Anthony Giddens • Sociology 6th edition

Chapter Summary for Chapter 11

Stratification is a geological metaphor to describe structures of social inequality. There are four basic types of stratification: slavery, caste, estates and class.

Slavery is marked by the existence of ownership of individuals, though the exact laws regulating it have varied considerably. The caste system is logically tied to the Hindu belief in reincarnation, the caste system representing a ladder, down which one may slip into the next life if not virtuous in this one. Estates have existed from traditional states through to the end of feudalism. In Europe, the three estates were the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. A class is defined as a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic resources that in turn influence their lifestyle.

Class stands apart from these other systems of stratification. Four main distinctions can be drawn:

  1. Classes are not dependent on legal or religious decrees and are thus (formally at least) more fluid.
  2. Class is in part achieved rather than ascribed. Some mobility between groupings can and does occur.
  3. Classes are dependent on economic differentials between groups, usually either ownership of or access to material resources.
  4. Class systems are more impersonal than other forms of stratification.

Crucial to Marxian class theory is the notion of exploitation. In feudal societies this often involved the expropriation of produce from peasant to landlord. In modern societies, Marx argued, the expropriation is less visible but still exists in the form of surplus value or, as capitalists call it, profit. One side’s surplus value is the other’s necessary profit margin.

Weber’s preferred emphasis is on a complex multi-dimensional system of stratification rather than one that is polarized. In particular, he differs on two points:

  1. Objective economic conditions involve access not just to the means of production, but also to resources like paper credentials or craft skills that bestow a degree of market power.
  2. Class is supplemented by the concepts of status and party.

Weber’s idea of status is akin to honour or prestige. He points out that in traditional societies this was earned face to face, but as social organization became increasingly complex people used markers – that is to say, their styles of life – to express their status. Crucially, Weber sees this as being able to exist independently of class. In addition to status, Weber uses the term ‘party’ to refer to affiliations that crosscut economic class, key examples being nationalism and religion.

Erik Olin Wright identifies three types of economic resources over which one can exercise control: investments of money capital, physical means of production and labour power. Capitalists control all three, the working classes none, but intermediate groups may control one or more of these. They are in contradictory class locations.

Class has to be operationalized, so it needs to be measured and this is usually achieved through studies of occupations. A distinction can be made between descriptive and (more theoretical) relational class schemes. Goldthorpe’s recent work on class and social mobility is an example of the latter. Areas that remain inaccessible to this form of measurement are economic inactivity (such as students) and the ownership of property and wealth (as in elite groups).

The upper class is shrinking to the point of becoming invisible, whilst still maintaining power and influence. The middle classes are now highly complex and heterogeneous. Within the working class there is a rising level of consumerism, leading to what some call embourgeoisement.

Many sociologists are interested in the differences in consumption between social groups. For instance, Bourdieu’s work explores the relationship between social class and lifestyles using the concepts of economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital. His scheme takes class analysis out of a narrow concern with work and economics into areas such as culture and consumption patterns.

Gender causes significant difficulties for class analysis. The conventional position, which allotted married or cohabiting women to the class of their husband, can be critiqued in four ways:

  1. In dual earner households women’s income can be essential for maintaining the economic position of the household.
  2. A wife’s occupation may ‘set the standard’ of the family’s status, e.g. a female shopkeeper who earns less than a male semi-skilled worker.
  3. In ‘cross-class’ households it may be more realistic to put partners in separate categories.
  4. There are an increasing number of households with women as the sole breadwinner.

Social mobility is possible in either direction and can be short or long range. Much upward mobility can be explained by the increased availability of places in the top classes. Access to top positions remains limited by shortage of supply and the inherited advantage of existing elites.

Class still has a key role in analyses of economic inequality, not least because of its continuing correlation with a whole range of different dimensions of inequality.