Contrary to marx, weber tried to show that aspects of culture may lead to social change. elaborate?

Question

Contrary to marx, weber tried to show that aspects of culture may lead to social change. elaborate?

Answer 1

marx believed a person's status (class) was decided by their relationship to the means of production - ie, so if you didn't own the factory, you had to work for a wage.  Weber believed this was important, but not the only thing - he believed status and party were also important in deciding a person's status - therefore marx relied only on economic factors for his explanation, but weber used cultural factors as well, to expain status or structure in society :-)

Answer 2

You couldn't really answer this question without reference to Marx's account of the relationship between "base" and "superstructure". Base is the economic mode of production which determines the superstructure i.e. culture. This is a counterintuitive idea. The way I tend to explain it is with reference to Richard Linklater's film 'Slacker'. In that film, it seems that the laidback culture of Austin, Texas results in a laidback, liberal economy. But Marx would say that the opposite is true: it is the laidback, liberal economy which gives rise to the city's "slacker culture". In Marx's account of class struggle, then, the agents of social change (ie. the working class) occupy that position as a direct result of their position in the economy.

In the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues for what is perhaps a more intuitive, common-sense claim i.e. that culture determines the economic mode of production and that, as cultures change, modes of production change. But for Marxists, such an account lacks a critical edge, as all you end up doing is writing off economic injustice as 'cultural' (which implies that there's not much you can do about it).

Answer 3

Marx was a materialist.To him everything including ideas (philosophy, religion and so on)  were a function of economic relationships and more specifically the desire of the ruling class to hang on to its political economic.Their  cultural "dominance" was just another aspect of its general power .You could even say cultural "hegemony".In his view the "superstructure" of ideas in existed a society only to the extent that it did (and in order to) support the rule of the ruling class.Ergo (i.e therefore) culture cannot lead to social change.