Question

Following in the footsteps of Functionalists like Davis and Moore (1945), some people argue that without a small group of super-rich folks at the top of society no one will be around to be the first adopters of new technology, like expensive electric cars that are good for the environment (think Telsa Motors) or the big brick cell phones of the 1980s that cost a fortune. By purchasing these early, very expensive technologies the rich pave the way for later, much cheaper technology that the rest of us can afford, they argue.

How might a Conflict theorist respond to this argument?

Which side of this argument (conflict or functionalist) do you think makes the most sense and why?

Answer 1

Conflict theorists would focus on the reproduction of inequality that differential access to the technologies between poor and rich lead to. Conflict theorist might argue that these technologies adopted and controlled by rich people were actually the creation of labour provided by poor working class who were unable to afford the products of their own labour.

I think the conflict response to the argument makes more sense because technically, rich people didn't pave way for the inception of cheaper technologies. It was the mass production as a result of industrialization and technological expansion that made the new technologies cheaper and affordable. This mass production was also the twin result of machines and labour (invested by working poor class).