Comparison of Karl Marx and Matthew Arnold
Through their writing, Karl Marx and Matthew Arnold show their opposing views on the importance of internal and external functions of culture. In the first chapter of Culture and Anarchy, "Sweetness and Light", Arnold describes culture as being responsible for the progress of politics and society and as
"the best knowledge and thought of the time" (19). Matthew Arnold's culture is based on two main aspects, religion and education. Karl Marx, however, strongly contrasts Arnold's ideas. Marx views culture as being derived from the advancement of the sciences.
Matthew Arnold's definition of culture comes from "a mid-nineteenth- century Germanic notion of culture which is founded upon his study of Goethe and
Schiller" (19). He believed many other cultures are based on the thought of curiosity and on scientific expansion. Arnold believed culture was based on the expansion of the individual's mind; only through education can a perfect culture be reached. In his writings, Arnold stated that for a man to be cultured he has to be versed in both religion and classic literature. Although
Arnold's culture sought the advancement of the human mind; he did not want people to get wrapped up in technology. "Faith in machinery is, I said, our besetting danger; often in machinery most absurdly disproportioned to the end which this machinery" (23). Arnold believes his culture is "more interesting and more far-reaching than that other, which is founded solely on the scientific passion for knowing" (21). Arnold believed that culture dealt with perfection; as he stated in "Sweetness and Light", "Culture is then properly describe not as having its origin in curiosity, but as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection" (21). Arnold also says that culture is the endeavor to make the moral and social characteristics of individuals prevail. Because culture is a study of perfection, then it is also an "inward condition of the mind and spirit, not in an outward set of circumstances"
(Arnold 23). Arnold states that, "In thus making sweetness and light to be characters of perfection, culture is of like spirit with poetry…" (25).
Matthew Arnold felt that religion was an important aspect of culture.
Arnold felt that when the reason of God prevailed all society will be cultured.
As Arnold states, "Now, then, is the moment for culture to be of service, culture which believes in making reason and the will of God prevail, believes in perfection, is the study of perfection,…" (21). Marx states that the ruling class of culture would be the intellectual and material force, he makes no
America is supposedly where all men are created equally, yet society has created a hierarchy based on socioeconomic standing and political power. Theorists Karl Marx and Max Weber has applied their theories of social class on the model of social stratification; a system in which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. According to Karl Marx, the main classes of society are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; those that are the owners of the means of productions and those who work for it. On the other hand, Max Weber argued that there is a multidimensional ranking rather than a hierarchy of clearly defined class. America has created a social system in which those of middle and lower classes tend to struggle to decrease the gap within
The theories of John Stewart Mill and Karl Marx, although vastly different, share the main idea of utilitarianism in the most basic sense. Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both philosophers believed that the people should be empowered when it came to the governing of society, and that the greatest threat to society is oppression.
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
It causes class conflict that will end in a revolution. Similarly, Mead asserts that nurture shapes human nature because when she studied the Samoan culture their tranquil lifestyle resulted in a tranquil adolescence for the young ladies. This shows there is no defined way to be.
In "Brave New World", the main characters, Bernard Marx and John the Savage both slowly come to realize the faults with their societies. In "Fahrenheit 451", Guy Montag quickly discovers that things could be better in his society, because of some unfortunate events. His wife Mildred tries to commit suicide, Clarisse gets killed by a speeding car, and a woman refuses to leave her home and her books when firefighters come. These events force Montag to think about the way things are. He is forced out of his society to live with others like himself who think differently. Marx questions the lack of history that his society has. He wonders about books, banned because they did not encourage the new culture, which had no place for old things. By visiting
Before expounding upon these ideas, it is necessary to establish a baseline from which to view these topics. It is important to realize that we as humans view everything from our own cultural perspective. Marx speaks of this saying, "Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class."
Marx believed that society was beginning to break away from nature as a source of economical support. In the past, humans had relied heavily on agriculture to support themselves but with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new technology began to replace old farming techniques and created new factory jobs in cities. Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor.[1] He commented that, “ Even the objects of the simplest “ sensuous certainty” are only given him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse.”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process.”[3]
Two great writers, whose ideas have been read by many, are Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper. Marx was a philosopher and because of his writing about Communist many places responded with revolutions. Kuyper was a Christian leader inspired many with his writings about society and culture. Marx and Kuyper both addressed how social issues in the world. Marx and Kuyper’s views of human nature are very different. While Kuyper believes that God shapes our lives and humans have no control; Marx, on the other hand, believes that human beings can shape and control the direction of their own lives. Both men show their beliefs of human nature through history, government, economy, and society. Though they both believe in equal society they don’t agree on the
Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the results of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production. He states that these modes of production are: primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and then socialism and communism.
Ideology, Knowledge and the escalation of new ideas led to a better life and society that made positive impacts on Western Civilizations. There were many idea’s that were explored and implement into the daily lives of the people and for the most part it turned out to be a good impact. Although there were some bad ideas that caused suffering to the society at the time. They learned from what they witnessed and created something that would work better for the most part. In this essay I am going to use some primary sources that support my idea that society benefited from the new “ideas” but I will also use an example to explain how it caused a negative impact too.
Living in a social world, it can only be expected that there will be multiple views on how a society should be run, how we as a society should behave, and how our societies should be represented. In learning about Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim, there are many different views and beliefs that can be used to view our social world. Although the three of these men believed in different things and had many different theories in regards to our social world, there are few similarities that can be expressed. Marx was said to be a materialist due to his views that the social life was fundamentally about material goods (food, money and land etc.) as well as having a set of shared values. Weber, on the other hand, was a rationalist because
Being from the same era- the industrial revolution, yet separated by almost a century in existence, Adam Smith and Karl Marx had contrasting and distinctive theories of economics. Smith, being a Professor of moral philosophy, associated moral theory with economics, which led to the development of the modern world capitalism. Karl Marx positioned his thoughts on injustice and disparity between different social classes, these thoughts became the underlying foundations of communism.
“Modern societies have much in common, but they do not necessarily merge into homogeneity”. There are many different ways that this article can be perceived. In my opinion, the argument is very convincing that Western culture is not the culture of the world. There are many cultures around the world that are highly functioning with Western influence, and the author does an excellent job of incorporating examples of these societies into his argument. Countries such as Japan are experiencing what Huntington describes as a cultural backlash.
Inspired by the works of Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin nonetheless drew his ideology from many other great 19th century philosophers. However, Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” was immensely important to the success of Russia under Leninist rule as it started a new era in history. Viewed as taboo in a capitalist society, Karl Marx started a movement that would permanently change the history of the entire world. Also, around this time, the Populist promoted a doctrine of social and economic equality, although weak in its ideology and method, overall. Lenin was also inspired by the anarchists who sought revolution as an ultimate means to the end of old regimes, in the hope of a new, better society. To his core, a revolutionary, V.I. Lenin was driven to evoke the class struggle that would ultimately transform Russia into a Socialist powerhouse. Through following primarily in the footsteps of Karl Marx, Lenin was to a lesser extent inspired by the Populists, the Anarchists, and the Social Democrats.
Karl Marx and Max Weber are two of the most significant and influential theorists and sociologists of the 19th century. Both examined very similar ideas but had very different conclusions and are now famously known as ‘The Founding Fathers of Sociology’. One of the Crucial contributions to sociology is both sociologists views and findings on class and equality. Karl Marx found that class was categorised by the means of production. Almost half a century later Max Weber contrasted, class was based on three things Power, Wealth, And Prestige.