Question 1

Dahrendorf argues that the democratization of conflict, i.e., the establishment of institutional procedures that openly acknowledge, deal with, and regulate inter-group conflicts, functions to maintain social order as well as to produce social change. Identify a recent example (local/national/global) of inter-group conflict; outline the main source of the conflict between the groups/interests involved; and discuss how it was resolved. What would a Marxist-derived analysis of this conflict and its resolution suggest/conclude?

Accepted Answer

A recent example of inter-group conflict on a global scale is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The main source of the conflict is the long-standing territorial dispute over land and the establishment of a Palestinian state. This conflict has resulted in violence, displacement of people, and loss of life on both sides.

The conflict has been ongoing for decades, with various attempts at resolution through peace talks, negotiations, and international intervention. However, a lasting resolution has yet to be achieved, and the situation remains volatile.

A Marxist-derived analysis of this conflict and its resolution would likely focus on the underlying economic and power dynamics at play. It would argue that the root cause of the conflict lies in the unequal distribution of resources and power, with the Israeli state representing the interests of the ruling class and the Palestinian people representing the oppressed and marginalized class. The resolution of the conflict would require addressing these underlying economic and power imbalances, and achieving true equality and justice for all parties involved.

Overall, the conflict between Israel and Palestine highlights the complex interplay of economic, political, and social factors in inter-group conflicts, and the need for a comprehensive and equitable resolution that addresses the underlying structural issues.

Question 2

C.W. Mills was pessimistic about the power of the middle and working classes to resist the decision-making power, and the societal consequences of the decisions, of the power elite. What evidence from contemporary society might be used both to support Mills's claim, and to challenge it? Overall, how persuasive is Mills's power elite thesis given the current structure of contemporary society?

Accepted Answer

C.W. Mills's pessimism about the power of the middle and working classes to resist the decision-making power of the power elite can be supported by evidence from contemporary society such as the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the influence of corporate interests on government policies, and the limited ability of ordinary citizens to hold the elite accountable for their actions. Additionally, the societal consequences of decisions made by the power elite, such as widening income inequality, environmental degradation, and the erosion of democratic institutions, further support Mills's claim.

However, there are also challenges to Mills's thesis in contemporary society. For example, the rise of social movements and grassroots activism has shown that the middle and working classes can still mobilize and challenge the power of the elite. The increasing diversity and interconnectedness of society also provide opportunities for different voices to be heard and for power to be more evenly distributed.

Overall, the persuasive power of Mills's power elite thesis in contemporary society is still relevant. While there are challenges to his claim, the evidence of increasing inequality and the concentration of power in the hands of a few supports his argument. However, the potential for resistance and change from grassroots movements and the changing dynamics of society also suggest that there is still hope for a more equitable distribution of power.

Question 3

Brazil's economy has strengthened considerably in the last few years, and Brazil is host to the Word Cup in 2014, and to the Summer Olympics in 2016. What might Gunder Frank and Cardoso say about Brazil's economic growth and its significance on the world stage? Based on the respective theoretical stances of both theorists, would either/both theorists be willing, do you think, to depart from some of their original arguments? Explain your reasoning.

Accepted Answer

Gunder Frank, a proponent of dependency theory, might argue that Brazil's economic growth is not a sign of true development, but rather a result of continued dependence on foreign investment and exploitation of natural resources. He might argue that the benefits of this growth are not reaching the majority of the population, and that Brazil's role as host to major international events is a distraction from the underlying issues of inequality and poverty.

On the other hand, Cardoso, a proponent of the dependent development theory, might acknowledge the economic growth as a positive sign of Brazil's ability to navigate the global economy and attract investment. He might argue that Brazil's hosting of major events is a sign of its increasing influence and importance on the world stage.

In terms of departing from their original arguments, it is possible that both theorists might be willing to adjust their perspectives in light of Brazil's recent economic growth. Frank might acknowledge that some progress has been made in terms of economic development, while still emphasizing the need for more equitable distribution of wealth. Cardoso might also recognize the ongoing challenges of dependency, and the need for continued efforts to address inequality and poverty. Overall, while their original arguments may still hold relevance, it is likely that both theorists would be open to revisiting and adjusting their perspectives in light of Brazil's changing economic and global position.

Question 4

Identify the theorist, and explain the meaning/significance of 6 of the following 7 concepts/ideas. Please write 2 or 3 sentences per question.
-Democratization of conflict

Accepted Answer