than ‘new wealth,’ as symbolized by owners of companies or wealthy celebrities (Weber, 1905).

These differences in status between members of the same social class exist for lower classes as well. Within the middle classes, for example, there exist status differences between the upper middle class, the professional and managerial middle classes, and white-collar workers.

While those working professional jobs may have higher incomes than white-collar workers, the latter may have more status because of the type of work they do. For example, a stock trader is likely to have a higher income than a schoolteacher, but the schoolteacher is likely to have more status because their work is seen as being more important and beneficial to society.

Within the working-class, there are status differences between the ‘labor aristocracy’, those who are semi-skilled and unskilled but working, and those who are long-term unemployed and dependent on benefits.

On the upper end of income ranges, a plumber may significantly outearn even many in the middle class but maintain a working-class status for having a “blue collar” job.

As Weber added to conflict theory, economic wealth is related to, but not entirely determinant, social status and power.

Weber and Power

Weber (1905) believed that conflict did not always lead to social change; instead, they might just as easily lead to the reinforcement of existing power relations.

Weber identified types of power that have little to do with economics or social class. For example, people may acquire power because they have greater physical or military strength over others.

Others may acquire a legitimate form of power called ‘authority’ from the state or society to exercise power over others, for example, the Prime Minister, the police, and teachers each exercise authority.

Furthermore, people, regardless of physical strength or societally-given authority, may acquire charismatic authority from the strength of their own personality, resulting in the acquisition of a following.

A popular social media star may, for example, wield significant economic and social power as a result of their online following.
The important point that Weber makes in identifying different types of power is that none of these types of power originates in the way capitalism is organized and controlled.

This means that, even if capitalism were to be abolished, other forms of power would continue to exist. Weber’s ideas on conflict theory, therefore, present a more nuanced view of social change than Marx’s class struggle paradigm.

Critical Evaluation

Weber notes that it is not always the capitalist class theory of Marx that is responsible for inequality, exploitation, suffering and conflict.

He presents a method for sociologists to construct complex and multi-dimensional models of stratification. Weber acknowledges that it is important to consider all three dimensions when studying social inequality: economic, social and political.

While Marx’s theory focuses on the economic, Weber adds the political and social to create a more comprehensive view of societal stratification. He also acknowledges that there is not always a clearcut struggle between two groups, as Marx would have posited. Those occupying one “class” status in some respects may occupy others simultaneously (Weber, 1905).

Despite its influence, Weberian Conflict theory is not without its critics. Neo-Marxists, for example, criticize the notion of status differences within social classes.

Marxists see these as deliberately created by the bourgeoisie to divide and rule workers so that they never achieve full class consciousness and become a dangerous revolutionary class.

Additionally, Weber’s work has been criticized for its Eurocentric focus (Collins, 1980).
Critics also argue that Weberian conflict theory does not pay enough attention to the role of women in society and gender as a general source of conflict.

In general, Weber’s work reflects the ideas and values of his time; however, feminist sociologists have more recently created gender-based conflict theories inspired by Weber’s expansion of status and power differences.

References

Bartos, O. J., & Wehr, P. (2002). Using conflict theory: Cambridge University Press.

Binns, D. (1977). Beyond the sociology of conflict. New York: St. Martin’s.

Collins, R. (1980). Weber”s last theory of capitalism: a systematization. American Sociological Review, 925-942.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1847). Manifesto of the communist party.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto. 1848. Trans. Samuel Moore. London: Penguin, 15.

Rose, D., & Pevalin, D. (2003). The NS-SEC described. A researcher’s guide to the national statistics socio-economic classification, 6-27.

Weber, M. (1905). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Berlin.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

Wells, A. (1979). Conflict theory and functionalism: Introductory sociology textbooks, 1928-1976. Teaching Sociology, 429-437.

Weber, M. (2009).  The theory of social and economic organization. Simon and Schuster.