Self, Culture, and Society
Material Conditions
Polanyi refers to the emergence of the market society from industrialization as a great transformation. First of all, the market society consists of an economy that is made of self-regulatory market systems. In other words, it is an economy that is directed by nothing else but market prices. The transformation which is resultant of the market society is important because it has the capability of organizing the whole economic structure without external assistance. Besides, no society can stay sustainable for a long period if it is not controlled by markets. Indeed, the market institutions existed even before the Stone Age Period; however, its role was only incidental; unlike the market society that came as a result of the great transformation, which controls the whole economic structure. Therefore, it is evident that the role played by the internal economy was insignificant until recent times, when the transformation to an economy dominated by market patterns turns out to be more proficient.
And this outlines the significance of the “new” market society. After a series of studies, Adam Smith, one of the most influential economists concluded that the division of labor was primarily dependent on the markets, which involved the exchange of one thing for another (Polanyi, 1944, p. 44). During the rise of the market economy, the modern market economy shifted to a single humanistic invention called the market society. And this means a type of economy that is submerged into social relationships. In other words, people do not act to safeguard their individualistic needs but the social standings, social claims, and social assets; as a result, the material goods are only valued if they serve this end. Also, the production and the redistribution process are not linked to the precise economist interests that are related to the possession of goods.
Before industrialization and the great transformation, the traditional economist ideology was primarily based on reciprocity and redistribution of products and services across individualistic and societal relationships. In the wake of industrialization, there was an increase in the influence of the state; as a result, more competitive markets were created, which impacted the traditional social-economic practices. In the long run, the old markets societies were replaced by formal organizations and enterprises, aimed at implementing self-regulatory market economies. Self-regulating market societies are important because they lead to the development of capitalist institutions which are made up of economic liberal mindsets. On the one hand, this is significant because it has resulted in the restructuring of laws; and this has made it easier to control the economy by prices. On the other hand, it has changed the economic aspects that are based on humanistic relationships. Before the great transformation, markets were very small.
As a result, they had a little influence on social relationships; what is more, they could not impact how prices were set. However, after industrialization, the market society developed into one capable of organizing the whole economic structure without external assistance. Besides, no society can stay sustainable for a long period if it is not controlled by markets. Despite all that, production is not solely relatable to the technical and physical struggle with nature. However, it depends on the respective nation’s level of development and the resultant level of social well-being after various efforts. In most cases, the original mobilization of productive effort is usually a challenge within the social structure. Therefore, the success or failure of the specific social organization will primarily depend on the overall amount of humanistic effort that can be directed towards nature. In the wake of the great transformation, the market society has developed into one capable of organizing the whole economic structure without external assistance.
According to Rinehart, over the past one hundred years, most Western societies have undergone considerable social changes that have significantly changed how people work (Rinehart, 2001, p.23). Before, 1840, there were few signs of industrialization; and this is because most societies preferred agrarian pursuits. As a result, the family farm was the unit of production that most people dependent on for livelihood. Most economic activities occurred within the rural village; and this was a virtually self-contained economic unit. The ordinary farmer was linked to agricultural markets; however, agriculture was not completely self-sufficient; as a result, a large minority population had to seek seasonal permanent employment for extra wages. In the wake of the great transformation, various changes took place within the workplace environment. After 1840, the rural economy gradually transformed into a more sophisticated system of production, and later in the mid-eighties, the foundations of industrial capitalism were evident by the construction of railways and canals.
The new society in Canada led to the development of manufactories and offices. As a result, there was a personal and direct relationship between employers and employees since their responsibilities did not differ greatly. And this meant that the future of the Canadian economy was most clearly visible in the presence of factories that were located in metropolises such as Hamilton and Toronto. The development of factories impacted the work environment; in that, they used power machinery which reduced the overall time spent on production while increasing the overall value. Machines’ speeds and functionalities that could be controlled by the management intensified the work process and enabled the administration to control work effectively. Industrialization in Canada led to an increase in overall productivity since machines required fewer skills and effort to operate. Lastly, in both primary and secondary sectors of the Canadian economy, workers were driven to work diligently by refined techniques of manipulation, persuasion, and economic incentives.
Ideological Conditions
According to Weber, the “Protestant work ethic” it was important to relate religious ideas to industrialization. And this was because the Protestants were more ready to choose and develop schools that fitted into the industrial way of life. That aside, the “spirit of capitalism” focuses on a tendency that is typical of modern society and an attribute of behavior that is universal. First of all, there is a long-decline in kinship solidarity. Also, economic conduct possesses and individualistic ethical content. And this occurs even if it consists of calculated probity. According to the spirit of capitalism, hard work is a duty that carries intrinsic rewards. Based on Weber’s viewpoint, this is a typical attribute of human beings in the modern industrial world. After studying whether the affinity between the Protestant work ethic and spirit of capitalism was based on the adaptation of the changing market conditions, Weber concluded that ideas should not be regarded as dependent variables only. And this is because Weber saw a crucial point in what most people took for granted. In other words, intense economic and religious activities involve mutually incompatible tendencies. Besides, religious devotions were usually accompanied by the rejection of mundane affairs, while people were engrossed in economic pursuits tended towards religious indifference.
Ideological conditions play a significant role in the development of market society. And this is because these conditions illustrate the connection between the market and society and how they have changed over time. Ideological conditions are systems of concepts which are followed by a specific political class as a reflection of the economic system. By the mid-nineteenth century, the prevalence of industrialization meant that the belief systems of the Western world had to change. And this led to the development of the illustrative connection between material conditions of wealth production and belief systems, concerning the social classes. In other words, as industrialization changed the economic system, then the ideological system that sustained it would also change. In the long run, the social class associated with the ideology would also change. In most cases, ideologies are viewed as a factor used by dominant social groups to maintain their power in the fight for ideas. And this is partly because dominant ideologies permeate most aspects of the society, from education through to religion. Once ideologies are widespread, most people follow without objection. In the long run, the political system and we established in the minds of the working class, irrespective of its conditions and structure.
Ideological conditions are very important for market society development. To be more precise, they normally indicate the relationship between the market and the society and how they have changed within a given amount of time. In other words, ideological conditions are systems of concepts which are followed by a specific political class as a reflection of the economic system. That aside, the “spirit of capitalism” focuses on a tendency that is typical of modern society and an attribute of behavior that is universal. That aside, the “spirit of capitalism” focuses on a tendency that is typical of modern society and an attribute of behavior that is universal. All in all, religious devotions were usually accompanied by the rejection of mundane affairs, while people were engrossed in economic pursuits tended towards religious indifference. Before industrialization and the great transformation, the traditional economist ideology was primarily based on reciprocity and redistribution of products and services across individualistic and societal relationships. Polanyi refers to the emergence of the market society from industrialization as the great transformation and this is because the transformation has led to a market society that is self-regulatory; that is one that is capable of organizing the whole economic structure without external assistance.
References
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Rinehart, J. W. (2001). The tyranny of work: Alienation and the labor process. Harcourt Canada.