Download - HSRC Press

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zaAn important observation that follows from the discussion in the precedingparagraph is that the denotations of theoretical concepts are largely, if notentirely, determined by their connotations. For the simple reason that conceptsof this nature did not develop, and were not given meaning, in the concreteworld of everyday experience, but resulted within the theoretical space of aconceptual framework, the denotation is primarily dependent upon theconnotation. For example, the phenomena that are classified under alienationare largely determined by the connotations that are associated with the conceptin theories of alienation. In contradistinction, the denotations of everydayconcrete concepts such as dogs, cars, trees, furniture, sun, books, tables, and soon are reasonably fixed. The consequence is that the conventional connotationsthat are attached to these concepts are also reasonably fixed. The relationshipbetween the connotations and denotations of concepts may be summarized inthe following manner:(i) In the case of highly theoretical concepts or constructs, the denotations ofthe concepts are largely determined by the connotations that are attachedto them within the framework of the theory concerned.(ii) In die case of more concrete concepts associated with everydayexperience, the denotations frequently determine the (conventional)connotations that are attached to the concepts.Another far-reaching implication of the discussion so far is that concepts (andspecifically theoretical concepts) frequently have more than one connotation.Because, for example, there are several theories of alienation, it is clear thatthis concept has a number of connotations. The result is that different socialscientists frequently interpret and categorize the same phenomenon in differentways.A good example of the manner in which individuals define the reality of theirsocial environment in different ways is to be found by comparing Karl Marx’sconceptualization of social stratification with that of Max Weber. According toMarx, social stratification (the unequal ranking of socially defined positions insociety) is the consequence of the capitalistic system of production in whichthe haves and the have nots are differentiated into two permanentlyantagonistic classes. He argued that all class-differentiated societies arecharacterized by a mutually antagonistic relationship between a minority ofnon-producers (who dominate the means of production) and a majority oflabourers (who do not own any property, but who produce the surplusproduction which forms the basis of the wealth of the first class. In moderncapitalistic society this antagonistic relationship is manifested as a classstruggle between the capitalists and the proletariat (mainly industrial workersin the urban industrial centres). While Marx viewed the stratification process asthe consequence of private property or, stated differently, as a result ofeconomic power — or the absence thereof — Max Weber identified otherdeterminants of stratification. He distinguished between three broad128