Download Essay outline for 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 on production, 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 multidimensional 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.
These claims have been strongly criticised as discussed below.
Issues/ Critiques:
Critics of Functionalist explanations have also criticised the assumption that those jobs which are
perceived as most vital to society are rewarded with higher prestige, power and income. Critics refute
these assumptions, suggesting that there are many jobs in modern Britain which are vital for society, but
are not necessarily rewarded with high power/ status or indeed, high income. Surely the labour of
unskilled workers is just as vital as that of skilled workers, they argue. If the work of unskilled workers
ceased, this would seriously affect production as much as if the work of skilled workers was to cease.
Furthermore, Functionalist explanations rely on value judgements about which positions are more or less
valuable/ important to the effective functioning of society. Critics have argued that it is surely a matter of
personal opinion; which position is more important, for example, between a doctor and a labourer?
Arguably a labourer is more important as assistance to the skilled tradesman, whilst a doctor is more
important to sick patients. There is therefore no such common agreement or value consensus about the
importance of particular positions in society which create class inequality and class stratification.
Finally, being a structural perspective, Functionalist explanations of class stratification do not take into
account the influence of the human agency. Critics would argue that individuals can make decisions, can
influence institutions rather than vice-versa, can act in different ways within these institutions, and may
even perceive themselves from a perspective other than their social class, as argued in Weberian theory’s
notions of ‘party’. Functionalist explanations have no room for the influence of the individual/ human
agency on their own position within the class strata.
Evaluation of Functionalist Perspective of Social Class:
Functionalist explanations of social class clearly justify class inequality, but appear over-simplistic in the
notion that all of society accepts class inequality, and that this inequality is inevitable and functional for
society. Many sociologists would dispute these simplistic assumptions about society.
Melvin & Tumin are amongst those sociologists who have criticised the Functionalist explanations of social
class stratification of Davis & Moore, above. Class stratification they would argue is a divisive, rather than
an integrating force, as some groups gain and are privileged, at the expense and disadvantage of other
groups. Divisions and dis-integration between classes they argue, are produced some groups having
advantages and privileges over other groups – there is no agreement within society, especially amongst
disadvantaged groups, that class inequality is functional or beneficial for society.
Perspective 5 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Structuration
The ideas of Anthony Giddens (1977, 1979, 1984), ‘structuration’ is a relatively modern attempt to explain
social stratification by combining both structural and action perspectives. Structure and action are seen as
opposite sides of the same coin – thus neither can exist without the other as both are inter-related.
Through social actions, structures are created and reproduced, so they exist over time. A synthesis of both
perspectives, then, or the ‘duality of structure’ as Giddens names it, also means that structures make
actions possible, and actions create these institutions.
Class inequality therefore is a result of both the impact of institutions (structures) on individuals, and the
impact of individual actions and roles within these institutions. Social class inequality – or class
stratification – would, for example, perhaps be partly caused by inequality of access to the best educational
institutions - thus structures having an impact on the individual – but would also be partly caused perhaps
by the result of individuals’ awareness of their own actions and interactions within educational institutions
which may have prevented their own access to the best institutions, e.g. by failing to achieve the required
entry grades for particular universities, is it the university that is restricting the individual, or the
individual’s own actions/ lack of action which has limited their own opportunity, and which in turn has
created inequality?
Issues/ Critiques:
Criticism of Giddens’ structuration explanations mainly concentrate on the fact that the theory offers
nothing which did not exist before, and merely dilutes and weakens aspects of well-established perspectives
– structural and action perspectives. Giddens would argue that his ideas are original as they are a new way
of combining two perspectives neither of which, for Giddens, were able to fully explain social behaviour.
Evaluation of Structuration Perspective of Social Class:
The advantage of structuration explanations of class stratification over any exclusively structural or action
perspectives is that it considers and recognises the impact on class inequality of both human agency and
structural forces. Perhaps this explanation is closer to one’s actual experience, whereby one can influence
institutions which affect class stratification through their individual actions/ interactions, whilst at other
times, social institutions can have an impact on individuals, creating inequality and class stratification.
Thus, Giddens offers an explanation which takes both scenarios into account.
Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 1 – Social Mobility
Social Mobility is found in open class systems, it means the ability to move from one class to another,
either in an upwards or a downwards direction. Promotion would lead to an increase in income and
therefore upward social mobility, whereas being made redundant or losing one’s job would cause a
decrease in income and therefore downward social mobility.
Although there is an open system, inequality in access to education or the top jobs is likely to limit social
mobility to within a limited range. Social closure contributes to this limited opportunity for social mobility.
The Oxford Mobility study carried out in 1972 attempted to explain class stratification but did not
consider women in the study at all, so the results about the classes in Britain could not be considered
representative of British society, only of British male society. A follow-up study in 1987, by Goldthorpe,
did include women, but based women’s social class on the employment status class of their husbands, was
still not representative of the men and women in the UK. This study also ignored the existence of smaller
elite groups that were not in employment but were wealthy. Nevertheless, the study did demonstrate that
mobility between classes does happen, (social mobility) and this supported the argument for an open class
system in modern Britain. The study showed that it was possible to move from one class to another both in
an upwards as well as in a downwards direction
A follow up study in 1988 (Marshall et al) called Social Class Mobility in Modern Britain’ did include
the class employment of women separately from men, hence was more representative of the classes in
Britain. This study showed basically the same results for male social class as Goldthorpe’s previous study,
but revealed more upward and downward social mobility in class 3 (routine manual work) for women. The
study found that many women experienced phases of social mobility- both upwards and downwards – as
promotion (upwards) and return to part-time work after childbirth (downwards) could cause this. In
addition, the study showed evidence of social class mobility in Britain generally due to increased
opportunities for white-collar work (modern working class jobs and decline of the traditional working
class) and due to more women working in modern Britain. It demonstrated that Britain has a (limited)
open class system allowing people to move up and down the social classes albeit within a limited range.
Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 2 – Social Closure
A Weberian idea, social closure is a way of excluding some people (or groups of people) from a particular
(privileged) social group. This is achieved through limiting access to the group exclusively to those with a
particular education type (e.g. Private Education or went to a particular fee-paying school e.g. Fettes or
Eton) or with particular qualifications, training, or membership of professional bodies/ clubs/ societies.
Informal networks can also contribute to social closure – this means for example, ‘old school tie’ networks
of employers promoting staff or employing staff not on merit but on ‘informal’ or unofficial grounds such
as private arrangements only to ‘self-recruit’ from within a group of people with the same education type.
In this way, privileged people (e.g. with Private School education) are helped into the elite groups whilst
other people are excluded.
A now-dated study Elites & Power in British Society (1974) and a more modern study called Social Class
in Modern Britain (1988) both showed evidence of social closure in Britain. A more up to date study
which looked at the Social Background of MP’s (1991) found that most MP’s were male, white, middleclass and privately educated. This is clearly a group then that helps particular people (from the same
background) access employment in politics whilst restricting or preventing access to these positions by
other groups/ classes.
Who Rules Britain (1991) also found evidence of social closure and self-recruitment where people in elite
groups would ensure relatives/ family members of existing members were given privileged access to the
group at the exclusion of other people.
These more modern sociological studies are most useful as they illustrate that social closure continues to
exist in modern British society.
Evaluative Conclusion (summarise main differences in selected theories discussed above)
The conflict theory of social inequality holds that stratification exists because it benefits individuals and
groups who have the power to dominate and exploit others. Marx contended that the capitalist system
which allows one class to dominate another relative to the means of production is the foundation of modern
class struggle. Marxist theory is therefore useful for explaining conflict and division between different
social classes. The inability to explain factors other than individuals’ relationship to the means of
production, the emergence of middle-class well-paid managers in Capitalist economies, and shareownership of individual workers are main criticisms of Marxist explanations of class stratification.
Weberian theory’s multi-dimentional model allowed income/wealth, power and prestige to be viewed as
dependent of one another; a combination of these contributed to an individual’s social class position. The
notion of ‘market position’ was important, whereby more skilled people would have a better market
position as they could sell their skills for better pay and conditions. Furthermore, there would be as many
‘social classes’ as there were different market positions, rather than only two as in Marxist explanations.
A Synthesis of Perspectives. Both functionalist conflict and action theories have merit, but each is better
than the other in explaining different aspects of social class stratification.
A number of sociologists, including Anthony Giddens (UK) and Gerhard E. Lenski (USA) have looked for
ways of integrating two perspectives, combining ideas from more than one theory for a perhaps better
understanding of social class. Structuration is one such example.
In conclusion, there will always be class stratification and different perspectives about how these classes
should be determined. Sociology will continue to carry out research studies to attempt to explain the
changing patterns of class stratification and social mobility/ social closure in modern Britain.