Social order, social control and deviance
- Marxist Perspective on Social Order
By A. Swaby-Burton, Contributor

HAVING FOCUSED our attention on the functionalist perspective on the above topic, I would like you to now turn your attention to the Marxist perspectives.

The starting point of Marxist sociology is not social order, but the clash of interests which is considered to characterise all societies except the most primitive, and the, as yet unachieved fully communist society. The class of interests is the basis of class formation and conflict.

Marxists see the purpose of social order differently from functionalists. They want to know who benefits from social order and who does not. Social order is not something to be taken for granted, a mere matter of common-sense. For Marxists social order is imposed by the ruling class and operates primarily in their interest. Thus for example in feudal society, the ruling class, that is the class that owns the means of production, was the landed nobility. Undoubtedly the feudal system enabled them to live far better than the average peasant Marxists, however, mean rather more than this when they argue that, in a given type of society, the system works for the powerful at the expense of the weak. What they really mean is that the law itself and the way it is enforced is biased in favour of the ruling class. In feudal society, for instance, the serfs, the lowest group of peasants were legally required to work, often several days a week, on their lord's land in return for which they were guaranteed in law very little indeed. In any case, the lord was in a better position than the peasants to ignore the law if he so chose. Indeed it was largely up to the lord and his men to enforce the law. For their part the peasants had to hope for the best protection they might receive from the lord.

Now how do the same Marxist principles of analysis apply to capitalist society? At an obvious but important level it can be pointed out that extreme inequalities in wealth persist. It is less easy to show that the law and its enforcement favour the bourgeoisie, considered by Marxists to be the ruling class in capitalist society. Two points, however will be made here. First, the law is often an extremely expensive business. The legal costs of solicitors and lawyers can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result, people on low and middle incomes are disadvantaged compared to the rich. Thus, an individual may decide he cannot afford either the time or money to, say sue someone for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. Or if he does he has to settle for inferior legal advice and representation. According to one writer the law is a commercial business and the maxim 'you get what you pay for' applies.

A second point argued by Marxists is that more manpower, money, time and effort are put into apprehending working-class than middle and upper class criminals. In their view, this is not merely because there may actually be more working-class crime, but because those which are of the 'respectable' and higher status are more easily condoned and overlooked than those of others.

The issue of law and order enforcement is important in the Marxist perspective. They see physical coercion not so much as the 'last resort' of capitalist society, as functionalists do, but as a permanent threat to militant challenge to the existing order. The powerful presence of the police and armed forces serves as a very visible deterrent to such plans. Marxists agree with functionalists, however that another effective way of achieving conformity and consensus among all groups in society is through ideological persuasion, that is to persuade people to think and feel that they should conform to and believe in the system, even if they are getting very little out of it. Much as they dislike it, Marxists fully recognise that this happens. Consensus is generated through the various agencies of
socialisation. Marxists, however, consider that alternative sources of socialisation, such as the experience of poverty, unemployment or exploitation, which can lead to conflict, do exist. As can be pointed out, conflict is regarded not merely as a challenge to order but as a means of change.