SOC101 Final Term Highlighted Handouts

Lesson 23

THEORIES OF SOCIAL CLASS AND STRATIFICATION – II

Max Weber (1864-1920) built his approach to stratification on the analysis developed by Marx, but he modifiedandelaboratedit. LikeMarx, Weberregardedsocietyascharacterizedbyconflictsoverpower and resources. Yet where Marx saw polarized class relations and economic issues at the heart of all conflict, Weber developed a more complex, multidimensional view ofsociety.

Social stratification is not simply a matter of class, according to Weber, but is also shaped by two other aspects: status and power. These three overlapping elements of stratification produce an enormous number ofpossiblepositions(inequality) withinsociety, ratherthantherigidbipolarmodel,whichMarxproposed.

According to Weber class divisions derive not only from control or lack of control of the means of production, but from economic differences, which have nothing directly to do with property. Such resourcesincludeespeciallytheskillsandcredentials,orqualifications,whichaffectthetypesofjobpeople, are able to obtain.

Weberbelievedthatanindividual’s marketposition stronglyinfluenceshisorher‘lifechances’.Themarket positions(capacities)peoplehave interms oftheskills theybringtothelabormarket asemployees, explains therewardstheywillreceive. Wherepeoplehavegoodmarketcapacitytheywillhaveverygood lifechances: these chances include income, perks, and pensions together with less tangible benefits such as security of job, pleasant working environment and considerable autonomy atwork.

Those in managerial or professional occupations earn more, and have more favorable conditions of work, forexample,than peoplein blue-collarjobs. Thequalifications they possess,such asdegrees, diplomasand the skills they have acquired, make them more ‘marketable’ than others without such qualifications. Managers of corporations control the means of production although they do not own them. If managers can control property for their own benefit – awarding themselves huge bonuses and magnificent perks – it makes no practical difference that they do not own the property that they so generously use for their own benefit.

Status in Weber’s theory refers to differences between social groups in the social honor or prestige they are accordedby others. Presentlystatusisbeingexpressedthrough people’s stylesoflife. Markers andsymbols of status—such as housing, dress, manner of speech, occupation – all help to shape an individual’s social standing in the eyes of others. People sharing the same status form a community in which there is a sense of shared identity.

While Marx believed that status distinctions are the result of class divisions in society, Weber argued that status often varies independently of class divisions. Possession of wealth normally tends to confer high status,buttherearemanyexceptions. Olympicgold medalists,forexample,may notown property, yet they may have very high prestige. Property and prestige is not one way street: although property can bring prestige, prestige can also bring property.

Power, the third element of social class, is the ability to control others, even against their wishes. Weber agreed with Marx that property is a major source of power, but he added that it is not the only source.

With time, industrial societies witness the growth of the bureaucratic state. This expansion of government and other types of formal organizations means that power gains importance in the stratification system.

Party formation is an important aspect of power, and can influence stratification independently of class and status. Party defines a group of individuals who work together because they have common backgrounds, aims orinterests. Party canbe influenced byclass butcanalso influencethe economiccircumstance ofparty members and thereby their class. Party membership cuts across class differences. There are partiesbased onreligiousaffiliationsandnationalistidealsandmay includethe‘haves’and‘have-nots’. Therecouldalso begroupspossessingeffectivepoliticalpowerwithouteconomicleverage(military,tradeunion). Therefore inequality could there due to political power.

InWeberianperspectivesocietycanbedividedin2+classesasbelow:

Upper class UPPER CLASS Upper middle class Middle-middleclass MIDDLE CLASS Lower middle class Skilled manual workers Semi-skilled workers. WORKING CLASS Unskilled manual workers. The poor THE POOR

Web er’s theory comes closer to explaining the dynamics of stratification in modern societies.

Weber anticipated the proliferation of classes, with a new class of white-collar employees, administrators, technicians and civil servants, who are growing in numb er and importance.

Propertyrelations areimportant (Marx)butthemarket position andmarketability isdecisive in determining an individual’s class position.

Weber rejected Marx’s view that the workers (or employees) have nothing but their labor to sell to the highest bidder. The reality is that:

Workers possess skills. The distribution of skills can be controlled (keep itscarce). Increase skill marketability.

Comparative picture of the conflict approach by Marx and Weber

Marx Weber

Relationship tomeans of Focused more on the market production isall important. position of those in employment.

Increasingpolarity Growth of white-collar class that between classes and would mitigate against the revolution. collapse of capitalism.

Classallembracing Separate political status factors fact of life. to come into play. Lesson 24

THEORIES OF CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION – III

Why are societies stratified? One answer consistent with structural functional paradigm is that social inequality plays a vital part in the operation of society. This argument was put forth by Kingsley Davis and WilbertMoorin1945. Theassertionisthat socialstratificationhasbeneficialconsequencesfortheoperationofasociety. That could be one explanation for the fact that some form of social stratification has been found everywhere.

Davis and Moore approach (1945) explain it like this: Some positions are functionally more important. Some roles can only be taken by certainindividuals. High skills to be paid higher rewards. They have to be provided higher status. Stratification ensures that the most appropriate people are selected for high reward jobs. Meritocracy System is functional. To alter it is misguided.

Criticism:

Why some positions are considered as functionally more important than others?

Who decides what is important?

Doesmeritocracywork? Doeseverybodygetthesameopportunities?

Inequality is in-built in stratification. (Private schools. Status to be bought) Everybodydoesnotachievestatus(ascribed)

The wealthier a person becomes the lesser he/she needs to render any service to society.

Davis-Moore approach lacks empirical basis.

Functionalist view of social class is little more than an ideological justification of inequality in society.