Conflict Perspective: the Upper Class vs the Lower Class

Introduction

There are a wide variety of sociological theories that are put into place throughout society. There is no mistaking the discrepancies that come from within these theories between people choosing their own side and backing it up with their own views and evidence for selecting the side that they selected. It is easy to lose track of the end goal when this is the case, because they focus more on the conflict between the sides rather than the goal that their own side is actually working towards. In this essay I will discuss why I believe that conflict perspective is very one sided in the sense that the people in a position of power don’t see the social class struggle in society, which is the reason I think that those same people don’t encourage social change. This lack of regard or, I guess, a sense of social consciousness is extremely contagious in the fact that it leads to a feeling of superiority among the upper class who chooses to act in a certain way to display the apparent difference in class. This inevitably will always lead to conflict between classes.

Conflict Perspective on Class Inequality

It is not ideal that a person would want to be treated as lesser than another person simply because they didn’t find the same success as others, even if this was not their own fault which would furthermore fall on upbringing. Common arguments that arise from this specific conflict theory is for one, that the opportunities for success are equal among people, because they are both people no matter the class that they belong to. This statement will often be combated with the fact that there is no such thing as 100 percent equality given that there will always be at least one person of power who views another person as lesser and therefore a liability in terms of scarcity. The upper class would argue that the lower class makes for a larger gap in the scarcity equilibrium that forces people to try and better manage how exactly they choose to utilize what valuable resources that they have remaining at this given point in time. Though scarcity is clearly an increasing issue in society, the blame cannot be passed to one class alone, because the frivolous spending on unnecessary things by the wealthy class would create a shortage in materials for the people who don’t typically have the funds to actually sit and buy things in abundance. This begs the question, who is actually to blame for the scarcity?

It is easily apparent that the blame should be shared equally for the usage of the resources is split even though the upper class does buy their own things. From the perception of a person who belongs to neither of these two classes, I feel as if though it is unethical, there is obviously a blurred line that creates this rift between the two classes which will never be clarified and therefore these arguments are necessary and they will continue to persist if all else fails. I agree that each side must be responsible for their end of the spectrum on scarcity. Both sides cause issues in their own respects, but the struggle for power makes it seem as if the upper class has the upper hand because in reality they do. There is no way to stop the power of money when you have none. Word of mouth is irrelevant in any talks of political matters. Words in this respect hold no weight and this leads me to summarize this agreement with the fact that this argument is destined to happen no matter the circumstance.

Furthermore, it is easy to see how there is an ideological split among people in America about this particular issue. This disagreement between social classes is the hidden American dream. There was meant to be a split and there always will be at least one person who refuses to agree with the others whether it be for pride, or even particular beliefs one may have that differ from that of other individuals. The rich will always deem themselves to be the upper class, but who decides what the upper class consists of? Upperclassmen? It certainly revolves solely around the amount of money that one possesses because it is not hard for a lower-class person to be more educated than an upper-class person, but this is not something taken into account when separating social classes. They proceed to bend this concept around the issue of scarcity which is not hard to see. I believe that society should move towards a more progressive though process that involves growth on both ends of the spectrum. These types of arguments could easily be avoided if there was a general consensus that was converged on by both parties. The likelihood of that happening is slim-to-none, but at this point it is the only possible option for peace in any aspect. The upper-class will decline out of pride and self-righteousness and the lower-class won’t have a say because they are the lower-class.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the conflict theory revolves around the lack of power balance between classes leading to a rift in classes around the societal issue of scarcity. There are many ways this could be approached, but all would require a sacrifice of some kind, whether is pride or principle, from either side which is likely to never happen. I think these types of arguments are important to the societal balance and it will remain to be an issue for as long as opinions are existant.