Homicide as a social phenomena can be studied from a Max Weber ideology, understood through a combination of power and conflict theory. Power and conflict both play into the heart of crime, specifically homicide, and interact fluidly in modern society. As structures, power and conflict often go unseen but contribute the majority of social phenomena. Through homicide, power and conflict can be seen as major structures that deploy class, race, and gender inequalities. Power and conflict, important structures in society, clarify difficult concepts in society; although this can be considered an obvious assertion, many different sociological theories attempt to comprehend the centrality of power and conflict and apply it to everyday life. Max Weber …show more content…
The latent functions surrounding power and conflict may cater to this idea because, as Coser explains, Weber believed a status group could only exist only “to the extent that others accord its members prestige or degrading, which removes them from the rest of social actors and establishes the necessary social distance between ‘them’ and ‘us’” (229). In other words, a person who is never engaged in conflicts may describe themselves as a peaceful or untroubled: they define themselves by the lack of conflict in their life. Weber’s take on modern society focuses on individual action rather than group action, in opposition to Marx. In the greater themes of conflict and power, Marx narrowed his theories on the social conflict, or the class struggle central to society; however, Weber took a different approach, focusing on other forms of struggle, “for example on religious or ethnic ones”, as Michel Wieviorka justifies in Social Conflict. He continues by asserting that while “Marx is interested in the ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of the working class… Weber tends to be interested in the bureaucracy and the rationalization of society” (698). The rationalization of society eradicates traditional motivations and conducts human …show more content…
The story of Cain and Abel is one of the earliest accounts of homicide, and the Roman Republic viewed homicide as a family matter, not one that needed government intervention. Throughout history, homicide has shifted as power and conflict have held different connotations. M. Smith and M. Zahn in Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research describe homicides as “extreme manifestations of interpersonal conflict and, for that reason, are detected and recorded in a more reliable, less biased way than more frequent but less extreme types of conflict behavior such as assaults and slanders” (61). Because of this, homicide, as Daly describes in Crime and Conflict: Homicide in Evolutionary Psychological Perspective, “the best prototype of crime” (54). Daly expands on this idea, adding that murder can be claimed a competition or conflict being resolved in a gruesome way. Competition, in this explanation, “refers to any conflict of interests in which one party 's possession or use of a mutually desired resource precludes another party 's possession or use of the same. This category clearly encompasses most of the criminal acts that are likely to be called ‘instrumental’ or ‘rational’, but it also includes crimes that might be deemed
Conflict theory starts by emphasizing that conflict within society is the normal way of life and that the changing aspects can be understood by identifying the sources of conflict and power. Conflict theory argues that society is thick with conflict and that society does not work within equality; inequalities are expected to exist such as the haves having more power than have-nots. The unequal scattering of resources creates a social arrangement or class structure, which designates social structure and influences the functioning of society. According to Steven Tepper, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University, “Cultural conflict and moral regulation can serve to demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behavior, high- and low-status lifestyles, in- and outgroup membership, and reputable and disreputable values and beliefs” (Tepper 278).
..., & Levin J. (1998). Multiple Homicide: Patterns of Serial and Mass Murder. Crime and Justice, Vol. 23. Published by: The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved March 1, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147545
Goldstein, J. (1986). The Nature of Human Aggression. Aggression and Crimes of Violence. New York. Oxford University Press, 3-29.
Max Weber and Karl Marx, two prolific Sociologists who share different views with the origins and development of modern capitalism. They wanted to understand the rise of capitalism, the causes of it, as well as the direction it was heading. As they started to dissect capitalism they developed two separate conclusions generated from completely different factors. It’s hard to fathom the fact that Weber and Marx could arrive at two distinct conclusions while studying a similar event. They took two separate angles of approach, which caused them to have to opposing theories. Due too Weber and Marx approaching capitalism from different angles, their views of the dynamics, and the understanding of the origins differed.
Beasley, James. 2004. “Serial Murder in America: Case Studies of Seven Offenders.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22: 395-414
Weber, on the other hand, tried to look at the macro-sociological phenomenon in his explanation. Weber felt that there is just more than one explanation for the causes of change. Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the result of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production.
Davies, K. (2008). The Murder Book: Examining Homicide. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Experts in the criminology field have searched for ways to comprehend criminal behavior by establishing a variety of theories. One of the most interesting theories is certainly the Conflict theory. Although, some criminologists refer to conflict theory as radical theory; there are a few differences that will be mentioned subsequently in this paper by defining both theories. It is also important to mention a summary containing a combination of the radical and conflict theory principles. The relevance and applicability of these specific theories will also be discussed as it is essential for the continuation of the same. Having a clear understanding of the conflict and radical theories’ roots, as well as its development, enhances the view of how
The art of war has been a vital aspect of state-making throughout history. Max Weber contends in his essay, Politics as a Vocation, that the State is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 77), a definition that political experts cite to this day. However, many scholars today believe that we have created a new type of warfare, one that questions the validity of the statehood of current international powers as well as Weber’s own precedent for identifying States.
Theory can be described in many ways, and most of the times are used to label certain traits, features or characteristics of a particular person, group, or category. According to Miller (2005), “A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts” (para. 1). In the simplest of terms, theories are concepts or more of a collection of concepts about an area of concern or interest which facilitate and give an explanation, prediction, or intervention which is gathered by research and experiments. Theories in criminology help to explain why and how deviant and criminal behaviours occur as they do. This helps to understand and determine factors that contribute a person to engaging
The book displays two social concepts, conflict theory and structural-functionalism. Conflict theory is defined as “a theory propounded by Karl Marx that claims society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition
Karl Marx, a conflict theorist, would likely describe the tragedy in Rwanda as a result of a power struggle, steaming from a class system. In Karl Marx’s time, he critiqued the class system containing the proletariat (poor) and bourgeoisie (rich). Marx argued this system allows for one group of people to oppress another group. While he was speaking to classes distinguished by material assets, his two group class system is similar to the two group class system in Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis. Although, the distinction between the Hutus and Tutsis are uncontrollable characteristics like heritage and physical features.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
There are three main theories of sociology; functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. This paper will focus on two of those theories, functionalism and conflict theory. The objective is to delineate the assumptions of two out of the three theoretical perspectives and apply these assumptions to an analysis of social stratification. How this will be accomplished will be by comparing and contrasting their assumptions and by analyzing the two theories affect on social stratification. Then I will state my opinion on which of the two better fits my personal sociological views. Functionalism is many people's way to view the world sociologically. It states clearly that the objectivity of the researcher is necessary and can be accomplished. There are three main points, which make up a functionalist theory on sociological expression. The first point is that culture is made up of interacting, interdependent parts. Each of these parts has a function in maintaining the society as a system on the whole. The second point states that shared values and expectations(or beliefs) among the members of the society help hold the society together. The third point states that these systems have a need for stability and a need to try to keep all the parts working together congruously in a sort of system. Social change in this system is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is a very gradual change. Conflict theory is centered on the tension, or struggle that goes on in everyday life. There are many different parts, which make up the conflict theorist's view on the sociological perspective. The first main part is that society promotes general differences in wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth...
Critical perspectives on discipline, social control, and punishment are studied within the field of critical criminology. It assumed that human beings are both determined and determining creatures (Bohm and Vogel, 2011). In the process, they create institutions that they are capable of changing the structure (Bohm and Vogel, 2011). Critical Criminology assumes that society is based on conflicts between competing interests groups. The root of criminology can be traced back to the mid-seventeenth century. It gives homage to Cesare Beccaria, an Italian jurist and author of On Crimes and Punishments, and Jeremy Bentham a conflict criminologist who wrote Theoretical Criminology. Bentham argued that crime is an outcome of political conflicts between