Marx’s analysis of the concept of class rests on the basis of the age long existence of struggles among classes of people throughout history. Marx insists that the human society has at all times been divided among classes since the ages of unified and primitive living. The main cause of the class conflicts according to Marx is the pursuit of the different interests linked to the classes themselves. A case in point according to Marx relates to the factory which is the central attracting resource between the two classes of people. In the factory case, the factory is contested among the exploiters who are the capitalists and the exploited who are the laborers. This state of affairs can also be seen as a struggle between the buyers and the sellers of labor. The exploited are the sellers of the labor while the exploiters are the capitalists buying the labor for a wage. The struggle between these classes is a considerably antagonistic as opposed to a more healthy option that would involve collaboration in these classes. The interests in the different classes together with the struggle to contain the power of the whole situation form the basis of Marx’s definition of the class conflicts.
Marx therefore lays a firm grip on the relationships that arise out of the different relative positions that the different persons hold in the chain of production because his class theory is fully centered on the factory model. This position means that the different levels of access to the meager resources at hand leads to the difference in the exercisable power held by the different persons at the factory. Though it is not automatic that class conflicts would occur as a result of the access to the scarce resources and power, there is an inherent likelihood that class conflicts will arise because of the diverse positional and production interests that occur at the factory production. So Marx concludes that there is a considerable likelihood of conflict occurrence in any society but especially in societies that have a factory production concept. In this regard, Marx concludes that there is a considerable predisposition on the holder of the position in the production model to seek to enjoy the benefits of the position hence leading to a counter effect of conflict from the other players in the production system.
Marx still reiterates that the conflicts among the different classes do not just occur in the air. These conflicts are generated by the exposure of the people filling the different positions being exposed to some set of social conditions and circumstances. For example, the case of the industrial ventures largely brought a conflict between two groups of people who had different needs and thoughts and interests. This would closely relate to an employer as one group and the employees as another group. The main interest that the employee group would have would be the continual release of their wages while the employer would have interests of continuous production. This position means that the employees would generate a strong conflict whenever wages would go unpaid.
Marx suggests that there should be a line drawn to separate the case of classical interests and the political economy interests. To Marx, classical interests are largely different from the individual interests that arise out of the utilitarian school of thought. This position reiterates that the needs of a given stratum of society are largely dependent on the prevalent conditions in their environment together with the relations these groups of people have with their production bosses.
Weber on the other hand slightly approached class from a wider perspective by bringing on board other sectors of life apart from the factory model introduced by Marx. Weber defines the class as a category of people who share a component of life that is largely causal. This component is most a times economic in nature and considerably relates to opportunities of gaining income and possessing material wealth. This particular component is usually closely related to the forces of the labor market supply and remuneration.
Weber is quite close to Marx’s approach because he also dwells closely on matters that regard economic issues. Weber insists that the struggle to raise a considerable conflict can only come to surface if the parties involved in the conflict realize that there is consideration cause to share in the quest for raising the conflict that will bear the intended results in the expected timelines. Weber insists that unless the causes and the outcomes of the conflict become transparent, then the struggle cannot begin because a considerable percentage of the people may not come on board.
Weber bases his definition of classes on the consumption models and patterns as opposed to the position these people hold in the channel of production. This position is a major separating line from the Marxist school of thought. According to Weber, status groups encompasses a better representation of groups according to the life-styles they lead and the honor and social esteem that comes with being part of such a status group. The existence of these social classes goes a long way in restricting the interaction of individuals from these diverse status groups to the point that there is a strict criteria that ensures adoption of membership or bars people from belonging.
In the political sense of issues, Weber reiterates that there is a considerable force that comes with being part of a given status group. Political behavior according to Weber may be influenced largely by the men who fear losing their status or even those who would like to achieve a certain status.
This paper finds that the Weber analysis and understanding of the concept of class is much more believable and attachable because of the wide scope it takes and the analysis it does not only in the societal production model but also in the political arena and other status issues related to community and class living. Weber identifies the unifying factors that cause the rise of status groups and also outlines the factors that ignite the threshold of conflict.
The study of mental health has largely sought to outline exact causes of mental illnesses. In the pre-Freud studies, most researchers thought that mental illnesses arose as a result of the deterioration of the brain function. The coming of Freud on the scene introduced psychological causes as also considerable causes of mental illness. In essence, what Freud brought on board meant that he thought that Mental illness would also arise out of the failure in psychology. In modern day English terms, Freud advocated for the stand that the “software” could also be a cause of mental illness apart from the much researched “hardware” causes.
In this regard, Freud comes out to defend the idea that mental illness is part of the biography of the individual. The causes therefore become intra-individual and relate largely to developmental issues. Among the leading causes that are psychological are the failure in complete development of the “software” that runs the brain hence the hardware or biology does not find proper model of operation.
The aims of the psychological theory of mental illness are to enhance the self awareness of the individuals affected hence the origin of the simple psychologist’s conversation that seeks to understand the issues from the individual’s point of view. In essence what Freud brought on board included the establishment of individual inner conflict as a considerable source and cause of mental illness. To Freud, the inner feeling and being is a considerable point of beginning in handling cases of mental illness. Despite his focus on the internal being, Freud also attends to the external causes that may be a triggering element to the occurrence of hurting, aggressive and pain in the individual affected hence lead to instability in the mental being.
The work of Freud considerable open my understanding of the nature of mental illness and the outcomes of tailored psychological interventions that may help alleviate the cases of mental illness. It is now clearer that mental illness is not just a biological or hardware issue but also a case that can arise from the “software” point of view. The treatment model adopted in the modern day is largely wider-scoped hence encourages the causative assessment before administration of a treatment method. Another considerable benefit that Freud’s work has brought into the body of knowledge includes the introduction of outpatient care for individual with mental health problems depending on the assessed causes.