SOC101 Final Term Merged Slides and Handouts by Global

Lesson 23 THEORIES OF SOCIAL CLASS AND STRATIFICATION – II

Max Weber Status Power

Max Weber (1864-1920) built his approach to stratification on the analysis developed by Marx, but he modified and elaborated it. Like Marx, Weber regarded society as characterized by conflicts over power 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 of society. 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 of possible positions (inequality) within society, rather than the rigid bipolar model, which Marx proposed.

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 resources include especially the skills and credentials, or qualifications, which affect the types of job people, are able to obtain. Weber believed that an individual’s market position strongly influences his or her ‘life chances’. The market positions (capacities) people have in terms of the skills they bring to the labor market as employees, explains the rewards they will receive. Where people have good market capacity they will have very good life chances: these chances include income, perks, and pensions together with less tangible benefits such as security of job, pleasant working environment and considerable autonomy at work.

Those in managerial or professional occupations earn more, and have more favorable conditions of work, for example, than people in blue-collar jobs. The qualifications they possess, such as degrees, diplomas and 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 accorded by others. Presently status is being expressed through people’s styles of life. Markers and symbols 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, but there are many exceptions. Olympic gold medalists, for example, may not own 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 or interests. Party can be influenced by class but can also influence the economic circumstance of party members and thereby their class. Party membership cuts across class differences. There are parties based on religious affiliations and nationalist ideals and may include the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. There could also be groups possessing effective political power without economic leverage (military, trade union). Therefore inequality could there due to political power.

In Weberian perspective society can be divided in 2+ classes as below:

Upper class UPPER CLASS

Upper middle class Middle-middle class MIDDLE CLASS Lower middle class

Skilled manual workers Semi-skilled workers. WORKING CLASS Unskilled manual workers.

The poor THE POOR

Weber’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 number and importance. Property relations are important (Marx) but the market position and marketability is decisive 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 it scarce). Increase skill marketability.

Comparative picture of the conflict approach by Marx and Weber

Marx Weber

Relationship to means of Focused more on the market production is all important. position of those in employment.

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

Class all embracing Separate political status factors fact of life. to come into play.

Lesson 24 THEORIES OF CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION – III

Davis and Moore approach Criticism

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 Wilbert Moor in 1945. The assertion is that social stratification has beneficial consequences for the operation of a society. 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 certain individuals. 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?

Does meritocracy work? Does everybody get the same opportunities?

Inequality is in-built in stratification. (Private schools. Status to be bought) Everybody does not achieve status (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.