Paper 2 Class Stratification

Paper 2 – Class Stratification

Q 1:Does class stratification still affect the lives of people in the UK?

Discuss this question using relevant sociological theories and studies to support your answer.

N.B. THIS ESSAY GIVES MORE PERSPECTIVES AND MORE ASPECTS THAN YOU WOULD NEED FOR A NAB OR EXAMINATION 30-MARKER. RATHER THAN FORCE YOU TO LEARN A LIMITED (EG 2 OR 3) SELECTION OF ASPECTS/ PERSPECTIVES SELECTED BY ME, I GIVE YOU HERE A WIDE RANGE OF THEORIES AND ASPECTS ABOUT SOCIAL CLASS TO ENABLE YOU TO SELECT WHICH PERSPECTIVES/ ASPECTS YOU WISH TO LEARN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE NAB/ EXAM. FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES OF CLASS STRATIFICATION HAVE BEEN OMITTED BY THE AUTHOR!

Intro

There are several sociological perspectives which have different ideas about how class stratification affects the lives of people in the UK, including Marxist (a conflict theory, Karl Marx) Neo-Marxist, Weberian (an Action theory, Max Weber), Functionalism (a structural consensus theory, Talcott Parsons, Davis & Moore) and Feminist perspectives

Perspective 1 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Marxism

Karl Marx divided society into two main classes – owners of the means of production (Bourgeoisie) and workers/ social labour slaves (proletariat). He believed that it was the exploitation and oppression of the working classes that led to the conflict between classes. Marx argued that someone’s social class was by an individual’s place in society in relation to the means of production – whether they were either the majority workers who had to sell their labour for wages, or the minority owning classes, who made profit in a Capitalist economy by exploiting workers by paying low wages. Class was defined exclusively by Marx therefore as the relationship to the means of production - proletariat worker/ wage slave or bourgeoisie capitalist owner.

Marxism is an example of a structural conflict perspective. Institutions or structures such as education, economy and law were used by Marx to define and influence class stratification. He believed that the rich and powerful owning class (Bourgeoisie) dominated these institutions and used them to benefit their own needs and to exploit and disadvantage the weaker (proletariat) classes. The development of Capitalism would lead, argued Marx, to polarisation of the two classes, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. (Monopolization of Capital – fewer people own more wealth). Also because of unequal life chances between the two classes - for example the health of people from the bourgeoisie is better than that of the proletariat, or in modern society people in different postcode areas have different health - it is often harder for poorer classes to achieve in life and achieve social mobility.

Marx predicted that as Capitalism advanced, monopolization of industry would result in petit bourgeoisie (small business owners) being absorbed into the bourgeoisie – as small businesses would be taken over by multinationals.

At the same time, the intelligentsia (educated middle-class level workers) would be forced to sell their labour as wage slaves, resulting in prolitarianisation– more and more people having to sell their labour as wage slaves.

Marx also predicted that the proletariat would eventually realise they were being exploited, forget their smaller differences, and realise their common bond of being exploited by the bourgeoisie. Class consciousness would result in a working class revolution to overthrow Capitalism and bring about an equal, classless society which shared industrial profit and wealth equally amongst all workers.

Issues/ Critiques Of Marxist Explanations:

Critics of Marx argued that his view is too simplistic, as society can not be based only on two classes which are determined by people being either owners or workers within the means of production. Modern society is much more complex now than Marx foresaw, writing a hundred years ago. Communist regimes eg in Russia have collapsed, which claimed to follow Marxist ideas, and where those in power actually controlled institutions of society for their own benefit, they did it in a more ruthless way than is seen Modern Britain today.

In addition, there are lots of other important divisions within society which are ignored by Marxist perspective, eg race, age, gender) as clearly not all ‘workers’ have the same experiences in the workplace, despite being similar in terms of their relationship to the means of production. Male and Female, Ethnic and Indigenous, Older and Younger workers clearly do not have similar experiences in the workplace. Marx would argue that these differences were less important than their common social class, their common bond of being exploited proletariat workers in an unfair Capitalist system.

Critics of Marx have also noted that he places a lot of emphasis onproduction, but not on consumption; clearly if there is not consumption then there would be no production. It is clear however that it is not only the upper classes (Bourgeoisie, for Marx) that consume goods and services. This shows that lower classes can afford to buy goods and services and consume in society, using wages to pay for goods/ services, and are therefore not exploited, as Marx has argued.

Monopolization of industry has not happened either. Although there are large multi-national companies, there are also many smaller businesses and entrepreneurs in modern society which have not become absorbed in the process of polarisation.

Marx argued that workers would realise their common bond of exploitation in a Capitalist system, but working classes have less in common with each other in modern societies. The traditional working class has all but died out and has been replaced by a more private, white-collar/ admin/ hi-tech employed working class which have less contact with one another outside of the workplace. These workers can earn and save, and are therefore not exploited, nor do they feel they have much in common with other workers other than similar employment perhaps.

Evaluation of Marxist Perspective of Social Class:

Contrary to Marxist explanations, it could be argued that social mobility is possible in a Capitalist society, so workers can improve their social class, and will not feel exploited. Conflict in the modern workplace is actually rare, and workers rights and trade unions make sure that workers are not ‘exploited’ as wage slaves, rather they are rewarded by pay for their skills.

Marxism also struggles to explain the emerging middle class/ white collar workers, who clearly have power over other workers, and are rewarded with higher pay and are therefore not ‘exploited’ as wage slaves. Furthermore, employees who can now buy shares in the company which employs them struggles to fit into the Marxist model of owner or worker as these people are both employee within, and share ownership of, the means of production, so are both proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Perspective 2 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Social Action Theory - Weberian (Action)

Max Weber (a founding father of sociology) based class stratification on three distinct but related headings – Wealth & Income, Prestige or Status and Power to Influence Important Decision in Society. This multi-dimensional approach to explaining class stratification allows for inconsistencies which Marxism could not explain (e.g. working class workers doing white-collar jobs, middle management positions, share-owning workers which are neither owners nor exploited workers) which Marxism struggles to explain.

Weber used a multi-class model to describe class stratification which was made up from one’s income/wealth, status/ prestige and power:

Income/ Wealth – Determined from occupation -regular income- or from possessions of value – wealth. Also in turn this is determined by levels of skill, so more skilled people have a better market position.

Status – how someone (or their occupation) is perceived by others in terms of prestige, however high or low – are they doing well or not or what do people think of the value of their job, for society?

Power – Can the person influence important decisions in society that affect other people?

Weberian perspectives allowed income/wealth, power and prestige to be viewed as independent of one another. For example, wealth could be used to gain power and prestige. Another example would be that one might have high wealth/ income but low prestige/ status and little power to influence important decision in society. Social class was therefore the result of a combination of all three aspects.

Weber’s model also accounted for inequalities which affect class, e.g. inequality of access to the best education, best areas of housing etc which affect life chances and therefore access to the best income/wealth, prestige and power.

Weber does agree with Marx that class was mainly based on economic differences but took factors other than production into consideration including race and education level.

Finally, the Weberian model included the notion of ‘Party’ – this could be someone’s political party or social party – e.g. member of a club or society (masons) or a shared common background, which overrides any social class differences. Eg someone may feel more in common with other members of a group they belong to eg supporters of a football team, members of Masons, members of a Church, regardless of the social class of these members, than with people of the same social class but who are not members of that ‘party’ or group. The Weberian model considers the possibility that social class may not be someone’s main defining characteristic.

Issues/ Critiques:

Weberian theory examines inequality in various forms in society, not only from the income/ wealth perspective. People in society can be unequal also in terms of status/ prestige and in terms of power to influence decisions in society – this is recognised within Weberian explanations of social class stratification.

The Weberian model does not emphasise production as in Marxist theory. Rather it emphasises people’s ‘market value’ and their ability to sell their high/ low skills ‘in the marketplace’ for higher/ lower incomes. It does not merely focus on one’s position in relation to the means of production.

Evaluation of Weberian Perspective of Social Class:

The helpful thing about the Weberian model is that it is more flexible – it allows a more flexible, detailed way of classifying people in terms of three main elements, rather than on the more rigid Marxist model which is based solely on economic differences.

The Weberian model does not only emphasise production, or people’s relationship to the means of production. Factors other than one’s relationship to the means of production contribute to one’s social class are considered, such as ability to influence decisions and the status which society gives particular positions/ occupations.

Weberian theory also considers the possibility of other factors being more important that one’s social class. The notion of Party suggests that people of various social backgrounds may feel more in common with each other as a group of masons, football supporters, church goers, etc, than with other people outside of that ‘party’ who happen to be of the same social class.

The Weberian model may be closer to people’s modern experiences in the UK today as it allows for change in for example perceptions of high status positions. The model finally considers the notion of social closure as a way of excluding some people (or groups of people) from a particular (privileged) social group. Studies show evidence of social closure in modern Britain.

Perspective 3 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Neo-Marxism

Neo-Marxists agreed with traditional Marxist theories about the means of production but also consider other factors such as the impact of education on class stratification. Neo-Marxists allowed for the incorporation of new roles e.g. management jobs that are placed in-between the proletariat worker classes and the bourgeoisie owner classes. Neo-Marxism does not support Marxist ideas about polarisation of the classes due to exploitation of the workers, as Neo-Marxism allows for social mobility – e.g. working classes can become managers and thus move out of one class into another. Additionally, as there is more white collar work instead of manual blue collar work in the UK today, many working class people are now doing white-collar work, which used to be considered higher class work.

Neo-Marxists accept Marx’s ideas about the means of production, but consider factors other than the means of production to explain the existence of class stratification, which are perhaps more appropriate for explaining the way people view their own class in modern Britain. Things like inequalities in access to education for example, are considered in explaining class differences (stratification) as well as their position in the economy/ relationship to the means of production

Issues/ Critiques:

Neo Marxist explanations of social class have been criticised for diluting and weakening original Marxist theory, just to ‘fit in’ with modern changes and to take into account those inconsistencies which original Marxist theory either struggled to explain or just ignored, such as the rise of the middle-classes and manager-employees.

Compared to traditional Marxism, Neo-Marxism does give a more flexible explanation for class stratification, taking factors other than relationship to the means of production into account in explanations of inequality between social classes. The Neo-Marxist model would be criticised by consensus structural theories eg Functionalist sociologists, who would argue that class inequality was functional for society and did not, as Neo-Marxist structural conflict perspectives would suggest, cause conflict and struggle between social classes, particularly between privileged and disadvantaged social classes.

Evaluation of Neo-Marxist Perspective of Social Class:

The Neo-Marxist approach is perhaps more useful in explaining class stratification in modern Britain that the original / traditional Marxist explanations. Being more flexible than it’s rigid two-class, production based predecessor, Neo-Marxism is able to explain within a generally Marxist framework, (conflict/ structural with emphasis on the impact of Capitalism on class) that class inequality exists as a result of unequal access to institutions which are dominated by the ruling/ owning / privileged classes, to their advantage and to the disadvantage of other social groups. Furthermore, the Neo-Marxist approach accepts the existence of a Middle Class – not considered by original Marxist explanations. Neo-Marxism accepts that there is a class of worker, which is higher rewarded in terms of pay, responsibility over other workers, is involved in decisions which affect the company – and is therefore less exploited in the Capitalist system – which does not belong to the ‘working class’ strata. The concept of social mobility is therefore accepted by Neo-Marxists, as workers can gain promotion to ‘middle class’ management positions for better pay but still within the Capitalist system. Workers had no such prospects according to original Marxism, as the Bourgeoisie ensured pay and conditions restricted the proletariat, preserving the privileges and profits of ownership of the means of production for themselves.

Perspective 4 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Functionalism

Like many Functionalists, Talcott Parsons believed that order, cooperation and stability in society are based on a value consensus – a general agreement about what is worthwhile and important. Those who perform successfully in positions ranked highly important by society will be rewarded highly by society, and this is generally accepted by all. Stratification is therefore a functional necessity which integrates various groups in society to pursue collective goals which are derived from society’s central values. The study ‘Some Principles of Social Stratification’ (Davis & Moore 1945) argued that differential rewards were functional for society as they help maintain social order and stability.

Society for functionalists has functional prerequisites – vital things which have to be in place for society to function effectively. By ensuring skilled people are in those positions which are most valued by society, these functional prerequisites will be surely met, and they are rewarded highly for achieving this, through power, status and income. Class stratification for Talcott Parsons was therefore an integrating force, whereby inequalities of wealth, power, prestige, status were generally accepted by people in society as a whole, and all divisions of society played their part or integrated to achieve these ‘goals’ .

For functionalist explanations of social class then, it is seen as ‘functional’ and helpful to society, for there to be a level of stratification and ultimately a system of inequality and division of reward, whereby some people with skills occupy a higher socal class and are highly rewarded than other people with lower skills who are given lower rewards.