Ritzer and Zelizer Exploration of Weber’s Socialist Theory

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Contemporary applications to Weber
Strengths in the texts
Weaknesses in the texts
References

Contemporary applications to Weber

Ritzer (2010) and Zelizer (2002) explore Max Weber’s perceptions of the socialist theory. The authors offer insightful analysis of the modes of production and consumption in various economies. In actual sense, they effectively and critically analyze the Marxist socialist theory by giving a straightforward explanation of how different modes of production and consumption transform the lives of people in diverse societies.

On the other hand, it is relevant to note that Weber explains how various modes of production such as capitalism and communism often lead to social stratification (Ritzer, 2010). It is apparent that Weber does not support these modes of production owing to their demeaning nature.

In the theory, he concentrates more on the issues regarding class and social inequality. He observes that the amount of wealth determines the degree of power held by an individual. Besides, power dictates the class and overall wellbeing of an individual in society (Ritzer, 2010).

Weber admits that the aspect of social stratification is the main cause of inequality bearing in mind that the rich and powerful individuals exploit the less fortunate people in society. In other words, exploitation seems to be the worst impact of a society that has been socially stratified. This paper offers critical analyses of Ritzer’s and Zelizer’s opinions on Weber’s theory by examining the strengths and weaknesses as evident in their respective texts.

A brief overview and comparison of the texts

Ritzer (2010) in his text “Enchanting a disenchanted world: Continuity and change in the cathedrals of consumption” explains that various means of consumption always compete against each other. Hence, it is the reason why people engage in destructive and reckless means of creating surplus wealth.

This type of destruction eventually results into rationalization of new means of consumption and production whereby powerful individuals continue to create more wealth. However, the less fortunate people resort to the art of consuming finished products. On the other hand, Zelizer (2002) in his book “Kids and Commerce” expounds that inequality caused by social stratification usually results into early engagement of children in economic activities.

In fact, child labor is a direct product of inequality in society. The author laments that compelling children to hard labor is morally wrong and unacceptable. Zelzier (2002) also examines how children participate in the processes of production, distribution and consumption. In addition, the author highlights some of the consequences of involving children in under-employment.

Upon critical review of the texts, it is notable that the authors use different perspectives to examine Weber’s arguments on the division of labor and modes of production. For instance, Ritzer (2010) scrutinizes Weber’s social theory from a broad perspective. The author does not just focus on the division of labor in his discussion.

He also examines how various modes of consumption affect society at large. Contrastingly, Zelizer (2002) is quite categorical on the issue of dividing labor as part and parcel of improving the pace of production. His arguments revolve around child labor. He keenly links his ideas with various modes of consumption and effects of child labor.

The author is also emphatic that child labor negatively affects the growth of an economy (Zelezer, 2002). He points out that child labor differs significantly across different categories of social groups. In some cases, children participate in the consumption and production processes as organizational agents. Besides, some children play the role of household workers (Zelizer, 2002).

At this point, it is agreeable that Ritzer extensively explores and scrutinizes Weber’s theory since he captures almost every aspect of the theorist’s opinions. However, Zelizer restricts the discussion to labor relations.

Strengths in the texts

After thorough review of the given literature, it is evident that Ritzer (2010) keenly elaborates the aspect of consumption as highlighted in Weber’s socialist theory. He carefully analyses and relates the contemporary, provocative and interesting trends of consumption as depicted by Weber.

The author also elucidates that people often familiarize themselves with new modes of consumption according to how they are impressed by emerging trends. Ritzer also employs several illustrations in his analysis. These enable the reader to understand and appreciate the ideas portrayed by Weber.

For example, Ritzer gives a piece of architecture as an example of the “cathedrals of consumptions.” The latter appears to be one of the most unsettling aspects of his argument. Moreover, new systems of consumption are clearly developed and elaborated by Ritzer. It is irrefutable that Ritzer’s text is very engaging and interesting to read.

On the other hand, Zelizer (2002) is very specific on the issue of division of labor. It is one of the aspects addressed by Weber. The author restricts his discussion onthe theme of labor and as a result, he is in a position to explore the subject matter deeply. He also addresses the menace of child labor.

This allows him to seize an opportunity to examine and critically discuss how various economic activities carried out by children affect the growth of an economy. He also examines the organization of children’s labor by providing an exemplary review of child-centered trends of production, distribution and consumption (Zelizer, 2002). This text provides extensive discussion on characterization and organization of child labor.

Weaknesses in the texts

Ritzer’s text is very dense even if it is engaging and enlightening,. As a matter of fact, the author tries to paint a landscape of Weber’s opinions by illustrating the element of consumerism. Some parts in the text and specifically areas that cover social stratification and consumerism compel the book to appear a bit rambling.

In actual sense, the book is quite wide and may impede the reading spirit of individuals who prefer short texts. At some point, a reader becomes uncertain of the author’s arguments owing to numerous illustrations and discussion points.

In regards to Zelezer‘s text, it is apparent that it lacks linear arguments. This author extends his analysis by discussing child labor instead of focusing on Weber’s arguments on the division of labor. This text is expected to critically acknowledge or criticize Weber’s social theory.

However, numerous deviations in course of the analysis may easily lead to poor understanding of the contents. Moreover, the author does not effectively capture numerous modes of consumerism that usually lead into child labor.

In conclusion, Zelizer’s and Ritzer’s texts are generally engaging, informative, realistic and enlightening especially on contemporary issues such as consumerism and division of labor. However, both texts can still be improved based on the comments posted in this critical analysis. Needless to say, all the key issues addressed in Weber’s social theory should have been analyzed by both texts.

References

Ritzer, G. (2010). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Continuity and change in the cathedrals of consumption. Thousand Oak, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Zelizer, V. (2002). Kids and commerce. Childhood, 9(4), 375-396.

Click Here To Order Now!