What is Class

What is Social Class?

In sociology, the term ‘social class’ is most frequently used to mention to the primary system of societal stratification found in modern capitalist societies. Social stratification refers to ‘the presence [ in society ] of distinguishable societal groups which are ranked one above the other in footings of factors such as prestigiousness and wealth’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p.1 ) . The defining characteristic of a graded society, so, is that of inequality in footings of the ‘arrangement of individuals…in a hierarchy of advantaged and deprived life chances’ ( Fulcher and Scott 1999, p. 601 ) .

It has been suggested that societal inequality is a characteristic of all human societies ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p.1 ; Bilton et al 1994, p.34 ) . Sociologists have identified a figure of different signifiers of stratification systems bing in other societies or historic periods, for illustration, the caste system in traditional India, bondage and feudal system ( Bilton et al 1994, pp. 36-41 ) . From a survey of other systems it is clear that non all systems of stratification are organised in footings of societal category ; the caste system for illustration was stratified in footings of position. In societies where ‘economic relationships are primary’ , nevertheless, the division of members into groups in footings of similarities in attitudes, life styles and businesss is by and large termed divisions of category. ( Bilton et al 1994, p.36 )

For authoritative sociologist Karl Marx, an scrutiny of the workings of societal strata was indispensable to an apprehension of societal inequality. Stratification by category was peculiarly of import to him and he in fact argued that ‘all societies, except for the most crude and tribal 1s, were…class societies’ ( Fulcher and Scott 1999, p. 605 ) . Marx farther argued that ‘The history of all hitherto bing society is the history of category struggles’ ( Marx and Engels 1848 in Fulcher and Scott 1999, p. 605 ) .

For Marx there were two distinguishable categories in society ; the capitalist category, who own the agency of production, and the on the job category, who own merely their labor power which they sell to the capitalist category, or middle class, in return for rewards. Marx believed that the relationship between the middle class and the on the job category was one of development ; the middle class exploit the working category as the rewards workers receive for their labor is a fraction of the market value of the merchandises they produce. As proprietors of the agencies of production, the middle class sell the fruit of the working class’s labor for a net income, therefore roll uping more money, or capital, at the disbursal of the drudging category. Marx felt that the struggles of involvement inherent in capitalist societies would finally take to its ruin and to the outgrowth of a communist society. He believed that one time the working category realised the true nature of their development they would lift up and overthrow capitalist economy.

For Marx, so, the formation of societal categories in society consequences from a given society’s economic construction or base. He argued that ‘classes formed the lone important groups in society’ and inequality was the consequence of a group’s relationship to the agencies of production ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p. 14 ) . Another authoritative sociologist, Max Weber, agreed with Marx that societal categories develop when persons compete in a market economic system for economic resources ; nevertheless he saw other factors as every bit of import in understanding category composing and divisions in society.

Weber identified four separate categories in capitalist society ; the property-owning upper category, the wage-earning white-collar workers, the junior-grade middle class and the manual working category ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p. 12 ) . He agreed with Marx that the major category division was between the capitalists and the on the job category, but argued that divisions could be identified within ‘both the property-owning and wage-earning classes’ ( Bocock and Thompson 1995, p. 13 ) . For Weber, as Haralambos and Holborn ( 2004, p. 12 ) province, ‘factors other than the ownership or non-ownership of belongings are important in the formation of classes’ . Weber argued that an individual’s ‘market situation’ was one such of import factor. An individual’s market state of affairs is determined by the accomplishments s/he can offer in the market topographic point. Different businesss offer different accomplishments, and accomplishments that are extremely valued or in demand will take to greater wagess. In this manner, societal category may be determined by business and accomplishments, as opposed to the relationship of persons and groups to the agencies of production, because economic wagess affect life style and life opportunities.

Weber besides saw as of import in the formation of societal groups the constructs of position and parties. Status groups are groups with similar sums of societal prestigiousness or ‘honour’ and parties are groups with common political involvements. Status and party groups may or may non belong to, or serve the involvements of, the same societal category. In this manner, position and party groups may cut across category boundaries and therefore have the possibility of ‘creating divisions within classes’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p. 13 ) . This thought is evidently in contrast to the thoughts of Marx, who argued that the on the job category would one twenty-four hours recognize their shared state of affairs of inequality and subjugation and come together as a homogenous group to subvert the forces of capitalist economy. Criticisms of Marx and Marxist theories include inquiries as to why the working category has ne’er become a ‘class for itself’ , and, linked to this, why the in-between category or categories continued to turn instead than ‘sink’ into the working category as Marx predicted would go on as ‘machinery obliterate [ ed ] …differences in labour’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p. 12 ) .

Weber’s theories have besides been criticised. Marxists argue that Weber placed excessively much accent on market place, pretermiting the most of import category division between the capitalists and the on the job category. Marxists have besides argued that position divisions are closely linked to category divisions, that is, the category in ownership of the greatest proportion of belongings and wealth will needfully besides possess greater position and power.

Despite these unfavorable judgments, the theories of Marx and Weber have proved an influential footing for most modern sociological theories of category. Modern sociology is concerned with look intoing a assortment of inquiries about category in modern-day society, for illustration, inquiries associating to the figure of categories that may be identified and the agencies to distinguish between groups, and besides whether it can be argued that there remains an elect ‘ruling’ or capitalist category, and whether the construct of category is still a utile one.

The jobs built-in in placing the figure of different societal categories in modern society are many and varied and include wide inquiries of ontology, every bit good as elaborate 1s of definitions and boundaries. Occupation is the most common index of societal category used in present times, but graduated tables vary as to the figure of categories identified and the definitions of each category in footings of businesss. Most graduated tables, nevertheless, recognize an upper, in-between and working category. Within these classs at that place have been a figure of different categorizations made, nevertheless, once more there has been a general understanding that the working category is comprised of workers in manual businesss, the in-between category is comprised of workers in non-manual businesss, and the upper category refers to a little group of the really affluent who own someplace in the part of ‘7 per centum of the nation’s wealth between them’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p.29 ) .

Some sociologists have besides identified an ‘underclass’ . The lower class is comprised of persons who are unemployed, or have ne’er worked or who have a peculiarly weak place in the labor market. Sociologist W.G. Runciman, who developed a seven category theoretical account of category construction, defined the lower class as comprising of persons whose ‘roles place them more or less for good at the economic degree where benefits are paid by the province to those unable to take part in the labor market at all’ ( Runciman 1990 in Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p.14 ) . Members of this category include individual parents and cultural minorities, but Runciman argued that it was non their position that placed them in this category but their trust on province benefits.

Runciman’s theoretical account of category construction attempted to integrate elements of both Marxist and Weberian constructs of category. In general, nevertheless, most sociologists have tended to pull on one or other attack and these sociologists are referred to as neo-Marxists or neo-Weberians. Erik Olin Wright’s theoretical account of societal category can be defined as neo-Marxist. Theories such as Wright’s are concerned with turn toing inquiries such as those outlined earlier sing unfavorable judgments that the working category have non formed a category ‘for itself’ and that the in-between category is still really much in grounds and turning. As a neo-Marxist, Wright argues that groups defined by others as distinguishable societal categories, like the professional-managerial category identified by Barbara and John Ehrenreich, in fact occupy ‘a figure of strata…and do non hold a coherent set of involvements of their own’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p. 38 ) . For Wright, the in-between category are non a ‘fully developed class’ and capitalist societies ‘remain polarized… between the governing category and the working class’ ( ibid ) .

Other Marxists and neo-Marxists argue that non-manual everyday ‘white-collar’ workers identified once as portion of the in-between category have become ‘proletarianized’ , that is, due to the fact that the type of work carried out by this group, and the rewards they receive, are non far removed from that of the working categories, this group has efficaciously merged into the on the job category. Neo-Weberians such as David Lockwood, nevertheless, challenge this position.

Lockwood used Weberian constructs such as market, work and position state of affairs in his survey of clerks to reason that, while rewards for this group had begun to drop below that of skilled manual laborers, their market place in footings of occupation security, publicity chances and benefits still gave them an advantaged place. Since it is argued from a Weberian position that societal category may be defined in footings of market state of affairs, because, as we have seen, an individual’s market state of affairs affects life opportunities, the clerks could still be argued to be in a higher societal category than the on the job categories.

Other unfavorable judgments of Marxist theories of proletarianization include the theory of embourgeoisement. This theory suggests that, instead than the in-between categories droping into the on the job category, ‘just the antonym was happening’ ( Haralambos and Holborn 2004, p.51 ) . Due to lifting life criterions among the working category, it was argued, increasing Numberss of this group were efficaciously fall ining the in-between category.

While there are legion arguments environing the being or otherwise of an lower class or a in-between category, and even arguments as to whether there remains an upper or governing category in society, one thing most sociologists agree on is that societal category is a system of stratification defined by the unequal distribution of societal advantage. While the cardinal argument between neo-Marxists and neo-Weberians appears to center around inquiries of societal category composing, the underlying issues they seek to turn to are those of category inequality.

Social category, so, is non merely a label applied for convenience in society to distinguish between societal groups in footings of similarities and differences in business, life style or attitudes ; it is, instead, a system of inequality of chance. Marxists and Weberians by and large agree, despite the claims of other sociologists such functionalists, new right theoreticians and postmodernists, that there remain significant inequalities between different societal categories. Whether there is, as neo-Weberians suggest, ‘greater plurality of category groupings’ ( Bocock and Thompson 1995, p. 14 ) or, as neo-Marxists suggest, efficaciously merely two important societal categories, the focal point of involvement for sociologists is to analyze and explicate societal category as a system of inequality.


Bocock, R. and Thompson, K. , ( explosive detection systems ) 1992.Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity.Cambridge: Polity Press in association with the Open University.

Bilton, T. et al. , 1994.Introductory Sociology. 2neodymiumedn. London: Macmillan.

Fulcher, J. & A ; Scott, J. , 1999.Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. , 2004.Sociology: Subjects and Positions. 6Thursdayedn. London: HarperCollins.

Ritzer, G. , 1996.Sociological Theory. 4Thursdayedn. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.