SociologyOnline | Class: An Introduction

Class: An introduction

The idea of class has long been a central concept in sociology. The concept of class has had a long and troubled history within sociology. We might date it origins in the 18th century of the Scottish Enlightenment. The idea of class is used by Adam Smith (1723-90), the 'father' of modern economics. Smith lived at a time when European societies were being transformed from feudal and largely agricultural societies into modern industrial societies. Smith uses the idea of class in association with the idea of the Division of Labour in order to account for changes in the economy and culture of the then new modern societies.

It is a contemporary of Smith's, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), who uses the idea of class in a sociological manner. Ever since Ferguson and his discussions of 'civil society', the idea of class has become a central concept within European sociology.

However It is to the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883) that we should turn in order to discover the origins of the contemporary debate about class in contemporary sociology. For if Ferguson suggested class, Marx developed this idea of class into 'the class-struggle'.

The idea of class is central to the work of Marx. Marx once stated that: 'The class-struggle is the motor force of history'. Clearly Marx means to suggest here that class is the causal principle behind all social interaction from the very beginnings of human history. This is to give the concept of class a central place in the development of human history. Such a claim by Marx has led many contemporary sociologists to describe Marx and marxist views as representing a 'strong thesis' on class. By attributing Marx and Marxists with a 'strong thesis' on class we are highlighting a number of features of their theory of class:

1. Class is understood within Marxism as what we might call a 'social process'. As a holist Marx is able to claim that all social processes and institutions are supra-individual! For Marx, classes are social structures. They are structures which are formed by an ongoing dynamic and historical social process: The Class-Struggle. The class-struggle is the result of what Marx called a 'law of history'. This 'law of history' is a supra-individual law. That is, it is a 'law' that operates according to its own logic: a logic which is above and beyond all the single individuals whose lives it impinges upon.

Such social processes are supra-individual to the extent that they determine individuals' lives rather than vice-versa. Such a social process of the class-struggle, argues Marx, constrains and shapes the lives of all individuals in a society.

2. This social process of the class struggle determines the personal and social identities of all individuals in a society. This process 'allocates' individuals into various class positions. For Marx all individuals have a class position and this is a fact irrespective of whether those individuals are consciously aware of that class position. For class is to be understood as a social structure greater than structures of gender or ethnicity.

3. Individuals may not consciously recognize themselves to be members of a class. They may perceive their identities to be based on gender or ethnicity or a local community. Traditional Marxism would suggest these individuals to be in a condition of 'false-consciousness' and thus alienated from their true needs. To be alienated means to divorced from, or estranged from those 'true' needs. Such 'real' or 'true' needs can only be recognized by individuals, argue Marxists, when those individuals become conscious of themselves as members of a given class. In short Marxism is here suggesting that those who do not recognize their class positions are out of touch with their 'true selves'. When all, or the great majority of the members of any given class are in this condition of false consciousness that class is said to be a class-in-itself. This term is used by Marxists to indicate that the class in question has not realised its political and social objectives as a class or community of like-minded individuals.

4. Individuals can and do recognize their class position. This is the ideal condition for Marxists. Here the individual members of a class will form themselves into a (class) community. Here these individuals will possess a distinctive class culture. If all or a majority of the members of any given class are in this condition of true consciousness then that class as a whole is said to be a class-for-itself. In this condition the class recognizes its political and social objectives. All the individuals act as a community of like-minded individuals. That is they act in unison as a class. This is the condition Marx wanted the working classes to strive for so that they might become a revolutionary class and overthrow the capitalist order.

The problem of a Marxist definition of class

Marx died before he arrived at anything like a rigorous definition of class. Even to this day there is a problem surrounding how Marxism should define classes.

From Marx himself we get the idea that classes can be understood as clusters or groups of individuals having the same relationship with the process of (economic) production in any given society. All societies must engage in economic production (to keep themselves alive and healthy!). Within this production process classes interact and are shaped argued Marx. In modern societies Marx suggested there to be two fundamental classes: the bourgeoisie (capitalists and financiers) and the proletariat (working classes). The capitalists own the means of production, whilst the working classes are defined by their lack of ownership of the means of production.

The interaction between the two classes has two aspects: Firstly there is a relationship of mutual dependence between the classes in the production process. Each needs the other; otherwise the process collapses. In this sense Marx was rightly pointing to the collective nature of all human endeavour including that of economic production.

However collective this endeavour is, it is nonetheless a process based upon conflict. For the production process is essentially divided into two classes; on the one hand the producers and on the other hand the non-producers. These two groupings -producers and non-producers - are in conflict over the form and specific relations to the production process. These two relations of production are the basis for the class positions of the two fundamental classes: the workers ( or producers) and the capitalists (or the non-producers). This conflict can be either open or covert but it is always inherent nonetheless to the production process.

Because of the central importance of conflict in Marx's thinking, Marxist theory is often defined and categorised in the sociological textbooks as a 'conflict theory of society'.

So we see that Marx makes strong claims regarding the idea of class. He sees class as an essential element of all societies and as an essential aspect of an individual's life. In this sense sociologists suggest that Marx and Marxism possess a 'strong thesis' on class.

The dilemma for contemporary Marxists is that whilst, as we've seen, Marx's attempt at a formal definition usefully indicates the social bases of class; this approach fails to take adequate account of all the other classes that exist in society. Marx himself in his political writings explicitly registers the existence of numerous other classes to the capitalists and workers and indeed goes further to argue for the pertinence of 'fractions' of classes. Thus modern neo-Marxism has been seeking to address this problem. See Reading below.

Text too small?
Text too big?

Max Weber (1864-1920) entered into a 'debate' with Marx and his ideas on class. Weber certainly thought that classes existed and that they were significant to the life of the modern individual.

Like Marx's ideas on class, Weber's classes are based upon human relationships in the economic sphere of society too. However these classes are not, for Weber, located in the production process as they are in Marx's work. Rather Weber's classes are rooted in economic markets. Markets such as the labour markets, the commodity markets and the money markets. Therefore classes are the product of market relationships.

Classes are not defined here as based on an individual's relationship to the production process but are defined by factors of occupation and income. An individual's class position is determined by the level of income they receive. This income is always relative to the income levels generally available in the (labour, commodity or capital) markets in which they work.

Nor does Weber attribute a relationship of conflict between these classes. They are based he says on competition. Competition between individuals for good occupations with high incomes. In their competitive zeal individuals will use various factors such as Education, Family and Culture so as to achieve the highest wages/salaries possible.

Weber, unlike Marx, takes a multi-causal approach when explaining social phenomena. We can see this multi-causal approach at work in Weber's treatment of class. For here Weber is arguing that non-economic factors such as 'family background', 'educational attainment' and 'culture/beliefs' are important causal factors in the determination of class.

Weber is also attributing much more of a sense of agency to individuals than Marx did. By agency I mean to alert you to the fact that Weber is a Social Action theorist. Individuals in Weber's schema are not seen as simply the 'carriers' of class position, rather they are accorded a degree of intentionality and motivation.

Weber suggests that class is a highly significant factor in the lives of modern individuals. For class determines what Weber termed life-chances. We might understand an individuals 'life-chances' as having at least two aspects:

1. What are the 'chances' of any individual having a long life? This relates to the important question of the life-expectancy of any given individual. Class can be a good predictor of an individual's life expectancy. If you go to your College or University library and pick up a copy of the Government's publication 'Social Trends' you will find statistics indicating the life-expectancy of the various classes in society. What will you find? That those in the higher classes generally live longer than those in the lower classes. Thus we can suggest that class determines in part the quantity of life that generally accords to members of the various class.

2. What are the 'chances' of a 'quality of life'? Of course the question of how long any one individual lives is related to the question of the 'quality' of that individual's life. Class position determines one's income and, to state the obvious, income can buy a quality of life: better housing, holidays etc.. Contemporary sociologists often use the term lifestyle to suggest the importance of this qualitative aspect of 'life-chances'.

Classes for Weber are an objective measure of the life-chances of an individual. However for Weber this does NOT mean that these entities called classes necessarily are of significance to non-sociologists! Weber doubts that individuals give the idea class more than a passing thought. Weber thinks that only exceptionally is class a basis of communal or collective action on the part of individuals.

For Weber class is an objective measure (and therefore of use to sociologists?) but it is status which is in the more likely basis of collective action. For Weber individuals are motivated by status but not by class interests. Nor is status to be understood as a product or an expression of class. We might now note that in comparison with Marx, Weber may be said to hold a 'weak thesis on class'.

Weber, as I suggested earlier, placed much more emphasis on the concept of status. He defined status as a social ranking based upon 'prestige and honour'. Status was for Weber a significant 'marker' and determinant of social power. He divided social groups into two general types. On the one hand there were those groups, usually professional groups who were said to be 'positively assigned' groups and on the other there those groups, usually manual workers who were said to be 'negatively' assigned groups. These groups competed with another for resources (such as income and wealth, as well as symbolic resources such as 'status' and societal rewards) and for social power. Those positively assigned groups would use strategies of 'social closure' so as to keep scarce resources for themselves, whilst negatively assigned groups were said to seek to 'usurp' the power of the positively assigned groups. It is these status groups and their continued struggle for 'social glory' which Weber took as the 'true basis of community' in a modern society, not the class-struggle!

Consider the social groups listed below. In your view are they 'positively' or 'negatively' assigned groups?
Nurses	Doctors	Barristers	Solicitors
Sociology Lecturers	Physics Lecturers	Politicians	Sex Workers
Mechanics	Care Assistants	Secretaries	Students

	neo-Marxists	neo-Weberians	Points of Comparison
Part of the economy from which class is said to derive:
Basis on which any one individual's class position is measured.
Thesis on class.
Relationship between classes.
Relevance of class to politics and culture.
Number of classes.
Class as an historical phenomenon.
What is happening to class and classes?
What would your class position be according to either of these theories?