NAME: AKASHLEENA SARKAR

DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH
YEAR: 2ND
SEMESTER: 3RD
COLLEGE ROLL NUMBER: 22020063
SUBJECT: SOCIOLOGY
CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. OBJECTIVE
3. METHODOLOGY
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY
6.
INTRODUCTION
Karl Marx's Theory of Alienation describes the experience of human life as meaningless or
the human self as worthless in modern capitalist society. It is Marx's earliest recognizable
attempt at a systematic explanatory theory of capitalism.
The theoretical basis of alienation is that a worker invariably loses the ability to determine
life and destiny when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of
their own actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define relationships with other
people; and to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own
labour. Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realized human being, as an economic
entity this worker is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by
the bourgeoisie—who own the means of production—in order to extract from the worker, the
maximum amount of surplus value in the course of business competition among
industrialists.
Conflict theory, first developed by Karl Marx, is a theory that society is in a state of perpetual
conflict because of competition for limited resources. Conflict theory holds that social order
is maintained by domination and power, rather than by consensus and conformity. According
to conflict theory, those with wealth and power try to hold on to it by any means possible,
chiefly by suppressing the poor and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that
individuals and groups within society will work to try to maximize their own wealth and
power. Conflict theory focuses on the competition among groups within society over limited
resources. Conflict theory views social and economic institutions as tools of the struggle
among groups or classes, used to maintain inequality and the dominance of the ruling class.
Marxist conflict theory sees society as divided along lines of economic class between the
proletarian working class and the bourgeois ruling class. Later versions of conflict theory
look at other dimensions of conflict among capitalist factions and among various social,
religious, and other types of groups. Conflict theory has sought to explain a wide range of
social phenomena, including wars, revolutions, poverty, discrimination, and domestic
violence. It ascribes most of the fundamental developments in human history, such as
democracy and civil rights, to capitalistic attempts to control the masses (as opposed to a
desire for social order). Central tenets of conflict theory are the concepts of social inequality,
the division of resources, and the conflicts that exist among different socioeconomic classes.
The central tenets of conflict theory can explain many types of societal conflicts throughout
history. Some theorists believe, as Marx did, that societal conflict is the force that ultimately
drives change and development in society.
Marx’s version of conflict theory focused on the conflict between two primary classes. Each
class consists of a group of people bound by mutual interests and a certain degree of property
ownership. Marx theorized about the bourgeoisie, a group that represented members of
society who hold the majority of the wealth and means. The proletariat is the other group: It
includes those considered working-class or poor. With the rise of capitalism, Marx theorized
that the bourgeoisie, a minority within the population, would use their influence to oppress
the proletariat, the majority class. This way of thinking is tied to a common image associated
with conflict theory-based models of society; adherents to this philosophy tend to believe in a
pyramid arrangement in terms of how goods and services are distributed in society. At the top
of the pyramid is a small group of elites that dictate terms and conditions to the larger portion
of society because they have an outsized amount of control over resources and power.
Uneven distribution within society was predicted to be maintained through ideological
coercion; the bourgeoisie would force acceptance of the current conditions by the proletariat.
Conflict theory assumes that the elite will set up systems of laws, traditions, and other
societal structures in order to further support their own dominance while preventing others
from joining their ranks. Marx theorized that, as the working class and poor were subjected to
worsening conditions, a collective consciousness would raise more awareness about
inequality, and this would potentially result in revolt. If, after the revolt, conditions were
adjusted to favour the concerns of the proletariat, the conflict circle would eventually repeat
but in the opposite direction. The bourgeoisie would eventually become the aggressor and
revolter, grasping for the return of the structures that formerly maintained their dominance.
Current conflict theory has four primary assumptions that are helpful to understand:
competition, revolution, structural inequality, and war.
Competition
Conflict theorists believe that competition is a constant and, at times, an overwhelming factor
in nearly every human relationship and interaction. Competition exists as a result of the
scarcity of resources, including material resources—money, property, commodities, and
more. Beyond material resources, individuals and groups within a society compete for
intangible resources as well. These can include leisure time, dominance, social status, sexual
partners, etc. Conflict theorists assume that competition is the default (rather than
cooperation).
Revolution
Given conflict theorists' assumption that conflict occurs between social classes, one outcome
of this conflict is a revolutionary event. The idea is that change in a power dynamic between
groups does not happen as the result of a gradual adaptation. Rather, it comes about as the
symptom of conflict between these groups. In this way, changes to a power dynamic are often
abrupt and large in scale, rather than gradual and evolutionary.
Structural inequality
An important assumption of conflict theory is that human relationships and social structures
all experience inequalities of power. In this way, some individuals and groups inherently
develop more power and reward than others. Following this, those individuals and groups
that benefit from a particular structure of society tend to work to maintain those structures as
a way of retaining and enhancing their power.
War
Conflict theorists tend to see war as either a unifier or as a "cleanser" of societies. In conflict
theory, war is the result of a cumulative and growing conflict between individuals and groups
and between entire societies. In the context of war, a society may become unified in some
ways, but conflict still remains between multiple societies. On the other hand, war may also
result in the wholesale end of a society.
OBJECTIVE
This paper is written to better analyse Karl Marx’s Theory of Alienation and the Conflict
Theory. It is written to gain a wider and better perspective on the subject and try to gain an
insight into Marx’s works that have dealt with these very topics.
METHODOLOGY
The present paper is based on secondary data following the method of content analysis.
 Secondary Data: It refers to any data set collected by any person other than the one
using it. This type of data is already available in different forms from a variety of
sources.
 Content Analysis: It is a qualitative research tool or technique that’s used widely to
analyse the content and its features. This content may vary from simple words, books,
texts, data, journals, etc. The objective of content analysis is to present qualitative
content in the form of objective and qualitative information.
LITERATURE REVIEW

MARX’S THEORY OF ALIENATION

Today philosophical discussions of alienation are largely carried on by and between
existentialists and Marxists. According to Marxist theory, alienation is correlated with social
and economic factors, which if properly reoriented will end the alienation of man. The
modern Marxist account derives largely from Marx's discussion of alienation in his early
manuscripts written in 1844. These manuscripts, have been the focus of a good deal of
discussion particularly among Eastern European humanist socialists. A book called Socialist
Humanism edited by Erich Fromm contains many contributions by Eastern European
socialists concerned not only with the problem of alienation in capitalism to which Marx had
directed his attention but also with the problem of alienation in the Stalinist, bureaucratic
socialisms of Eastern Europe. Marx devoted most of his life to an examination and criticism
of the economic, psychological, historical, political, sociological and philosophical
dimensions of the alienation of the working class in a capitalist society. Out of his work came
the prediction that the alienation of the class in capitalism would lead to a revolution which
would usher in a socialist society whose historic task would be the dissolution of alienation. 1
Marx believed that there is an inherent relation between labour and human nature, but he
thought that this relation is perverted by capitalism. He calls this perverted relation
alienation. The current discussion of Marx’s concept of human nature and of alienation has
come mainly from Marx’s early work. In his later work on the nature of capitalist society, he
shied away from such a heavily philosophical term as alienation, yet it remained one of his
main concerns. Marx analysed the peculiar form that our relation to our own labour has taken
under capitalism. We no longer see our labour as an expression of our purpose. There is no
objectivation. Instead, we labour in accordance with the purpose of the capitalist who hires
and pays us. Rather than being an end in itself—an expression of human capabilities— labour
in capitalism is reduced to being a means to an end: earning money. Because our labour is not
our own, it no longer transforms us. Instead, we are alienated from our labour and therefore
alienated from our true human nature. Although it is the individual who feels alienated in
capitalist society, Marx’s basic analytic concern was with the structures of capitalism that
cause this alienation. Marx uses the concept of alienation to reveal the devastating effect of
capitalist production on human beings and on society. Of crucial significance here is the two-
class system in which capitalists employ workers (and thereby own workers’ labour time) and
capitalists own the means of production (tools and raw materials) as well as the ultimate
products. To survive, workers are forced to sell their labour time to capitalists. These
structures, especially the division of labour, are the sociological basis of alienation. 2

1
Nielsen W. (1968). Notes on Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal,
Vol. 2, No, 1, Literature and Alienation. University of Manitoba. Pp. 123-124

2
Ritzer G. (2011). Alienation. Sociological Theory. Tata McGraw Hill Education Pvt Ltd. 5th Edition. Pp.
53-55.
First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential
being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel
content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his
body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his
work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working,
he is not at home. His labour therefore is not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is
therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. 3
Marx at different times in his life held different views on the nature of human needs. In 1844
when he wrote the papers now called Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, he held the
following view. Men have by nature two biological needs: the need for food and for sex. Men
also have by nature a number of needs which Marx sometimes called "human" needs and
sometimes called "spiritual" needs. These are the needs to cooperate, to love, to create, to be
free, to identify with a community and to possess unity or self-identity. In addition, Marx
believed at that time that most men have a number of socially produced or acquired needs
such as the need for fame, wealth, power, honour and non-essential luxury commodities.
These he calls "artificial" needs. In his later writings he subscribed to a different account of
man's needs. He continued to believe that man had by nature two biological needs and that
most men acquired some "artificial" needs as a result of social influence. But he later came to
hold that all the "human" needs, with the exception of what he called the natural "spiritual"
need for self-identity, were also socially produced and hence not natural or innate4. As a
result, people feel freely active only in their animal functions—eating, drinking, procreating.
In the essentially human process of labour, they no longer feel themselves to be anything but
animals. What if animal becomes human, and what if human becomes animal. Certainly
eating, drinking, procreating, and so on are human functions, but when separated from the
sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they become animal
functions.
Alienation can be seen as having four basic components.
1. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their productive activity. They do not
produce objects according to their own ideas or to directly satisfy their own needs. Instead,
workers work for capitalists, who pay them a subsistence wage in return for the right to use
them in any way they see fit. Because productive activity belongs to the capitalists, and
because they decide what is to be done with it, we can say that workers are alienated from
that activity. Furthermore, many workers who perform highly specialized tasks have little
sense of their role in the total production process. They do not objectivate their ideas, and
they are not transformed by the labour in any meaningful way. Instead of being a process that
is satisfying in and of itself, productive activity in capitalism is reduced, Marx argued, to an
often boring and stultifying means to the fulfilment of the only end that really matters in
capitalism: earning enough money to survive.
2. Workers in capitalist society are alienated not only from productive activities but
also from the object of those activities—the product. The product of their labour belongs
not to the workers but to the capitalists, who may use it in any way they wish because it is the
capitalists’ private property. Marx tells us, “Private property is thus the product, the result,
the necessary consequence of alienated labour.” The capitalist will use his or her ownership
3
ibid
4
Nielsen (1968) p. 125
in order to sell the product for a profit. If workers wish to own the product of their own
labour, they must buy it like anyone else. No matter how desperate the workers’ needs, they
cannot use the products of their own labour to satisfy their needs. Even workers in a bakery
can starve if they don’t have the money to buy the bread that they make. Because of this
peculiar relation, things that we buy—that are made by others—seem to us to be more an
expression of ourselves than do the things we make at our jobs. People’s personalities are
judged more by the cars they drive, the clothes they wear, the gadgets they use—none of
which they have made—than by what they actually produce in their daily work, which
appears to be an arbitrary and accidental means for making money in order to buy things.
3. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their fellow workers. Marx’s
assumption was that people basically need and want to work cooperatively in order to
appropriate from nature what they require to survive. But in capitalism this cooperation is
disrupted, and people, often strangers, are forced to work side by side for the capitalist. Even
if the workers on the assembly line are close friends, the nature of the technology makes for a
great deal of isolation. For example, the creation of the office cubicle. But in this social
situation, workers experience something worse than simple isolation. Workers often are
forced into outright competition, and sometimes conflict, with one another. To extract
maximum productivity and to prevent the development of cooperative relationships, the
capitalist pits one worker against another to see who can produce more, work more quickly,
or please the boss more. The workers who succeed are given a few extra rewards; those who
fail are discarded. In either case, considerable hostility is generated among the workers
toward their peers. This is useful to the capitalists because it tends to deflect hostility that
otherwise would be aimed at them. The isolation and the interpersonal hostility tend to
alienate workers in capitalism from their fellow workers.
4. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their own human potential. Instead of
being a source of transformation and fulfilment of our human nature, the workplace is where
we feel least human, least ourselves. Individuals perform less and less like human beings as
they are reduced in their work to functioning like machines. Even smiles and greetings are
programmed and scripted. Consciousness is numbed and, ultimately, destroyed as relations
with other humans and with nature are progressively controlled. The result is a mass of
people unable to express their essential human qualities, a mass of alienated workers.
Alienation is an example of the sort of contradiction that Marx’s dialectical approach focused
on. There is a real contradiction between human nature, which is defined and transformed by
labour, and the actual social conditions of labour under capitalism. What Marx wanted to
stress is that this contradiction cannot be resolved merely in thought. We are not any less
alienated because we identify with our employer or with the things that our wages can
purchase. Indeed, these things are a symptom of our alienation, which can be resolved only
through real social change. 5
In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts Marx first advanced the theory of the
"fetishism of commodities" which he extends in Capital. Again, his major contention is that
men in a capitalist society become dominated by the very things they create. The "fetishism
of commodities" also alienates men from other men. Not only does it induce capitalists to

5
Ritzer (2011) pp. 56-57
treat consumers "as pieces of flesh attached to a wallet" but also it increasingly induces
consumers to evaluate each other in economic terms.
We may observe that Marx's moral critique of capitalism implies another instance of
alienation which he apparently did not note: namely, that intellectual idealists become
alienated from their society. Marx notes that capitalist theoreticians claim that exchange
values coincide with moral values. That is, they claim that if everyone acts with a view to his
own self-interest, the laws of supply and demand will function so as to yield every individual
just what he deserves while at the same time providing the greatest good of the greatest
number. Egoism will coincide with justice and happiness. 6
According to Marx, the essence of self-alienation is that man at the same time alienates
something from himself and himself from something; that he alienates himself from himself.
That this is the essence of Marx's thought we can see for ourselves if we analyse his well-
known manuscript, Alienated Labour, where he speaks about the four aspects or
characteristics of alienation.' Marx begins with the alienation of the results of man's labour,
alienation of objects produced by man. The realization of labour is its objectification, and this
objectification is for the labourer at the same time the loss of object, alienation. To the
product of his labour the worker is related as to an alien object. Products of his hands
constitute a separate world of objects which is alien to him, which dominates him, and which
enslaves him. The alienation of the results of man's productive activity is rooted in the
alienation of production itself. Man alienates the products of his labour because he alienates
his labour activity, because his own activity becomes for him an alien activity, an activity in
which he does not affirm but denies himself, an activity which does not free but subjugates
him. He is home when he is outside this activity, and he is out when he is in it. From this
characteristic of alienated labour Marx deduces a third: by alienating his own activity from
himself, man in fact alienates his essence from himself and he alienates himself from his
essence. Man is in essence a creative, practical being, and when he alienates his creative
activity from himself, he alienates his human essence from himself. Transforming his generic
essence into a means for the maintenance of his individual existence, man alienates himself
from his humanity, he ceases to be man. Finally, as an immediate consequence of the
alienation of man from himself, results. the alienation of man from other men. Every
relationship in which a man stands to himself, finds expression in his relation to other men.
Thus, the alienation of man from himself manifests itself as the alienation of man from man.
As the worker alienates the products of his labour, his own activity and his generic essence
from himself, so he alienates another man as his master from himself. The producer himself
produces the power of those who do not produce over production.7

KARL MARX’S THEORY OF CONFLICT

During the 1950s, Functional theory in sociology, especially the Parsonian variety, was seen
as underemphasizing the conflicting nature of social reality. As David Lockwood argued in
6
ibid
7
Petrovic G. (1963). Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Wiley-
Blackwell, International Phenomenological Society. Pp 420-421
1956,8 by assuming order and equilibrium, the ubiquitous phenomena of instability, disorder,
and conflict too easily became viewed as deviant, abnormal, and pathological. For, in reality,
Lockwood insisted, there were “mechanisms” in societies that made conflict inevitable and
inexorable. For example, power differentials assured that some groups would exploit others,
and constituted a built-in source of tension and conflict in social systems. Conflict and
change were thus rediscovered by the beginning of the last decade, moving some to proclaim
the conflict perspective as the “new sociology.” But in fact, the conflict perspective is as old
as functionalism, finding its inspiration in the works of two German sociologists, Karl Marx
and Georg Simmel, who were approximate contemporaries of prominent organicists. The
contemporary conflict theory is mostly indebted to the thinking of Marx. 9
In developing a model of revolutionary class conflict and social change, Marx delineated an
image of social organization which still influences a major portion of contemporary
sociological theory. Marx began with a simple assumption: Economic organization,
especially the ownership of property, determines the organization of the rest of a society. The
class structure and institutional arrangements, as well as cultural values, beliefs, religious
dogmas, and other idea systems are ultimately a reflection of the economic base of a society.
He then added an additional assumption: Inherent in the economic organization of any
society are forces inevitably generating revolutionary class conflict. Such revolutionary class
conflict is seen as dialectical and conceptualized as occurring in epochs, with successive
bases of economic organization sowing the seeds of their own destruction through the
polarization of classes and subsequent overthrow of the dominant by the subjugated class.
Hence, a third assumption: Conflict is bipolar, with exploited classes under conditions created
by the economy becoming aware of their true “interests” and eventually forming a
revolutionary political organization that stands against the dominant, property-holding class.
10

There has emerged a set of assumptions from his work which directly challenge those
imputed to functionalism and which serve as the intellectual springboard for the conflict
alternative in sociological theorising:
1. While social relationships display systemic features, these relationships are rife with
conflicting interests.
2. This fact reveals that social systems systematically generate conflict.
3. Conflict is therefore an inevitable and pervasive feature of social systems.
4. Such conflict tends to be manifested in the bipolar opposition of interests.
5. Conflict most frequently occurs over the distribution of scarce resources, most notably
power.
6. Conflict is the major source of change in social systems.
In addition to this assumptive legacy, the form and substance of Marx’s causal imagery
appears to have been equally influential on the development of modern conflict theory. This
8
Lockwood D. (1956). British Journal of Sociology. Some Remarks on ‘The Social System’. Wiley, London
School of Economics and Political Science. P 134.
9
Turner J. (1974). The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Conflict Heritage. Wadsworth. Pp 78-83
10
Ibid
imagery takes the general form of assuming that conflict is an inevitable and inexorable force
in social systems and is “activated” under certain specified conditions. Some of these
conditions are viewed as allowing for the transformation of latent class interests (lying in a
state of “false consciousness”) into manifest class interests (“class consciousness”), which,
under additional conditions, lead to the polarization of society into two classes joined in
revolutionary conflict. Thus, for Marx, there are a series of conditions that are cast into the
role of intervening variables, which accelerate or retard the inevitable transformation of class
interests into revolutionary class conflict.11 The substance of the Marxian model is of great
importance in understanding modern sociological theory. This substantive contribution can
best be seen if the propositions of Marx’s theoretical scheme are stated in more abstract form,
and thereby divorced from his polemics and rhetoric about social class and revolution. While
much of the flavour of Marx’s analysis is lost, the indebtedness of modern sociological
theory to Marxian propositions can be made more evident.
Marx’s Key Propositions
I. The more unequal the distribution of scarce resources in a system, the more
conflict of interest between dominant and subordinate segments in a system.
II. The more subordinate segments become aware of their true collective interests,
the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing pattern of
distribution of scarce resources.
A. The more social changes wrought by dominant segments disrupt existing relations among
subordinates, the more likely are the latter to become aware of their true interests.
B. The more practices of dominant segments create alienative dispositions among
subordinates, the more likely are the latter to become aware of their true collective interests.
C. The more members of subordinate segments can communicate their grievances to each
other, the more likely they are to become aware of their true collective interests.
1. The more ecological concentration of members of subordinate groups, the more likely
communication of grievances.
2. The more the educational opportunities of subordinate group members, the more diverse
the means of their communication, and the more likely they are to communicate their
grievances.
D. The more subordinate segments can develop unifying ideologies, the more likely they are
to become aware of their true collective interests.
1. The greater the capacity to recruit or generate ideological spokesmen, the more likely
ideological unification.
2. The less the ability of dominant groups to regulate the socialization processes and
communication networks in a system, the more likely ideological unification.
III. The more subordinate segments of a system are aware of their collective interests and the
greater their questioning of the legitimacy of the distribution of scarce resources, the more
likely they are to join overt conflict against dominant segments of a system.

11
Ibid
A. The less the ability of dominant groups to make manifest their collective interests, the
more likely subordinate groups are to join in conflict.
B. The more the deprivations of subordinates move from an absolute to relative basis, the
more likely they are to join in conflict.
C. The greater the ability of subordinate groups to develop a political leadership structure, the
more likely they are to join in conflict.
IV. The greater the ideological unification of members of subordinate segments of a system
and the more developed their political leadership structure, the more polarized the dominant
and subjugated segments of a system.
V. The more polarized the dominant and subjugated, the more violent the conflict will be
VI. The more violent the conflict, the more structural change of the system and the greater the
redistribution of scarce resources.
In sum, then, the Marxian legacy consists of a set of conflict-oriented assumptions, a
particular form of causal analysis that stresses the importance of intervening conditions for
accelerating or retarding inexorable conflict processes, and a series of substantive
propositions that in greatly altered form are still conspicuous in the current literature. While
this heritage is extensive, Marx is not the only intellectual predecessor of modern conflict
theory. Later, at the turn of the century, another German sociologist, Georg Simmel, was
developing a somewhat different approach to the analysis of conflict phenomena which was
to influence another branch of contemporary conflict theorizing.12

CONCLUSION
Now, to conclude, Karl Marx thought that human beings attained what he called self-actualization
through the process of imagining and creating the products that created their environment. Marx
defined human nature as the ability to autonomously create through work one's self-identity and
fulfil one's destiny.

Industrial capitalism separates the worker from the products of his own labour, Marx defined
this separation of the industrial worker from other workers, and from society in general as
alienation. The industrial worker is reduced to a commodity and put in competition with
others of his class, leading to social conflict. Man feels alienated from his own species,
relative and associates. This expands from man to man and to the society also. Because if a
man feels confrontation with or within his own-self, then he is in confrontation with others
also. Marx concludes that estranged labour gives rise to private property.
On the other hand, the conflict theory vividly illustrates the operation of the society by the
wealthy group and influential individuals using their positions in exploiting the services from
12
Ibid
the poor. That alludes to the working or operating class since it mostly involves the goods
production for the governing class. Therefore, it is evident that the ruling class members
become the consumers of what the working class produces. Through this particular
imbalance, the society community creates laws as well as other specifications to rule the
manner that a country operates.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ritzer G. (2011). Alienation. Sociological Theory. Tata McGraw Hill Education Pvt
Ltd. 5th Edition. Pp. 53-57.
2. Petrovic G. (1963). Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research. Wiley-Blackwell, International Phenomenological society. Pp 420-421.
3. Nielsen W. (1968). Notes on Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Mosaic: An
Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, Vol. 2, No, 1, Literature and Alienation. University
of Manitoba. Pp. 123-129.
4. Lockwood D. (1956). British Journal of Sociology. Some Remarks on ‘The Social
System’. Wiley, London School of Economics and Political Science. P 134.

5. Turner J. (1974). The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Conflict Heritage.

Wadsworth. Pp 78-83