Structure for all Essays
Q A1 Does class stratification still effect the lives of people in the UK?
Discuss this question using relevant sociological theories and studies to support
your answer.
N.B. THIS ESSAY GIVES MORE PERSPECTIVES AND MORE ASPECTS THAN YOU WOULD NEED
FOR A NAB OR EXAMINATION 30-MARKER. RATHER THAN FORCE YOU TO LEARN A LIMITED
(EG 2 OR 3) SELECTION OF ASPECTS/ PERSPECTIVES SELECTED BY THE AUTHOR, I GIVE YOU
HERE A WIDE RANGE OF THEORIES AND ASPECTS ABOUT SOCIAL CLASS TO ENABLE YOU TO
SELECT WHICH PERSPECTIVES/ ASPECTS YOU WISH TO LEARN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
NAB/ EXAM. THE AUTHOR HAS OMITTED FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES.
1.
Intro
There are several sociological perspectives which have different ideas about how class stratification affects
the lives of people in the UK, including Marxist (a conflict theory, Karl Marx) Neo-Marxist, Weberian (an
Action theory, Max Weber), Functionalism (a structural consensus theory, Talcott Parsons, Davis & Moore)
and Feminist perspectives.
2.



Perspective/Theory 1
Key Features/ Assumptions: Marxism
Issues/ Critiques Of Marxist Explanations:
Evaluation of Marxist Perspective of Social Class:
3.



Perspective/Theory 2
Key Features/ Assumptions: Social Action Theory - Weberian (Action)
Issues/ Critiques:
Evaluation of Weberian Perspective of Social Class:
4.



Perspective/Theory 3
Key Features/ Assumptions: Neo-Marxism
Issues/ Critiques:
Evaluation of Neo-Marxist Perspective of Social Class:
5.



Perspective/Theory 4
Key Features/ Assumptions: Functionalism
Issues/ Critiques:
Evaluation of Functionalist Perspective of Social Class:
6.



Perspective/Theory 5
Key Features/ Assumptions: Structuration
Issues/ Critiques:
Evaluation of Structuration Perspective of Social Class:
7.

Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 1 – Social Mobility
8.

Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 2 – Social Closure
9.
Evaluative Conclusion (summarise main differences in the 2 or 3 selected theories discussed above)
10. A Synthesis of Perspectives.
Intro
There are several sociological perspectives/theories which have different ideas about how class stratification affects the
lives of people in the UK, including Marxist (a conflict theory, Karl Marx) Neo-Marxist, Weberian (an Action theory,
Max Weber), Functionalism (a structural consensus theory, Talcott Parsons, Davis & Moore) and Feminist
perspectives.
Perspective/Theory 1 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Marxism
Karl Marx divided society into two main classes – owners of the means of production (Bourgeoisie) and workers/
social labour slaves (proletariat). He believed that it was the exploitation and oppression of the working classes that led
to the conflict between classes. Marx argued that someone’s social class was by an individual’s place in society in
relation to the means of production – whether they were either the majority workers who had to sell their labour for
wages, or the minority owning classes, who made profit in a Capitalist economy by exploiting workers by paying low
wages. Class was defined exclusively by Marx therefore as the relationship to the means of production - proletariat
worker/ wage slave or bourgeoisie capitalist owner.
Marxism is an example of a structural conflict perspective. Institutions or structures such as education, economy and
law were used by Marx to define and influence class stratification. He believed that the rich and powerful owning class
(Bourgeoisie) dominated these institutions and used them to benefit their own needs and to exploit and disadvantage
the weaker (proletariat) classes. The development of Capitalism would lead, argued Marx, to polarisation of the two
classes, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. (Monopolization of Capital – fewer people own more
wealth). Also because of unequal life chances between the two classes - for example the health of people from the
bourgeoisie is better than that of the proletariat, or in modern society people in different postcode areas have different
health - it is often harder for poorer classes to achieve in life and achieve social mobility.
Marx predicted that as Capitalism advanced, monopolization of industry would result in petit bourgeoisie (small
business owners) being absorbed into the bourgeoisie – as small businesses would be taken over by multinationals.
At the same time, the intelligentsia (educated middle-class level workers) would be forced to sell their labour as wage
slaves, resulting in prolitarianisation– more and more people having to sell their labour as wage slaves.
Marx also predicted that the proletariat would eventually realise they were being exploited, forget their smaller
differences, and realise their common bond of being exploited by the bourgeoisie. Class consciousness would result in
a working class revolution to overthrow Capitalism and bring about an equal, classless society which shared industrial
profit and wealth equally amongst all workers.
Issues/ Critiques Of Marxist Explanations:
Critics of Marx argued that his view is too simplistic, as society can not be based only on two classes which are
determined by people being either owners or workers within the means of production. Modern society is much more
complex now than Marx foresaw, writing a hundred years ago. Communist regimes eg in Russia have collapsed, which
claimed to follow Marxist ideas, and where those in power actually controlled institutions of society for their own
benefit, they did it in a more ruthless way than is seen Modern Britain today.
In addition, there are lots of other important divisions within society which are ignored by Marxist perspective, eg race,
age, gender) as clearly not all ‘workers’ have the same experiences in the workplace, despite being similar in terms of
their relationship to the means of production. Male and Female, Ethnic and Indigenous, Older and Younger workers
clearly do not have similar experiences in the workplace. Marx would argue that these differences were less important
than their common social class, their common bond of being exploited proletariat workers in an unfair Capitalist
system.
Critics of Marx have also noted that he places a lot of emphasis on production, but not on consumption; clearly if there
is not consumption then there would be no production. It is clear however that it is not only the upper classes
(Bourgeoisie, for Marx) that consume goods and services. This shows that lower classes can afford to buy goods and
services and consume in society, using wages to pay for goods/ services, and are therefore not exploited, as Marx has
argued.
Monopolization of industry has not happened either. Although there are large multi-national companies, there are also
many smaller businesses and entrepreneurs in modern society which have not become absorbed in the process of
polarisation.
Marx argued that workers would realise their common bond of exploitation in a Capitalist system, but working classes
have less in common with each other in modern societies. The traditional working class has all but died out and has
been replaced by a more private, white-collar/ admin/ hi-tech employed working class which have less contact with one
another outside of the workplace. These workers can earn and save, and are therefore not exploited, nor do they feel
they have much in common with other workers other than similar employment perhaps.
Evaluation of Marxist Perspective of Social Class:
Contrary to Marxist explanations, it could be argued that social mobility is possible in a Capitalist society, so workers
can improve their social class, and will not feel exploited. Conflict in the modern workplace is actually rare, and
workers rights and trade unions make sure that workers are not ‘exploited’ as wage slaves, rather they are rewarded by
pay for their skills.
Marxism also struggles to explain the emerging middle class/ white collar workers, who clearly have power over other
workers, and are rewarded with higher pay and are therefore not ‘exploited’ as wage slaves. Furthermore, employees
who can now buy shares in the company which employs them struggles to fit into the Marxist model of owner or
worker as these people are both employee within, and share ownership of, the means of production, so are both
proletariat and bourgeoisie.
Perspective/Theory 2 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Social Action Theory - Weberian (Action)
Max Weber (a founding father of sociology) based class stratification on three distinct but related headings – Wealth &
Income, Prestige or Status and Power to Influence Important Decision in Society. This multi-dimensional approach to
explaining class stratification allows for inconsistencies which Marxism could not explain (e.g. working class workers
doing white-collar jobs, middle management positions, share-owning workers which are neither owners nor exploited
workers) which Marxism struggles to explain.
Weber used a multi-class model to describe class stratification which was made up from one’s income/wealth, status/
prestige and power:
Income/ Wealth – Determined from occupation -regular income- or from possessions of value – wealth. Also in turn
this is determined by levels of skill, so more skilled people have a better market position.
Status – how someone (or their occupation) is perceived by others in terms of prestige, however high or low – are they
doing well or not or what do people think of the value of their job, for society?
Power – Can the person influence important decisions in society that affect other people?
Weberian perspectives allowed income/wealth, power and prestige to be viewed as independent of one another. For
example, wealth could be used to gain power and prestige. Another example would be that one might have high
wealth/ income but low prestige/ status and little power to influence important decision in society. Social class was
therefore the result of a combination of all three aspects.
Weber’s model also accounted for inequalities which affect class, e.g. inequality of access to the best education, best
areas of housing etc which affect life chances and therefore access to the best income/wealth, prestige and power.
Weber does agree with Marx that class was mainly based on economic differences but took factors other than
production into consideration including race and education level.
Finally, the Weberian model included the notion of ‘Party’ – this could be someone’s political party or social party –
e.g. member of a club or society (masons) or a shared common background, which overrides any social class
differences. Eg someone may feel more in common with other members of a group they belong to eg supporters of a
football team, members of Masons, members of a Church, regardless of the social class of these members, than with
people of the same social class but who are not members of that ‘party’ or group. The Weberian model considers the
possibility that social class may not be someone’s main defining characteristic.
Issues/ Critiques:
Weberian theory examines inequality in various forms in society, not only from the income/ wealth perspective. People
in society can be unequal also in terms of status/ prestige and in terms of power to influence decisions in society – this
is recognised within Weberian explanations of social class stratification.
The Weberian model does not emphasise production as in Marxist theory. Rather it emphasises people’s ‘market
value’ and their ability to sell their high/ low skills ‘in the marketplace’ for higher/ lower incomes. It does not merely
focus on one’s position in relation to the means of production.
Evaluation of Weberian Perspective of Social Class:
The helpful thing about the Weberian model is that it is more flexible – it allows a more flexible, detailed way of
classifying people in terms of three main elements, rather than on the more rigid Marxist model which is based solely
on economic differences.
The Weberian model does not only emphasise production, or people’s relationship to the means of production. Factors
other than one’s relationship to the means of production contribute to one’s social class are considered, such as ability
to influence decisions and the status which society gives particular positions/ occupations.
Weberian theory also considers the possibility of other factors being more important that one’s social class. The
notion of Party suggests that people of various social backgrounds may feel more in common with each other as a
group of masons, football supporters, church goers, etc, than with other people outside of that ‘party’ who happen to be
of the same social class.
The Weberian model may be closer to people’s modern experiences in the UK today as it allows for change in for
example perceptions of high status positions. The model finally considers the notion of social closure as a way of
excluding some people (or groups of people) from a particular (privileged) social group. Studies show evidence of
social closure in modern Britain.
Perspective/Theory 3 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Neo-Marxism
Neo-Marxists agreed with traditional Marxist theories about the means of production but also consider other factors
such as the impact of education on class stratification. Neo-Marxists allowed for the incorporation of new roles e.g.
management jobs that are placed in-between the proletariat worker classes and the bourgeoisie owner classes. NeoMarxism does not support Marxist ideas about polarisation of the classes due to exploitation of the workers, as NeoMarxism allows for social mobility – e.g. working classes can become managers and thus move out of one class into
another. Additionally, as there is more white collar work instead of manual blue collar work in the UK today, many
working class people are now doing white-collar work, which used to be considered higher class work.
Neo-Marxists accept Marx’s ideas about the means of production, but consider factors other than the means of
production to explain the existence of class stratification, which are perhaps more appropriate for explaining the way
people view their own class in modern Britain. Things like inequalities in access to education for example, are
considered in explaining class differences (stratification) as well as their position in the economy/ relationship to the
means of production
Issues/ Critiques:
Neo Marxist explanations of social class have been criticised for diluting and weakening original Marxist theory, just
to ‘fit in’ with modern changes and to take into account those inconsistencies which original Marxist theory either
struggled to explain or just ignored, such as the rise of the middle-classes and manager-employees.
Compared to traditional Marxism, Neo-Marxism does give a more flexible explanation for class stratification, taking
factors other than relationship to the means of production into account in explanations of inequality between social
classes. The Neo-Marxist model would be criticised by consensus structural theories eg Functionalist sociologists,
who would argue that class inequality was functional for society and did not, as Neo-Marxist structural conflict
perspectives would suggest, cause conflict and struggle between social classes, particularly between privileged and
disadvantaged social classes.
Evaluation of Neo-Marxist Perspective of Social Class:
The Neo-Marxist approach is perhaps more useful in explaining class stratification in modern Britain that the original /
traditional Marxist explanations. Being more flexible than it’s rigid two-class, production based predecessor, NeoMarxism is able to explain within a generally Marxist framework, (conflict/ structural with emphasis on the impact of
Capitalism on class) that class inequality exists as a result of unequal access to institutions which are dominated by the
ruling/ owning / privileged classes, to their advantage and to the disadvantage of other social groups. Furthermore, the
Neo-Marxist approach accepts the existence of a Middle Class – not considered by original Marxist explanations. NeoMarxism accepts that there is a class of worker, which is higher rewarded in terms of pay, responsibility over other
workers, is involved in decisions which affect the company – and is therefore less exploited in the Capitalist system –
which does not belong to the ‘working class’ strata. The concept of social mobility is therefore accepted by NeoMarxists, as workers can gain promotion to ‘middle class’ management positions for better pay but still within the
Capitalist system. Workers had no such prospects according to original Marxism, as the Bourgeoisie ensured pay and
conditions restricted the proletariat, preserving the privileges and profits of ownership of the means of production for
themselves.
Perspective/Theory 4 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Functionalism
Like many Functionalists, Talcott Parsons believed that order, cooperation and stability in society are based on a value
consensus – a general agreement about what is worthwhile and important. Those who perform successfully in positions
ranked highly important by society will be rewarded highly by society, and this is generally accepted by all.
Stratification is therefore a functional necessity which integrates various groups in society to pursue collective goals
which are derived from society’s central values. The study ‘Some Principles of Social Stratification’ (Davis & Moore
1945) argued that differential rewards were functional for society as they help maintain social order and stability.
Society for functionalists has functional prerequisites – vital things which have to be in place for society to function
effectively. By ensuring skilled people are in those positions which are most valued by society, these functional
prerequisites will be surely met, and they are rewarded highly for achieving this, through power, status and income.
Class stratification for Talcott Parsons was therefore an integrating force, whereby inequalities of wealth, power,
prestige, status were generally accepted by people in society as a whole, and all divisions of society played their part or
integrated to achieve these ‘goals’ .
For functionalist explanations of social class then, it is seen as ‘functional’ and helpful to society, for there to be a level
of stratification and ultimately a system of inequality and division of reward, whereby some people with skills occupy a
higher socal class and are highly rewarded than other people with lower skills who are given lower rewards.
These claims have been strongly criticised as discussed below.
Issues/ Critiques:
Critics of Functionalist explanations have also criticised the assumption that those jobs which are perceived as most
vital to society are rewarded with higher prestige, power and income. Critics refute these assumptions, suggesting that
there are many jobs in modern Britain which are vital for society, but are not necessarily rewarded with high power/
status or indeed, high income. Surely the labour of unskilled workers is just as vital as that of skilled workers, they
argue. If the work of unskilled workers ceased, this would seriously affect production as much as if the work of skilled
workers was to cease. Furthermore, Functionalist explanations rely on value judgements about which positions are
more or less valuable/ important to the effective functioning of society. Critics have argued that it is surely a matter of
personal opinion; which position is more important, for example, between a doctor and a labourer? Arguably a
labourer is more important as assistance to the skilled tradesman, whilst a doctor is more important to sick patients.
There is therefore no such common agreement or value consensus about the importance of particular positions in
society which create class inequality and class stratification.
Finally, being a structural perspective, Functionalist explanations of class stratification do not take into account the
influence of the human agency. Critics would argue that individuals can make decisions, can influence institutions
rather than vice-versa, can act in different ways within these institutions, and may even perceive themselves from a
perspective other than their social class, as argued in Weberian theory’s notions of ‘party’. Functionalist explanations
have no room for the influence of the individual/ human agency on their own position within the class strata.
Evaluation of Functionalist Perspective of Social Class:
Functionalist explanations of social class clearly justify class inequality, but appear over-simplistic in the
notion that all of society accepts class inequality, and that this inequality is inevitable and functional for
society. Many sociologists would dispute these simplistic assumptions about society.
Melvin & Tumin are amongst those sociologists who have criticised the Functionalist explanations of social class
stratification of Davis & Moore, above. Class stratification they would argue is a divisive, rather than an integrating
force, as some groups gain and are privileged, at the expense and disadvantage of other groups. Divisions and disintegration between classes they argue, are produced some groups having advantages and privileges over other groups
– there is no agreement within society, especially amongst disadvantaged groups, that class inequality is functional or
beneficial for society.
Perspective/Theory 5 – Key Features/ Assumptions: Structuration
The ideas of Anthony Giddens (1977, 1979, 1984), ‘structuration’ is a relatively modern attempt to explain social
stratification by combining both structural and action perspectives. Structure and action are seen as opposite sides of
the same coin – thus neither can exist without the other as both are inter-related. Through social actions, structures
are created and reproduced, so they exist over time. A synthesis of both perspectives, then, or the ‘duality of structure’
as Giddens names it, also means that structures make actions possible, and actions create these institutions.
Class inequality therefore is a result of both the impact of institutions (structures) on individuals, and the impact of
individual actions and roles within these institutions. Social class inequality – or class stratification – would, for
example, perhaps be partly caused by inequality of access to the best educational institutions - thus structures having an
impact on the individual – but would also be partly caused perhaps by the result of individuals’ awareness of their own
actions and interactions within educational institutions which may have prevented their own access to the best
institutions, e.g. by failing to achieve the required entry grades for particular universities, is it the university that is
restricting the individual, or the individual’s own actions/ lack of action which has limited their own opportunity, and
which in turn has created inequality?
Issues/ Critiques:
Criticism of Giddens’ structuration explanations mainly concentrate on the fact that the theory offers nothing which did
not exist before, and merely dilutes and weakens aspects of well-established perspectives – structural and action
perspectives. Giddens would argue that his ideas are original as they are a new way of combining two perspectives
neither of which, for Giddens, were able to fully explain social behaviour.
Evaluation of Structuration Perspective of Social Class:
The advantage of structuration explanations of class stratification over any exclusively structural or action perspectives
is that it considers and recognises the impact on class inequality of both human agency and structural forces. Perhaps
this explanation is closer to one’s actual experience, whereby one can influence institutions which affect class
stratification through their individual actions/ interactions, whilst at other times, social institutions can have an impact
on individuals, creating inequality and class stratification. Thus, Giddens offers an explanation which takes both
scenarios into account.
Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 1 – Social Mobility
Social Mobility is found in open class systems, it means the ability to move from one class to another, either in an
upwards or a downwards direction. Promotion would lead to an increase in income and therefore upward social
mobility, whereas being made redundant or losing one’s job would cause a decrease in income and therefore
downward social mobility.
Although there is an open system, inequality in access to education or the top jobs is likely to limit social mobility to
within a limited range. Social closure contributes to this limited opportunity for social mobility.
The Oxford Mobility study carried out in 1972 attempted to explain class stratification but did not consider women in
the study at all, so the results about the classes in Britain could not be considered representative of British society, only
of British male society. A follow-up study in 1987, by Goldthorpe, did include women, but based women’s social
class on the employment status class of their husbands, was still not representative of the men and women in the UK.
This study also ignored the existence of smaller elite groups that were not in employment but were wealthy.
Nevertheless, the study did demonstrate that mobility between classes does happen, (social mobility) and this supported
the argument for an open class system in modern Britain. The study showed that it was possible to move from one
class to another both in an upwards as well as in a downwards direction
A follow up study in 1988 (Marshall et al) called Social Class Mobility in Modern Britain’ did include the class
employment of women separately from men, hence was more representative of the classes in Britain. This study
showed basically the same results for male social class as Goldthorpe’s previous study, but revealed more upward and
downward social mobility in class 3 (routine manual work) for women. The study found that many women experienced
phases of social mobility- both upwards and downwards – as promotion (upwards) and return to part-time work after
childbirth (downwards) could cause this. In addition, the study showed evidence of social class mobility in Britain
generally due to increased opportunities for white-collar work (modern working class jobs and decline of the traditional
working class) and due to more women working in modern Britain. It demonstrated that Britain has a (limited) open
class system allowing people to move up and down the social classes albeit within a limited range.
Discussion of Aspects of Social Class Stratification/ Sociological Studies about this aspect:
Aspect 2 – Social Closure
A Weberian idea, social closure is a way of excluding some people (or groups of people) from a particular (privileged)
social group. This is achieved through limiting access to the group exclusively to those with a particular education
type (e.g. Private Education or went to a particular fee-paying school e.g. Fettes or Eton) or with particular
qualifications, training, or membership of professional bodies/ clubs/ societies.
Informal networks can also contribute to social closure – this means for example, ‘old school tie’ networks of
employers promoting staff or employing staff not on merit but on ‘informal’ or unofficial grounds such as private
arrangements only to ‘self-recruit’ from within a group of people with the same education type. In this way, privileged
people (e.g. with Private School education) are helped into the elite groups whilst other people are excluded.
A now-dated study Elites & Power in British Society (1974) and a more modern study called Social Class in Modern
Britain (1988) both showed evidence of social closure in Britain. A more up to date study which looked at the Social
Background of MP’s (1991) found that most MP’s were male, white, middle-class and privately educated. This is
clearly a group then that helps particular people (from the same background) access employment in politics whilst
restricting or preventing access to these positions by other groups/ classes.
Who Rules Britain (1991) also found evidence of social closure and self-recruitment where people in elite groups
would ensure relatives/ family members of existing members were given privileged access to the group at the exclusion
of other people.
These more modern sociological studies are most useful as they illustrate that social closure continues to exist in
modern British society.
Evaluative Conclusion (summarise main differences in selected theories discussed above)
The conflict theory of social inequality holds that stratification exists because it benefits individuals and groups who
have the power to dominate and exploit others. Marx contended that the capitalist system which allows one class to
dominate another relative to the means of production is the foundation of modern class struggle. Marxist theory is
therefore useful for explaining conflict and division between different social classes. The inability to explain factors
other than individuals’ relationship to the means of production, the emergence of middle-class well-paid managers in
Capitalist economies, and share-ownership of individual workers are main criticisms of Marxist explanations of class
stratification.
Weberian theory’s multi-dimentional model allowed income/wealth, power and prestige to be viewed as dependent of
one another; a combination of these contributed to an individual’s social class position. The notion of ‘market position’
was important, whereby more skilled people would have a better market position as they could sell their skills for better
pay and conditions. Furthermore, there would be as many ‘social classes’ as there were different market positions,
rather than only two as in Marxist explanations.
A Synthesis of Perspectives. Both functionalist conflict and action theories have merit, but each is better than the other
in explaining different aspects of social class stratification.
A number of sociologists, including Anthony Giddens (UK) and Gerhard E. Lenski (USA) have looked for ways of
integrating two perspectives, combining ideas from more than one theory for a perhaps better understanding of social
class. Structuration is one such example.
In conclusion, there will always be class stratification and different perspectives about how these classes should be
determined. Sociology will continue to carry out research studies to attempt to explain the changing patterns of class
stratification and social mobility/ social closure in modern Britain.