Download Is the study o1 class still relevant in the UK today?

Is the study o1 class still relevant in the UK
today?
It has been debated by many sociologists whether or not class is still relevant in the
UK. It could be argued that there is evidence that a closed system may be dated and
there is more mobility within the UK today as there is evidence to suggest people have
more opportunities so it is therefore more open. This essay will demonstrate these
two points and show how class may not be as relevant within modern society and
other factors must be considered aside from class.
Social stratification can be defined as the way society is stratified in a hierarchical
way. Sociologists have identified that stratification systems can be divided into two
groups open and closed. Open is said to be the class system within the UK today and
allows for social mobility. The closed system such as slavery, Feudalism and Caste is
one of social closure in which an individual is permanently assigned to a status
based on his or her parents' status.
Class stratification can be based on sets of people regarded by t he mse lv es or
others as sharing similar status with regard to wealth, power and prestige. In the
UK today it is possible for people to move between class groups as their opportunity
for higher paid jobs, more power etc is evident. An example of this would be
entrepreneurs like Lord Alan Sugar and Duncan Ballantyne. Both came from working
class backgrounds but within their life time have achieved great power and prestige
and are extremely wealthy.
In the UK today there are three types of class: upper, middle and lower/ working class.
These are usually measured on terms of economic status or occupation objectively on
scales such as the Registrar General Scale but are also measured subjectively. This
measurement tends to focus on things that cannot be measured such as peoples own
thoughts of which class they belong to. It is based on opinion rather than fact.
As the last generation has seen a de-industrialization there has been a decline in the
number of blue collar jobs and an increase in white collar jobs. This has lead to a rise
in economic value, home ownership and roles of women increasing in society
therefore has bridged the gap between the two extreme classes with more and more
individuals moving to middle class positions within the UK today. Some view class
stratification as a value consensus (functionalist theory) whereas others view it as a
source of conflict (Marxism and social action theories e.g. Weber)
Functionalists see the parts of society forming an integrated whole therefore they
investigate the way in which class stratification is integrated with other parts of
1
society. To help explain this they use they biological analogy to explain society.
Functionalists believe a functional prerequisites (order and stability) are essential for
society to survive. Parsons (1964 ) states that stratification is inevitable and unite
people as all societies have shared values. Inequalities are based on meritocracy;
therefore the division of labor is based on differential rewards.
Davis and Moore state that stratification is a permanent and universal feature of
society which is functionally necessary. Social systems share functional prerequisites
to survive. Higher rewards are offered to the better jobs in society which therefore
creates competition for these positions however it is difficult to decide which jobs are
functionally more important. They also ignore the influence of power on the unequal
distribution of rewards. They assume there is a general consensus on the patterns of
rewards. Functionalists also ignore the fact that stratification can de-motivate those at
the bottom of the hierarchy preventing them from achieving their potential. Those in
the top of the hierarchy tend to put up barriers so not to allow those wanting to climb
the hierarchy into their group. This shows that not everyone can achieve the rewards
for hard work as Parsons and Moore first identified. Tumin (1953) states that many
low paid/unskilled jobs are just as important as higher paid jobs e.g. bin men and
cleaners are just as vital in society as doctors and lawyers.
Glass (1954) supports the functionalist’s theory of stratification. His study Social
Mobility in Britain was the first sociological study on mobility in Britain and studied
inter-generational mobility of men from different generations. ~It identified high
levels of intergenerational mobility with 2/3 of men interviewed in different status
groups to their fathers. It found that 1/3 had experienced upward mobility, 1/3
downward mobility and 1/3 had remained in the same category as their fathers. Glass
found that class status of the family directly affected life chances.
Although this study, on the surface shows social mobility within society, if it is studied
deeper it proves that mobility may be limited and gives evidence of social closure.
The higher the occupational status of the father the more likely the son was of
achieving a high status position. In the high status categories there was a significant
degree of self recruitment. 45% of the members in category 1 in the Registrar General
Scale were the sons of fathers also in category 1. This is 13 times greater than what
would be expected by chance. If parental occupation had no influence on a person’s
status then you would expect 3.5% of the sons in category 1 to have fathers in the
same position. The validity and reliability of the study must also be questioned as the
data was collected retrospectively. It ignored the role of women in society and also
ignored the t o p 5% of the population however it is a significant study within
sociology as it gives an indication of mobility.
An alternative view of stratification to functionalism is Weber’s social action theory.
2
Weber, although coming from a Marxists’ point, he saw Marx’s view as too simplistic
to understand class solely on economic terms. Weber saw stratification resulting
from the struggle for scarce resources within society, struggles being motivated by
economic resources, prestige and political power. He defined class as ‘a group of
individuals who share a similar position in a market economy’. Class is influenced by
jobs as market position is class position allowing for a number of occupational
classes. Different classes have different life chances e.g. increased opportunities for
better health, better housing areas etc.
Weber disagreed with Marx and stated that factors other than ownership of property
are significant in the formation of classes. He identified that the market value of skills
must be acknowledged. As Weber was the only theorist to experience changes and
major events within society he saw no evidence of polarization first thought by Marx.
Instead he saw a decline in the number of petty bourgeoisie. Weber argued that
middle class would expand as capitalism developed. He rejected the idea of a revolt as
common identity does not need to occur to those sharing the same market value. He
also rejected the idea that political power is derived from economic power, arguing
that class forms only one possible basis of power and that party and status have a
direct effect on social inequality. Weber predicted capitalism would continue to
develop allowing for more administrative posts. His theory and idea are more realistic
than Marx as he emphasizes more factors and is the only theorist to ex pe rie nce the
21st century.
Weber states that groups form as their members share a similar status position.
Similar status groups share similar lifestyles yet status groups stop mobility as only
those who share status can join. This can be seen in the UK with the elite self
recruitment ensuring social closure. Status groups may cut across class divisions, e.g.
Gay rights organizations, therefore different status groups within a class can weaken
class solidarity and prevent class consciousness from developing. Parties can divide
and cut across class and status groups and are interested in the achievement of
social power.
Although Weber’s theory is relevant and valid when applied to middle classes it tends
to ignore the existence of a ruling class. His definition of class is unclear and he
underestimates the importance of economy in defining social class.
In support of Weber, Goldthorpe (1972, 1980) conducted the Oxford Mobility Study.
The aim of this was to investigate intergenerational mobility. It studied males
between the ages of 20 and 64 and it found that there was a higher rate of long
range mobility than in 1949. This mobility was more upward. 2/3 of the sons of
unskilled/ semi skilled workers were in manual occupations. Relative mobility
chances varied significantly between the classes. For example 45.7% of sons with
3
class 1 fathers ended up in this class compared to only 7.1% of those men whose
fathers were in class 7. The study also found that unemployment had effected all the
classes but most noticeably within the working class. The findings in this study would
suggest initially that mobility has increased in the UK but in 1972 class boundaries
were still evident and it wasn’t as open or meritocratic as suggested.
Goldthorpe and Glass’ studies cannot be compared directly as different scales were
used to measure stratification. This makes the results unreliable. The sample used
was also biased as it did not include women.
To conclude, class may not be as relevant in the UK today as some theorist may
suggest although it still plays a part, mainly being subjectively, how people see their
own position within society. Other factors must be considered in today’s society that
may not have been so relevant in the last century, such as party and status.
4