The term "Social Class" is widely used in sociology to differentiate the population on grounds of economic considerations, such as inequality in terms of wealth or income. An occupation is an individual's established choice of employment which provides most of the time a steady source of income.
According to Karl Marx, the transition from feudalism to industrialization has produced a highly unequal capitalist society consisting of only two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the property, capital owning class. They own the means of production and monopolize the profits and values of industrial production. The proletariat are the landless wage workers, the mass of working people who labour for the bourgeoisie as the mode of production. Their rewards are mainly to be exploited by the bourgeoisie and be made poorer, not richer, by the social and technical advances of industrial development. This process is called pauperization.
The bourgeoisie derive their class position from what Bilton et al. (1997) calls productive wealth. Productive wealth is wealth which generates additional income, such as capital invested in property or stocks and shares. However, Marx argues that it is not the bourgeoisie's high income which allows them to become capitalists, rather it is the fact that they own the means of production. This therefore also makes them the sole owners of the products and their surplus, that is, the difference between the value of the labour and the value of the product of that labour.
For example, Westergaard (1997), using statistics from government resources claimed that the power of the top class, which is only 1% of the population, has grown steadily from 1979 to the late 1990s. Denationalization of public enterprises (like British Airways and British Steel) has concentrated power in the hands of private businesses. The power of finance capitalists "comes from mass corporate assets whose strategic deployment they lead".
The globalist, Leslie Sklair (1995) takes this argument a step further. According to Sklair, the capitalist or ruling class is increasingly exercising power in transnational relationships, that is, relationships that cut across state boundaries. The capitalist economy has become the basis of the global system. Thus, wealthy corporatives like Sony or Ford can exercise as much power as many nation-states. Their products and ideology are increasingly penetrating places like the "Third World" market with advertising campaigns, brainwashing the masses there to accept these ideologies and products, even as they (the masses) complainingly join the ranks of the exploited.
These are the main reasons why Marxists view social class as divisive rather than integrative. They do not believe it is functional for society like the Functionalist, but they do agree it is inevitable within capitalist societies. However, they also argue that there is conflict of interest between the two classes. Hence one day the proletariat will gain true class consciousness, become a class for itself instead of a class by itself, and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Only when this happens, and the means of production are communally owned will classes disappear. Marx for his part, refused to acknowledge class in terms of such categories as occupation, but rather in terms of a deeper understanding of property relations, control and ownership vis-à-vis the proletariat.
There have been many criticisms made of Marx's theory of social class. Peter Saunders (1990) rejects the Marxist view that such a small group of people in society constitutes a capitalist ruling class. While he does not deny that the hundred largest companies produce more than half of Britain's manufacturing output, and therefore are 'responsible for taking the bulk of the key financial and administrative decisions' which influences Britain's industry, he merely views such individuals as "an influential economic elite".
Elite theorists also accept that power is concentrated in the hands of a few but denies that this power comes from the wealthy. They see instead power deriving from the occupation of top jobs in society. For example, the position of Prime Minister automatically places one in the highest class and gives one power.
In addition, Marx's theory fails to take into account the Middle Class. Although Marx identified the trend towards more non-manual workers, he made no analysis or explanation of the influence of this group in the class structure. These workers neither own the means of production nor can they be put into the proletariat. They enjoy tremendous benefits in employments, more than their manual labouring counterparts. They have greater job security, shorter hours, longer holidays, more fringe benefits, greater promotion prospects, higher life chances, higher standards of living, less chances of being convicted of criminal offences and higher incomes. For example, Westergaard and Resler (1976) found that men in full time non-manual employment in 1913-14 earned 142% of the average male wage, whereas those in manual employment earned 88%. The British sociologist, Anthony Giddeons believes that this class receives greater job benefits than the lower class or manual workers because they possess widely recognized skills, mainly mental and normally rather functional for society, which they can sell to the highest bidder. The sociologists, Roberts et al. (1977), interestingly discovered while conducting a study of a sample of 243 male white-collar workers that four images within the middle class exist. These four images were very different views of the white-collar workers and their position in the middle class and were affected by their occupational choices. The first image known as "middle-mass" was held by 22 percent of the sample. This 22 percent believed themselves between a small, rich upper class and an improvised lower class. They held the view that the middle class made up the bulk of the working force, and made no distinction between manual and non-manual workers, different lifestyles and images, and ideological cleavages. Most holding this view were in the middle-range of incomes for white-collar workers.
The next image was called the "compressed middle-class" image and held by 19 percent of the sample. This 19 percent saw themselves squeezed between two groups: the small upper class and an increasingly working class. They felt threatened by both groups. Persons falling into this category were usually small business people.
The third image only had 15 percent of the sample subscribing to it. This image was named the "finely graded ladder" and contained four or more strata. This image is assumed as typical middle class image and persons holding this view tended to be well educated with professional qualifications and received impressively high wages. They had no sense of class loyalty and rejected the whole principle of social class.
The fourth image called the "proletarian image" received 14 percent of the sample. They considered themselves working class and having more in common with manual workers than top management and higher professionals. Those holding this view were usually in routine white-collar jobs with little possibility of promotion and received rather low wages. Roberts et al. concluded that whilst it is true that there are factors present for the development of middle class attitudes among the white collar workers, such wide variations in white-collar class imagery meant that the middle class was fragmented. In this case, if one is to believe Robert et al. then one can argue that an individual's occupation and his/her opinion of the social status of his/her job, normally encouraged by his/ her level of income, results in what he/she deems as his/her social class, regardless of whether his/her personal view is correctly assumed or not. However, Roberts et al. have received numerous criticisms for their work. Many sociologists believe that one should never rely on subjective class images. Neo-Marxists believe that the middle class is in reality split in two with the upper part closer to the bourgeoisie and the lower part closer to the working class. In fact, the American Neo-Marxist, Erik Olin Wright (1978) acknowledges the presence of a petty bourgeoisie and identifies "the Small Employers", that is, those persons who employ other workers, but more than half the profit their business comes from their own labour or that of other family members. This group exists between the Petty bourgeoisie and the Bourgeoisie and make up in the USA in 1969, 6-7%. Wright also notes the "Managers and Supervisors" group which is between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. This group creates 30-35% of the population and is actually in a contradictory position within class relations. They possess characteristics of both groups but have neither as much control over the means of production as the Bourgeoisie nor as little control as the Proletariat. Persons within this class are normally managers, supervisors, technocrats and "foremen". "Foremen" do not have the control over the means of production or investment but they do have minimal control over the means of production or over the labour of others. Finally, there are the "Semi-autonomous wage-earners" which consist of 5-11% of the population and are situated between the Proletariat and the Petty bourgeoisie. They have some control over how they work, how they produce and what they produce and hence have minimal control over the means of production. Wright uses as an example, professors in elite universities. According to him, the Bourgeoisie only took up 1-2% of the population. Marxists such as Harry Braverman, struggling to explain what Marx's doctrine does not, goes as far as to say that increasingly more members of the lower middle class are becoming part of the working class because many of them earn less than many manual workers. This process is called proletarianization. Marxists like Westergaard and Resler believe in the existence of a coherent middle class. They refer to the upper middle class as the Petty bourgeoisie. Marxists claim that while the Petty bourgeoisie does not own the means of production, they are firm believers in the ruling class's values and usually have power over working class members. Marshall et al. (1988) criticises both Robert et al.'s study and the Marxists' theory. Instead, they point to Weber's work on social class which they claim is "a valuable explanation for the very broad differences in occupational rewards and position of manual and non-manual workers, as well as allowing gradations of social position within each class grouping". Like Marx, Weber specifically believed that ownership and non-ownership of property are important in the formation of classes. However, he disagrees with Marx on just how important owning property is. Weber preferred to determine a person's class based on their market situation, that is, their buying power in the marketplace. Neo-Weberians like John H. Goldthorpe also prefers to use market and work situation to explain the relationship between occupation and social class. For example he views the middle class as "the intermediate stratum" [Goldthorpe, 1980]. The intermediate stratum possesses a very weak class identity because the range of occupations within it differs considerably and because its members are socially mobile. Hence, members remain only a short period before moving to a different class. Goldthorpe concluded that the middle class could not be united because they were divided into various strata. These can be placed into two groups: the service class, which hold higher and lower professionals, and the intermediate class, that is, routine non-manual workers, the self-employed and supervisors. Goldthorpe though changed his theory later. He decided that there did exist a primary division between different sections of the middle class based on employment status. Secondary divisions were based on employee relationships and this distinguishes class. Salary, increments, pension rights and career development opportunities on the other hand distinguished the service class.
Savage et al. (1992) criticized both of Goldthorpe's theories claiming that there existed a major division between professionals and managers in his service class. Goldthorpe admitted the next problem with his theory: large employers should be place in a separate category. He explains however that the group was so small that he did not see the need to place them by themselves and accepts that this might produce a small amount error. As mentioned before, Giddeons (1973) tends to see the Middle Class as those who possess educational or technical qualifications. They therefore have an advantage over the Working class and Underclass who have only their manual labour power to sell. The Underclass in particular are severely disadvantaged in that they tend to secure employment in the least desirable and most insecure jobs. Ralf Dehrendorf (1959) argues that the working class is divided into three levels: the unskilled manual worker, the semi-skilled manual worker and the skilled manual worker. He claims that this is due to differences in economic and prestige rewards linked to hierarchy of skill. Therefore, persons of the skilled manual workers group, such as skilled craftsmen, enjoy higher wages, more valuable fringe benefits, greater job security and higher prestige than semi-skilled and unskilled groups. In addition to this, Bilton et al. (1997) with regard to occupational labour markets, claim that there has been an erosion, over the past twenty to thirty years, of the traditional distinction between manual and non-manual jobs due to the expansion of the service sector. Today, white-collar jobs in offices, retailing, repairs and servicing are so poorly paid and "routinised" that they are little different in terms of status and reward from traditional manual, or "blue-collar" work. This is especially true of those white-collar jobs which have become "feminised" in the sense of employing a disproportionate number of female staff.
Giddeons furthers this argument, noting that women and ethnic minorities are particularly likely to be found in the lowly paid Working class and Underclass jobs. Employers recruit women to these type of jobs partly because of social prejudice, but also because they are likely to interrupt their careers as a result of marriage and child birth. Ethnic minorities are also the victims of discrimination and prejudice. In these cases, one's ethnic origin, gender and social background determines one's occupation and hence one's social class. To quote Giddeons:
"Where ethnic differences serve as a 'disqualifying' market
capacity, such that those in the category are heavily concentrated
in the lowest paid occupations, or are chronically unemployed, we
may speak of an underclass."
In conclusion, occupation and social class are normally linked to one another. In most instances one's job tends to influence his place in the social strata and vice versa. Many sociologists examine how occupation and social class influence each other differently. In numerous cases they arrive at even more divisions within society than previously considered. Another interesting detail to note is that various other aspects like one's ethnicity and gender actually determine one's occupation and hence one's class. While the intricacies of occupation within the Working class and the Underclass is not discussed to the degree of which they deserve, let it be noted that divisions found within the Working class is discussed in length by W.G. Runciman(1990) and Marshall et al(1988). The basic idea being that the Working Class is even more influenced by an individual's occupation than the Middle class. The Underclass is considered both by Charles Murray and Ralf Dehrendorf as a sort of disease but whether they are to be blamed for their economic state or not or whether certain occupations are just considered as underclass jobs is where these two sociologists depart in their theories. In many instances sociologists like Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters (1996) abandon the belief of the existence of social class and claim vigilantly that occupation cannot be influenced by some thing that does not exist. Others, such as Peter Saunders(1996) argue that the strict dictatorial ability of class is disappearing due to societies such as Britain becoming Meritocracies. Therefore, workers are not placed within strict strata because social mobility has now become easier. Instead, as the Functionalists, Talcott Parsons(1964) and Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore(1945) indicated, workers are now placed in socioeconomic order through a competitive process in which skills and abilities of different value and scarcity are carefully identified, evaluated and matched with societal needs.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Social class- large numbers of people who have similar amounts of income and education and who work at jobs that are roughly comparable in prestige.…
- 1646 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
Karl Marx’ theory of the relations of production can be used as an important platform in locating the origins of class and gender inequity to the early stages of capitalism. In his theory ‘the relations of production’ he explained that private ownership of…
- 1881 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Social Class is a fundamental aspect in society and can be found in all societies around the world. Aspects such as education, health, wealth, where you live, what do you do with yourself all contribute to where you as a member of society fit in. If you are a student attending a private school, living in Toorak with very wealthy parents you would be considered part of the ‘upper class’ in society, where people would generally look more highly of…
- 81 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
1) Estrangement of the worker from his product; Workers suffer from being ‘alienated’, and impoverishment due to the political economy of private ownership, society is divided into classes. “Political economy does not disclose the source of the division between labour and capital, and between capital and land” (p. 32).…
- 2988 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
When one considers the effect that the Industrial Revolutions of the 19th and early 20th century, the workers whose backs bore it are seldom reflected upon. It becomes ponderous whether the revolution was a boon or a malediction upon the working class and if they were truly aided by the great rise in standard of living that hallmarked this time. Those who would defend the period would cite pre-Industrialization scenarios, toiling under feudal lords with no future beyond death and an unmarked grave. An opponent of this idea, such as the renowned Karl Marx, would state, 'The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.…
- 1563 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
For centuries, many philosophers have discussed the issue of class struggle. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie both developed theories of the unequal distribution of wealth a long time ago; however the only Carnegie’s ideology could apply to American society today. In “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx first introduces the two main social classes: bourgeois (the upper class) and proletarians (the lower class or working class). He points out the revolution of industrialism has made changes of Capitalism to Communism. He suggests that the rich should redistribute property evenly because the proletarians have put a lot effort contributing in the revolution. In contrast, Carnegie analyzes in “The Gospel of Wealth”, the unequal distribution of wealth is a natural consequence of civilization. Both Marx and Carnegie present the problem within society because they want to contribute their own experiences from various views to resolve the tension between the rich and poor efficiently.…
- 1118 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Karl Marx’s philosophy has been the subject of so much judgement and Scrutiny on if his beliefs will truly save the working man. The bourgeois interlocutor believe Marx’s belief would be more detrimental to the people as a whole. They believe that by wishing to abolish private property, communism will become a danger to freedom and eventual end up destroying the very base of all personal freedom, activity, and independence. Marx responds to these comments by stating that wage labor does not create any property when considering the laborers affairs. It only creates capital, a property which works only to increase the social injustice of the worker. This property called capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property…
- 449 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In his book, “Communist Manifesto,” Marx stresses the importance of communism or the publication of private property. As stated above, John Locke was the influencer of human basic rights, which included the right to own private property. The development of the Capitalist soon came after this right was made. Capitalists were key contributors to the rise of the industrial revolution but also to the fall of small shop owners. These shop owners were without income and the only way to provide a source was by working for these wealthy owners. A clear distinction between these two types people was their level of income and property which brought on the social classes. There was an oppressor and the oppressed. Before I go further with any explanations, this picture here of classes shows that only one class is progressing. The oppressor is the class that prospers in context of human progression through technological advancements. “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other- bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx 9).” The bourgeoisie were the capitalist while the proletariat was the lower working class. Separation between the two came along with the industrial revolution. Romanticist like Marx would oppose this as human progression because as a whole we aren’t all included in this promotion. It seems as the Capitalists are being set up on a pedestal…
- 2004 Words
- 9 Pages
Good Essays -
Marx believed the factory system had resulted in a “cash economy”. Owning the means of production, the bourgeoisie kept wages low in order to get cheap supplies, improve the technology of their factories and increase their markets. According to Marx, dependency on low wages had reduced factory workers to “wage slaves,” deprived them of the satisfaction that should be found from working and made it more difficult for the lower class to provide for their basic needs. He wrote, “The work of the proletarians has lost all individual character…and all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine.” (Paragraph 22)…
- 1018 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The social structure of Britain has been highly influenced by the concept of social class. In sociology, the term ‘social class’ is most often used to refer to the primary system of social stratification found in modern capitalist societies. Social stratification refers to ‘the presence [in society] of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of factors such as prestige and wealth’.…
- 1749 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Dictionary.com defines social class as “a broad group in society having common economic, cultural, or political status.” Despite having its advantages, social class has many faults. It can contaminate our minds and make us think class and money are all that matters. Social class has changed a lot over the years, and it is still present today. While some want to be in a higher class because they want more money, others just want to achieve fame and recognition. The class system creates a world where the upper class interacts with the upper class, the middle with the middle, and the lower with the lower. Social class has been evident in history for many centuries, modern culture, and our everyday lives.…
- 764 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Karl Marx wrote in 1848, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"; it still holds true today. Feudal society gave way to democracy, yet the class stratification only intensified. As Marx states "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat," or in today's terminology, the have and have-nots. The growing middle and lower classes in America cannot compete with the "old wealth" of the upper class. Some entrepreneurs, who were in the right place at the right time, have managed to climb the social ladder and enter the bourgeoisie. An individual born today is more likely to move down the ladder rather than up. Marx addressed that possibility by stating, "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers." The bourgeoisie gain strength through political advances at the expense of the proletariat.…
- 1007 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
According to the Webster dictionary, social class is defined as a group of people who share economic and social status. Social class is separated by one’s wealth and how they present themselves. James W. Loewen once said that “social class is probably the most important variable in society. From womb to tomb, it correlates with all other social characteristics of people.” Here he is stating that social class is something a person will have to deal with for from birth to death; it will develop a person and their unique characteristics (compound sentence). Social standings are ubiquitous, which makes the idea of this quote so intriguing. As the world becomes more complex, the division between social classes becomes more apparent…
- 709 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
As the title would suggest in this essay I intend to discuss the widening gap between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat in today’s world. In a contemporary context I would take this to mean the widening gap between rich and poor and the economic inequality that continues to plague our world. In order to look at the situation in our present day we must first get an idea of what this divide means. In Marx’s day the term Bourgeoisie described a social class characterized by the ownership of capital, they were the rich industrialists who exploited the ‘Proletariat’ for their labour in order to amass great wealth. The Proletariat were the lower, working classes who in Marx’s view could ‘live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce.’ (1848) Today’s inequality follows a similar pattern, though perhaps a more complicated one.…
- 1223 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Social Class/ pg.96: large numbers of people who have similar amounts of income and education and who work at jobs that are roughly comparable in prestige.…
- 1198 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays