1117509 Is Marxs science of society deterministic?

The influence Karl Marx had on not only sociology but society itself is perhaps difficult to exaggerate. The scale and ambition of his meta-narrative is admirable, both for the questions it has raised and for the principles his work espoused. Whilst frequently misinterpreted even misrepresented, his legacy still haunts us today. This paper will question, assess and evaluate whether Marxs theory of society is deterministic in nature, and if so, the extent to which this determinism pervades his theory. Before we can go further, it is necessary to define determinism within a framework conducive to this investigation. The usual position of determinism views social events as predetermined by a specific entity taking precedence over other differing entities (Turner:2006), with the Marxist variant of determinism considered the most well-known sociological example (ibid:132). So early impressions suggest that determinism is, on some level, a rigid theoretical framework utilised to explain the reason for societal composition and the dynamics within which work to alter its makeup, reducing it down to a causal factor and deduce its primacy over other factors. For the purposes of this investigation, then, a simple understanding of determinism as being a primary causal factor determining all other factors will be employed.

For a theory of society to be considered deterministic, it must posit that behind the myriad of social machinations, lies a root determining causal factor from which all other processes adhere to. For instance, in the case of Marx, the allegation of determinism rests on Marxs view that the most fundamental influence on the history of society can be attributed to material factors (Morrison, 2006). By material factors what is meant is the process that one enters into with their environment in order to sustain oneself. This description is a flexible notion which can be used to describe to process of survival in any era, for instance, in Marxs period this would have been characterised by selling labour in exchange for wages, then used to support oneself in the form of shelter, food 1

1117509 clothing etc (Ibid). However engaging with the means of production as a theoretical concept is not limited to industrial society, for instance in a feudal society, the means of production would not be the factory mills owned by the bourgeoisie, but may have involved landowners and serfdom (Ibid). Marx sums this up in a rather crude summation of his approach with: The hand mill will give you a society with the feudal lord, the steam engine a society with the industrial capitalist (Quoted in Mclellan, (a), 2000:142). At this early juncture, it is ostensibly apparent that Marxs theory is deterministic, as will be demonstrated; the presence of determinism in the form of economic determinism, and also historical determinism in how he seemingly views history and society to be configured in an apparently teleological manner will become apparent. However, upon further investigation, discrepancies become evident, and such a simplistic explanation of Marxs work become increasingly unsatisfactory; indeed Craib asserts:
It is perhaps common for people to think of Marx as the social thinker who held the most rigidly determinist view of human existence, but this starting point in human interaction has sometimes led to him being compared to that least determinist of all sociological approaches, symbolic interactionism (1997:38).

So whilst it will be demonstrated that there are undoubtedly determinist elements to his approach, we shall attempt to see whether this deterministic label wholly encapsulates his theory. In attempting to overcome this seemingly contradictory issue, it is necessary to provide an account of Marxs theory of society; historical materialism. In this Marx sought to explain the unequal stratification of social groups he observed in industrial capitalism, inequalities which can still be observed today. The approach posits that both history and society develop in stages marked by distinct economic epochs in which social inequality is reproduced in existing class relations throughout all historical societies (Morrison, 2006:402). That is to say economic factors can be 2

1117509 observed as a primary causal determinant in social organisation, stratification and societal composition at any point in human social history. Such an assertion certainly implies a deterministic approach to Marxs understanding of society, but further elaboration is required to make an informed opinion on the matter. Marx developed a theory of society in a class of its own, taking material conditions that comprise peoples lives and the fundamental importance of history (Craib, 1997:36) on the composition of society and social transformations. He was influenced by the work of Hegel, who saw conflict arising from the linear and interconnected process of history which leads to human fulfilment (Bilton et al,2002:476). Marx saw history in the same way. He shared a similar form of dialectic which can be summed up as contradictions leading to resolution. For instance, Hegel saw ideas forming epochs of history and believed contradictions within ideas led to changes in the ideas, forming new periods of history. For the thesis, antithesis, synthesis model first comes the idea, then the ideas critique, followed by assimilation of both ideas into a more comprehensive understanding (Morrison, 2006). Marx however, takes as the starting point reality rather than idealism, 'turning on its head' Hegels dialectic (Craib, 1997). This empirically grounded dialectic posits that reality comes first in the form of production, and helps to form the ideas of any period. Contradictions still exist, but in the area Marx had identified as the prime determinant that of the social relations of production (Morrison, 2006). The major difference between Marx and Hegel is Marx favoured a materialistic explanation of human activity. A materialism focused on practical actions of particular social structures (Bilton et al, 2002:477), not on idealism. The necessity of survival through interaction with the environment moulded thinking action. Marx used and adapted many of Hegels ideas, particularly the dialectic. He fundamentally differed in his belief that the material world of survival and the practical adaptation this imposed upon people moulded history and thinking, rather than ideas (Bilton et al:476). Marx 3

1117509 posits real people, acting practically in real social relations. By utilising such a reductionist method, Marx was able to characterise the development of society throughout history into distinct groups; ancient, feudal and capitalism (Morrison, 2006), which echoes somewhat Hegels linear teleology of history. Marx was a very innovative thinker for his time whilst scholars such as JS Mill had previously started with the notion of the isolated self. Marx saw this isolationistic outlook as a recent social development (Craib, 1997:37). Marx postulated such a model of being the individuated individual was the consequence of the breakdown of social ties feudal society typified, and the growth of capitalist production arrangements and the market economy asserting itself over the vestiges of feudal life (ibid). By recognising this phenomenon as being caused by society, rather than an intrinsic feature of human nature, Marx highlighted a dominant class turning ephemeral, historically conditioned and produced features of social lives into eternal truths of human nature (Ibid:37). Put differently, this indicates how states of social being of a particular social period can be mistakenly taken for granted as an intrinsic and eternal social state of social existence. Marx developed an economic and political analysis of capitalism in order to detail an understanding of the weaknesses of capitalism that would cause it to be superseded by an entirely new social order socialism (Bilton et al, 2002:477). Marxs aim was to provide a comprehensive analysis of capitalist society with a view to effecting its transformation; he was a committed revolutionary as well as a social theorist. (Crompton, 2009:29) In The German Ideology, Marx comprehensively outlined his materialist conception of history, that a socio economic process is basic to human society and that other activities political, legal, religious are secondary and derivative (McLellan (a), 2000:142). The productive relations people enter into for survival comprises the economic structure of society, which Marx considered to be the economic base, constituting the material foundations of the state (Morrison, 2006:130). On top of this base occurs the legal and political superstructure which correlates directly to the production relations of 4

1117509 the economy essentially the core traits of the state rise out of a societys economic base, with the states superstructure dependent on the productive relations of the base (ibid). Such a description demonstrates how the determinant for Marx, is essentially, the necessity to sustain oneself by entering into a set of relations with the productive means. Marx saw a dichotomy in how society under industrial capitalism formed of a small propertied bourgeois class in control of the means of production, and the majority, property-less proletariat or working class (Ibid). He came to see the state as a reflection of class relations in civil society, with these relations moulding human nature (BIlton et al, 2002). He has been widely accused of economic reductionism the assertion that the economic base determines social, political and intellectual development (Crompton, 2009:30), however Engels writing after Marxs death emphasised the theory should not be interpreted as claiming the economic situation was the sole cause of human behaviour (ibid:30). Rather, he argued that although it might be ultimately determinant, at any particular moment, other social relations political, ideological would also be affecting human actions (ibid). Such an interpretation implies a flexibility that could be overlooked within the span of his work, helping us to understand Marx not as a rigidly deterministic thinker, but still, nonetheless espousing more moderate traits of that type. Marx observed conflict between the forces and relations of production in capitalist society. To Marx, this was simply one instance of a larger pattern of systemic crisis deriving from the same conflicts (Callinicos, 1999). Marx observed how the surplus value of labour the value above which the labourer was paid was necessary for profit, which could be invested in improvements to the productive process (Morrison, 2006). This drive for efficiency inevitably led to over time, less labour required for the process. This negative exploitative spiral Marx argued, would lead to the capacity of the proletariat to become aware of their exploitation, to become class conscious with the capacity for revolution (Morrison, 2006). Indeed Marx saw revolution as the driving force of history (Marx quoted in McLellan (b), 1980:223). Many commentators claimed Marx believed there was

1117509 inevitability inherent in the class struggle and technological progress which disposed it to create the conditions for social revolution, therefore attributing to him a deterministic conception of history (Callinicos, 1999:93). Whilst Marxs prognostication implies a teleological quality, perhaps owing to his Hegelian influence, much of his thinking is hard to settle with such a historical teleology (Callinicos,1999:94). Furthermore, Marx said that the class struggle in the past each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes (Marx quoted in Callinicos,1999:94), which implies whilst there may be forces at work disposed toward revolution, there is no certainty of outcome. Thus implying the intrinsic and systemic crises of a capitalist mode of production present alternatives, rather than determining outcomes (Callinico,1999:94). Consequently Marxs theory is best considered as intended to provide a series of flexible structural concepts through which to interpret the development of past and present societies (McLellan (a), 2000:142). Perhaps it is best to view Marxs science of society not as a formula or universal, unwavering law, rather a general set of principles which can help us understand the likely processes of society through history. To conclude, this paper has investigated the work of Marx to establish whether Marxs theory of society is deterministic. The outcome of further study indicates that indeed his theory has deterministic elements, for it suggests a historic inevitability and economic certainties to how society is likely to configure throughout time. It is important to stress likely, however, with Marx demonstrating a degree of flexibility to his history of society.

1117509 Bibiolography Callinicos, A. (1999) Social Theory: A Historical Introduction Polity, Cambridge Craib, I. (1997) Classical Social Theory: An Introduction to the thought of marx, Weber, and Simmel. Oxford University Press, Oxford Crompton, R. (2009) Class & Stratification (Third Edition) Polity, Cambridge Bilton et al (2002) Introductory sociology 4th edition Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke McLellan, D. (a) (2000) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Second Edition) Oxford Press, Oxford. McLellan, D. (b) (1980) The Thought Of Karl Marx(Second Edition) Papermac, London. Morrison, K. (2006) Marx Weber Durkheim: Formations Of Modern Social Thought (Second edition) Sage, London Turner, B (2006) (Ed) The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology Cambridge Press, Cambridge pp132-133 (section written by Rob Stones)