Ralf Dahrendorf (1959) was strongly influenced by Marx, but he was more strongly motivated by a desire to develop a viable alternative to structural-functionalism. For example, while structural-functionalists tend to see society as static, conflict theorists like Dahrendorf emphasize the ever-present possibility of change. Where structural-functionalists see the orderliness of society, conflict theorists see dissension and conflict everywhere. Finally, structural-functionalists focus on the sources of cohesion internal to society, while conflict theorists stress the coercion and power that holds together an otherwise fractious society.
The high pay and decision-making power of McDonald’s executives contrasts sharply with the relative powerlessness of the company’s low-paid employees. Some of those employees and their supporters are shown here demonstrating for higher pay. Structural conflicts like this one are the focus of conflict theory.
Scott Olson/Getty Images News/Getty Images
Dahrendorf offered a very sociological view of authority, arguing that it resides not in individuals (e.g., Donald J. Trump) but in positions (e.g., the presidency of the United States) and in various associations of people. In his view, those associations are controlled by a hierarchy of authority positions and the people who occupy them. However, there are many such associations in any society. Thus, a person may be in authority in one type of association but be subordinate in many others.
What most interested Dahrendorf was the potential for conflict between those in positions of authority and those in subordinate positions. They usually have very different interests. Like authority, those interests are not characteristics of individuals but rather are linked to the positions they hold. For example, the top management of a retail or fast-food corporation such as Walmart or McDonald’s is interested in making the corporation more profitable by keeping wages low. In contrast, those who hold such low-level jobs as cashier or stock clerk are interested in increasing their wages to meet basic needs. Because of this inherent tension and conflict, authority within associations is always tenuous.
Critical Theory
While Marx’s work was critical of the capitalist economy, critical theory shifts the focus to culture. Marx believed that culture is shaped by the economic system. In contrast, the critical school has argued that by the early twentieth century, and at an ever-accelerating rate to this day, culture has become important in its own right. Furthermore, in many ways it has come to be more important than the economic system. Instead of being controlled by the capitalist economy, more of us are controlled—and controlled more often—by culture in general, specifically by the culture industry.
The culture industry consists of the rationalized and bureaucratized structures that control modern culture. In their early years, the 1920s and 1930s, critical theorists focused on radio, magazines, and movies. Today, movies remain important, but the focus has shifted to television and various aspects of the internet, especially Facebook. These are critiqued for producing, or serving as an outlet for, mass culture, or cultural elements that are administered by organizations, lack spontaneity, and are phony. Two features of mass culture and its dissemination by the culture industry are of particular concern to critical theorists:
• Falseness. True culture should emanate from the people, but mass culture involves prepackaged sets of ideas that falsify reality. The so-called reality shows (e.g., Survivor) are a contemporary example of mass culture. These programs are also highly formulaic. They are presented as if they are authentic, but in fact they are scripted, highly controlled, and selectively edited—although in a different way than fictional dramas, comedies, and soap operas are. They are also false in the sense that they give consumers of mass culture the sense that there is a quick and easy route to fame and fortune.
• Repressiveness. Like Marx, the critical theorists feel that the masses need to be informed about things such as the falseness of culture so that they can develop a clear sense of society’s failings and the need to rebel against them.
The effect of mass culture is to pacify, stupefy, and repress the masses so that they are far less likely to demand social change. Those who rush home nightly to catch up on their favorite reality TV shows are unlikely to have much interest in, or time for, revolutionary activities, or even civic activities and reforms.
Critical theory can be applied to some of the newest media forms, such as YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and especially Facebook (Denegri-Knott and Zwick 2012). Despite there being plenty of false and stupefying content on these sites, along with all the edifying material, the sites are not totally controlled by large rationalized bureaucracies—at least not yet. Almost all the content that appears on sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is provided by those who also consume material on the sites. The sites exercise little control over original content; that content is arguably spontaneously produced by those who use the sites. It’s tempting to conclude that these new aspects of the culture industry are not assailable from a traditional critical theory perspective. Although sites such as Facebook are not yet huge bureaucracies, they do structure what is to be found there, especially through the use of algorithms. In addition, at least some of that which is to be found there is false.
Ask Yourself
Do you see evidence of critical theory’s ideas of falseness and repressiveness in the elements of mass culture to which you are exposed? If so, what forms do they take?
Feminist Theory
A central aspect of feminist theory in general is the critique of patriarchy (male dominance) and the problems it poses not only for women but also for men. Feminist theory also offers ideas on how everyone’s (women’s and men’s) situation can be bettered, if not revolutionized (Adichie 2015; Bromley 2012; Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley 2014; see also the journal Feminist Theory).
Despite the many global and individual changes in women’s lives over the almost two centuries since sociology came into existence, there is also a broad consensus among feminist theorists that women continue to face extraordinary problems related directly to gender inequality. As you will learn about more in Chapter 9, these problems include, among innumerable others, a persistent wage gap between men and women in the United States and systematic and widespread rape by invading forces in wartime. These extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. However, feminist theories vary in the degree to which they support dramatic, even revolutionary, changes in women’s situation. Some feminist theories suggest that the solution to gender inequality is to change social structures and institutions so that they are more inclusive of women and allow more gender diversity. Other feminist theories argue that because those very structures and institutions create gender difference and inequality, we must first deconstruct and then rebuild them in a wholly different way.
Women of color have sometimes been dissatisfied with feminist theory for not representing their interests very well. Several scholars argue that feminist theory generally reflects the perspective of white women while ignoring the unique experiences and viewpoints of women of color (Collins 2000; hooks 2000; Moraga and Anzaldua 2015; Zinn 2012). Similarly, studies related to race tend to focus largely (or wholly) on the position of men. Thus, many contemporary feminists have advocated for scholarship that takes into account not just gender but also how it intersects with race and ethnicity, social class, and sexuality. The upcoming discussion of critical theories of race and racism provides more detail on this view.