Grusky, David (1994)
Social Stratification: Class, Race, & Gender in Sociological Perspective
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Grusky, David. (1994). “The Contours of Social Stratification.”
Main Argument: In this section, Grusky outlines the organization, both theoretical and
geographical, of the book by outlining the major points/authors within each section. The task of
modern stratification research is “to describe the contours and distribution of inequality and to
explain its persistence despite modern egalitarian or anti-stratification values” (3).
Stratification System: refers to the complex of social institutions that generate inequalities of
this sort. Such systems have three key components:
1. Institutional Processes that define certain types of goods as valuable.
2. Rules of Allocation that distribute goods across various positions/roles in DOL
3. Mobility Mechanisms that link individuals to roles.
Inequality is produced by two types of (mis)matching processes:
1. Jobs, occupations, and social roles are matched to “rewards” or unequal value.
2. Individual members are matched to positions so defined and rewarded.
While in society, there tends to be a constant flux of individual members, the system usually stays
the same: hence, unequal and persistent stratification.
The “raw materials “ that create and sustain stratification systems are 7 types of assets:
1. Economic Assets (ownership of land; Marx, Wright)
2. Political Assets (authority in household, political; Weber, Dahrendorf)
3. Cultural Assets (High-status job; Bourdieu, DiMaggio)
4. Social Assets ( high-status networks, ties, associations; Warner, Coleman)
5. Honorific Assets (Prestige, “reputation”; Shils, Treiman)
6. Civil Assets (Rights of property, membership; Marshall, Brubaker)
7. Human Assets (Skills, education; Becker, Svalastoga)
BASIC CONCEPTS AND SIMPLYIFYING PRINCIPLES
Key concepts in the stratification literature can be summarizes as follows:
1. The degree of inequality depends on its dispersion across the individuals in the
population.
2. The rigidity of a stratification system refers to the continuity (over time) in the social
standing of its members.
2
3. The system rests on ascriptive processes in so far as it rests on traits present at birth
which influence later social standings.
4. The degree of status crystallization is indexed by the correlations among the “raw
materials” of assets.
Although, clearly, stratification systems are multi-layered and complex, there are generally three
simplifying strategies in the literature:
1. Reductionsim. Only one of the “raw materials”/asset groups maters in the system.
2. Synthesizing Approaches. Several assets are at work; focus more on positions or roles,
and especially occupations.
3. Classification Exercises. Focus on defining a relatively small number of discrete
“classes”
FORMS OF STRATIFICAITON.
Grusky identifies eight Ideal Types of stratification systems:
A. Hunting and Gathering Society
i. Tribalism. Human asset (hunting/magic)
B. Agrarian Society.
i. Asiatic Mode. Political asset (incumbent of office)
ii. Feudalism. Economic (land and labor)
iii. Slavery. Economic (human property)
iv. Caste Society. Honorific and cultural (ethnic purity)
C. Industrial Society.
i. Class system. Economic (means of production)
ii. State Socialism. Political (party and workplace authority)
iii. “Advanced” Industrialism. Human (education, expertise)
Each of these ideal types uses different assets to stratify and, as such, the particular system has
different levels of mobility, rigidity, and inequality. In addition, each system almost inevitably
has an underlying ideological system which justifies its existence (e.g. Christianity, Hinduism,
Marxism, etc.).
(PART II): SOURCES OF STARTIFICATION
Basic Question: Is some form of stratification or inequality an innate or inevitable part of human
society?
Functionalist Response: YES.
-
Davis & Moore (1945). Some form of stratification is necessary to insure that
the “most important positions in society are filled by the most qualified” (12).
Necessary to keep society functional.
3
-
Tumin (1953). This approach has been critiqued for its lack of focus on agency
of those in power—i.e. can’t explain “stabilized societies where statuses are
ascribed” (13).
-
Lenski (1994). Focus on non-western/Communist state. Show that some degree
of motivation is necessary but not necessarily justifiable—communists fail b/c
they were under-motivated workers.
(PART III): STRUCTURE OF MODERN STRATIFICATION
The large part of stratification research has focused on the hierarchies of class, status, and
prestige. Generically, there are four major schools in the literature:
1. Marxists and Post-Marxists.
-
Marx (1894). Ideal type of two-class system between capitalists and workers.
-
Dahrendorg (1959). Revise Marx: old-middle class of artisans have evolved
into new middle-class of managers and professionals. Lower sectors of this new
middle class are becoming proletarianized while upper are being absorbed by
bourgeois.
-
Wright (1978). American class cleavages still pay homage to old system.
Begins to add Weberian flavor.
2. Weberian and Post-Weberians.
-
Weber (1922). A multiplicity of class cleavages based on “market situation.”
[class = relation to market]. Introduce status groups which are based on style of
life [status = consumption].
-
Neo-Weberians. Add social closure: the processes by which groups devise and
enforce rules of membership.
3. The Ruling Class and Elites
-
Try to replace Marx and Weber models with a political perspective on the
relationship between the ruled and the ruler.
-
The composition of the ruling class reflects the outcome of political struggles that
may not necessarily favor owners of means of production (Mills).
-
Mosca (1939). History is a series of succession of elites.
4. Gradational Status Groupings
-
Dividing lines are largely the construction of overzealous sociologists, and that
the underlying structure of modern stratification can be more closely
approximated with gradational measures of income, status, or prestige. This
perspective usually presents taxonomies or classification systems. There are
several distinct approaches, which include:
i. Reputation, Deference, and Prestige (Warner, Shils)
ii. Occupational Hierarchies (Blau, Duncan, Hodge)
(PART IV): GENERATING STRATIFICAITON
Distinction between distributions of social rewards and distributions of opportunities. It is
opportunities that seems to legitimate the given stratification system (at least in America)—i.e.
4
the degree of social mobility, or the ability to improve one’s status. There are three general areas
of Mobility Studies:
1. Mobility Tables. Maps social distances between classes and patterns of mobility.
2. Path Models. Which background (ascribed) advantages can be translated into
socioeconomic status through mediating variables such as schooling, etc.
3. Dual Economy Models. There exists separate systems of mobility governed by
stratification system.
(PART V): THE CONSEQUENCES OF STRATIFICATION
Grusky summarizes three approaches to studying the consequences of stratification:
1. Models of Status Groupings. Status = consumption patterns (Weber) and style of life;
class = domain of production.
2. Reproduction Theory. Classes are highly efficient agents of selection and socialization
and, therefore, those with high status and power can reproduce culture/habitus
(Bourdieu).
3. Structuration Theory. Status and class are related in historically specific and
contingent ways.
(PART VI): ASCRIPTIVE PROCESSES
Multidimenstional approach: social behavior can only be understood by taking into account all
status group memberships (e.g. racial, gender) and the complex ways in which these interact with
one another and class outcomes.1 In fact, some in the post-modernist schools (based on Inglehart
and Bell; and Clark) suggest that class has become reduced in importance and other factors,
especially race, ethnicity and gender are now the driving forces behind stratification systems.
(PART VII); THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN STRATIFICATION
Main question: Will future stratification systems be based on structural or cultural processes?
Especially in post-modern/post-materialist society?
1
Similar to Spelman’s account on gender; also Hartmann’s critique on patriarchy and capitalism.
5
PART II: FORMS AND SOURCES OF STRATIFICAITON
Theme of Section: Is stratification inevitable or functional? One of the fundamental questions
in the stratification literature. Davis and Moore, from a functionalist interpretation, suggest that
some degree of stratification is necessary if only to ensure the functioning of society, namely to
fill the most functionally important positions with the best people. Tumin speaks against this
functional account and tries to bring back in power and agency. Lenski draws upon empirical
data from former communist countries and suggests that, while there is still some limitations,
there seems to be support for the Davis-Moore hypothesis—i.e. that stratification is crucial for the
motivation of workers.
There are three articles in this part. The first article is about the functions of stratification, which
is the name of the sub-category. The second article is a rebuttal to the first article. Though it is
under the subcategory ‘the dysfunctions of stratification’, and concludes its criticism on D&M
with the hypothesis that stratification is dysfunctional, it contains but little of
function/dysfunction argument based on the functionalist perspective. It is a criticism on
Davis&Moore’s functionalist approach from a whole different sociological perspective. Lenski’s
is an examination/support of D&M’s proposition about motivation and inducement in the context
of the former-socialist society (the Eastern Europe countries). It is not itself a synthesis of the first
and the second article, but is calling for a synthesis of stratification theory.
A. FUNCTIONS OF STRATIFICATION
Davis, Kingsley and Moore, Wilbert. (1945). “Some Principles of Stratification”
1. The authors’ want to explain the necessity of stratification in society in functional
terms. (:functionalism)
Basic assumption is that stratification is universal in every social system,  so
stratification must be necessary in some way to maintain the society. The thing to do is
to understand the ultimate sources of stratification (so as to explain the universal), and to
understand the factors that lead to different forms of stratification (so as to explain the
variety). The emphasis is on the former.
2. Another basic assumption: Inequality of functional importance between different
positions in society. i.e., some positions are more important (& requires more special
skills and longer training) than others for the maintenance of social system.
[This is discussed and refuted in Tumin’s article]
Starting from that, it follows that 1) a society must have a inducement for individuals to
do their duty which follows their positions, and that 2) the inducement must be an
inequality of rewards between them, and finally that 3) this inequality must be according
to the positions in social system. => In this sense, the rewards are accompaniments of
positions.
Stratification = The inequality of rights/perquisites of different positions in a society.
How is stratification defined? Is it economic? Social? Both?
6
3. Two determinants of the relative rank of different positions: a. differential functional
importance, b. differential scarcity of personnel.
The positions that carry greater functional importance for the society, and require
greater training or talent receive more rewards.
Between the two, the functional importance is not a sufficient cause to explain the rank of
a position, since there are positions that are indispensable for the maintenance of society,
yet easily filled without great compensation. (you can discuss this in relation to Tumin’s
criticism on the inequality of functional importance)
In the scarcity part, the authors’ argument may be understood as, that unequal rewards are
compensations for the ‘sacrifice’ (long/expensive training) the person has to undergo in
order to fill the position.
Variation in these two determinants explains the difference of stratification between one
society and another.
4. The close contact between major societal functions and stratification
a. Religion:
serves the function of intergration of values and goals. The people in charge of
religious activities (i.e. priests etc.) are partly sacred, so occupies higher position and
prestige.
The limiting factors: technical knowledge required for the position is small.Not
in jewdaism or islam
The priests have high status in a society which has economic surplus, and whose
members are relatively unlettered (low in technicity).
b. Government:
organizes society by enforcing laws and norms. The gov. officials occupy high
positions, since they organize/control people and their activity in the actual world.
The limiting factors: i. the number of holders of gov. offices must be small in
number compared to the total pop., ii. the rules regulate themselves to serve the interest
of the group, not of themselves, iii. technical knowledge, and other individual qualities
required for the position are small.
c. Economy
The authors’ refute that high income  high prestige,
but argues that functional importance  high income (a part of the rewards perquisite to
the position)
d. Technical knowledge (Professionals) :
receives greater rewards because of the scarcity.
Limiting factors: the functional importance of technical knowledge is not so great as the
other functions served by religion, politics, economy.
7
5. Variation in stratified systems is explained internally by the place a society is in on the
following modes of societal types.
a. Specialized society  Unspecialized society
b. Familistic, Authoritarian, Capitalistic Society (in which the emphasis is each on
different functions.)
c. Equalitarian  Inequalitarian society
d. Mobile(open)  Immobile(closed) society
e. Class organized (high solidarity)  Class unorganized (low solidarity) society
Variation is also explained externally by the situation a society is in in relation to the
cultural development, with other society, and in relation to its size.
B. DYSFUNCTIONS OF STRATIFICATION
Tumin, Melvin. (1953). “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis”
Criticism of the assumptions/propositions by Davis&Moore:
1. Differential functional importance:
: Is this possible at all to decide which is more important than others in
constituting the status quo?
The concept of functional importance is related to the relative replaceability or
indispensability. But this replaceability is causally related to the relative power of a
class (i.e. the unskilled labor is easily replaceable because they have less power)
which has nothing to do with their functional importance.
2. The number of talented people is limited.
: It is a matter of discovering/recruiting/training the talent, but in stratified society,
the chance of discovering/rec/tr talents of its low placed members is less. Is it limited or
not?
3. “Sacrifice” on the part of the trainee
: It is not a sacrifice at all, in view of the fact that the parents, not the trainees,
usually pay for the loss of time&money which constitute part of the rewards of the
positions occupied by the parents. Besides, when the loss is viewed in comparison to
their peers who entered labor market earlier, it is not a loss at all both economically and
psychologically.
4&5. Inducement is necessary for the people to undergo the “sacrifice”. Differential
rewards which involove high income, high prestige, and leisure are most efficient (and
the only?) way of that inducement.
: What about “intrinsic job satisfaction”, or motivation of “social duty”? Those
alternates are not yet institutionalized, but that does not mean it’s impossible to
institutionalize those alternative motivations.
8
6. Stratification = The inequality of rights/perquisites of different positions in a society.
7. Stratification is functional and inevitable in any society.
: The only item which must be distributed unequally is the power and property
necessary for the performance of different tasks. And if this difference is understood as
resources for doing their jobs rather than rewards for their jobs, no difference in prestige
needs to follow. (The problem is, historically it has been the case that difference in
power and property inevitably leads to inequality in pretige and esteem. But historically
no systematic effort has been made not to develop this tendency under the notion that
every man is worthy of social esteem as long as he does his job conscientiously.)
* Dysfunctions of social stratification (hypotheses)
1. Stratification limits the chance of discovering/rec/tr talents available in a society.
2. Stratification limits the possibility of expanding the productive resources of the
society.
3. Stratification provides the elite with the political power necessary to make the
conservative ideology (maintaining the status quo) dominating the society.
4. Stratification distributes favorable self-images unequally throughout a population.
5. Stratification encourages hostility and suspicion, thus limiting the possibility of
extensive social integration.
6,7. Stratification distributes unequally the sense of significant membership (and thus the
sense of loyalty, too) in the pop.
8. Stratification distributes the motivation to participate unequally in a population. 
which is contrary to D&M’s conclusion.
C. CONCLUSIONS TO PART II
Lenski, Gerhard. (1994). “New Light on Old Issues: The Relevance of ‘Really
Existing Socialist Societies’ for Stratification Theory”
Many of the social theories on stratification were only in the context of entirely Western
capitalist societies. Now he tries to examine them in the context of former-socialist
societies in Eastern Europe.
Before, Lenski laid the conclusion that the experiments in destratification conducted in
socialist societies were successful in removing the economic inequality, but not so in
political inequality. Moreover, it failed completely to achieve the critical transformation
in human nature as predicted by Marx.
After the fall of socialist societies, the author examines the data now available, and finds
that the socialist societies were not entirely successful even in removing the economic
inequality, only lowering the degree of economic inequality as compared with the
Western world. He concludes that Marxist societies failed because of inadequate
motivational arrangement including the undermotivation of ordinary workers, and
9
misdirected motivation of managers and decision-makers. The malfunctions in those
societies were inevitable consequences of the system itself (which lacks the system for
motivating the best qualified people to seek the most important positions and motivating
them to perform to the best of their ability once they are in the positions, as asserted by
D&M.), not due to some external factors. However, unlike D&M, Lenski does not go on
to justify stratitifcation.
He again points out that the problems found in Marxist society are also present in the
public sector of the Western societies. This makes us aware of the reality, that what we
call capitalist societies employ in fact ‘mixed’ economies, in which rewards are allocated
partly on the basis of need (as in the socialist s.), partly on the basis of work, and partly
on the basis of property. And it is the task of us social scientists to develop a synthesis of
the stratificantion theory to fit the mixed reality.
PART III: THE STRUCTURE OF MODERN
STRATFICATION
Theme of Section: This section discusses the major theories of stratification which can
generically be divided into four sections: Marxists, Weberians, Elitists, and Gradual Status
Groupings
A. THEORIES OF CLASS: MARXISTS AND POST-MARXISTS
Marx, Karl. “Alienation and Social Classes”
Main Argument: In contemporary capitalist societies, the worker is a product of his labor—but
he is alienated from it because it is forced labor in order to satisfy needs. Man seems only free in
his “animal functions”—eating, drinking, procreating, etc. Because his labor is not his own, man
is alienated from his “nature,” i.e. that which makes him human.
Marx, Karl. “Classes in Capitalism and Pre-Capitalism”
Main Argument: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
[over the means of production]” (69). The present Bourgeoisie epoch has simplified class
antagonisms into two classes: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat—by destroying the feudal systems and
ties and by controlling the means of production/market/trade and has veiled its domination by
ideologies (religion, political, etc.). In this processes of domination and control of production,
the Bourgeoisie have created the working class who, because they are alienated from their labor,
live only so long as they can sell their alienated labor for a profit to the capitalist. Workers have
become “an appendage of the machine” and have all been de-skilled. Other traits and
characteristics (race, gender) are not significant: just labor. The middle-class Who is the
10
middle class? is also inevitably going to become part of the proletariat. The result of the this
continued conflict between b and p will result in an inevitable revolution of the workers.
Marx, Karl. “Ideology and Class”
Main Argument: The ideology of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of the given epoch. The
ideas tend to get separated from the source and appear as universal, rational, and natural. In these
regards, the ruling ideology can and does justify the current order and system of stratification.
Marx, Karl. “Value and Surplus Value”
Main Argument: The value of labor is determined by the value of the necessities needed to
reproduce the worker—i.e. it takes 6 hours of work to maintain the worker. A surplus value is
the difference between what the worker needs to exist and reproduce and what the worker
produces. Surplus values go to the capitalist. Such a system reproduces the two-class system.
Why would surplus go to the capitalist?
Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1959). “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society”
Main Argument: The development of the “new middle class” results from the Decomposition
of Labor (i.e. the separation of ownership and control of capital in “joint-stock” ventures) and
the Decomposition of Labor (i.e. increased skill stratification of the “working class”). It
becomes increasing difficult to determine whether this “new middle class” is part of the
Bourgeoisies or the Proletariat; the manager shares qualities yet differs from both classes.
Dahrendorf suggests drawing lines based on salaried employees who occupy positions that are
part of the bureaucratic hierarchy and salaried employees in positions that are not.
Furthermore, future analysis of classes should focus on authority, 2as described as legitimate
power, and its distributions b/c it relies not on individuals but rather on positions or roles in the
system.
Decomposition of Capital. “Modern” developments (like the joint-stock) are directly contrary
to Marx. The removing of ownership and control, creates a new class of managers who are
closer to workers while at the same time removing the owners from production. “The roles of
owner and manager, originally combined in the position of the capitalist, have been separated and
distrusted over two positions, those of stockholder and executive” (83).3 This change also
“involved both a change in the structure of social positions and a change in the recruitment of
personnel to these positions” (83). New recruitment consists of (a) bureaucratic career4 and (b)
specialized education, both of which contribute to further DOL.
Decomposition of Labor. Contrary to Marx, the working class has not become completely
unskilled but rather much more differentiated according to skills.
2
Adding in Weber.
The result of continued division of labor.
4
Weber.
3
11
The New Middle Class. Is both bourgeois (in that it controls and is in the subordinationsupraordination relationship5) and proletariat (in that it is closer to the worker than the owners).
The Institutionalization of Class Conflict. Conflict has become institutionalized in the
ideology of the ruling class and has taken away the “sting” of the working class.
Power and Authority.
-
Power “is the probability that one actor within social relationship will be a
position to carry out his own will despite resistance”
-
Authority is “the probability that a command with a given specific content will
be obeyed by a given group of persons.”
Wright, Erik Olin. (1978). “Varieties of Marxist Conceptions of Class Structure”
Main Argument: Wright provides a basic outline of his theory of contradictory locations
within class locations. Essentially, Wright argues that, like Marx, there are still only two
polarized classes, although they may differ along three interrelated dimensions of the dominationsubordination relationship: (1) money capital, (2) physical capital, and (3) labor. All three of
these dimensions are necessary conditions for each other, but they exist in a hierarchy: Money 
Physical  Labor. Within the relationships of these dimensions, all classes are polarized—the
“new middle class” represents contradictory positions in these relations. So the managerial class
is in a contradictory position between the working class and the capitalist; the small employers
are between the petty bourgeoisie and the capitalist; and the Semiautonomous employers are
between the petty bourgeoisie and the working class. “They are contradictory locations because
they simultaneously share the relational characteristics of two distinct classes. As a result they
share class interests with two different classes but have interests identical to neither” (95).
Main Point: The “new middle class” is not really a class at all; What definition of class sis being
used here? rather they should be viewed as locations that are simultaneously in more than one
class—i.e. they are in “contradictory locations.”
Wright, Erik Olin. (1985?). “A General Framework for the Analysis of Class
Structure”
Main Argument: Wright tries to amend/alter his “contradictory locations” theory b/c it has two
flaws:
1.
It shifts the analysis from exploitation to domination; doing so undermines Marx’s
basic assumption that classes have “objective” interests.; domination does not imply that
interests differ, only that unequal power exists.
2. It regards socialism (a society within which the working class is the ruling class) as the
only possible alternative to capitalism. The experience of the 20th Centry (Lenski) has
5
Simmel.
12
refuted that the working class will be the new rulers. It, therefore, is essential to being to
think about post-capitalist class structures. Most Marxist interpretations do not do this
(including own).
To fix these problems, Wright wants to bring exploitation back in to analyze post-capitalist
structures. He does this by focusing on the work of Roemer.
Exploitation: Exploitation implies causal direction in power relations—i.e the rich exploit the
poor, but more importantly, the rich are rich b/c they exploit the poor. Romer uses two methods
to expand this basic idea:
1. Labor-Transfer Approach. Exploitation can occur even without wage labor—i.e.
people can exploit products just as easily. Regardless, people will always seek to
minimize the amount of labor-time they must expend to achieve a common level of
subsistence. Exploitation is the result of inequalities in the distribution of means of
production, and not just in capitalist societies.
2. The Game-Theory Approach. Romer uses this to compare different systems of
exploitation. (feudalism, capitalism, and socialist).
Point: The material basis of exploitation is inequalities in distribution of productive assets, or
what is usually referred to as property relations. Shifting to dominance blurs the Marxist –
Weberian lines and, Wright believes, that production based notions of class are “more
fundamental” than market/exchange based Weberian notions.
General Framework of Class Analysis. Different systems of exploitation are defined by
different kinds of assets and which asset is most important for shaping the patterns of
exploitation. The four assets are: labor, means of production, organization, and skills (Wright
adds organization). The unequal distribution of these assets corresponds with a different system
of class structures with different classes and revolutionary tasks:
-
Labor power = feudalism
-
Means of production = capitalism
-
Organization = state bureaucratic socialism
-
Skills = socialism
This framework provides a new way to look at the “problem” of the middle-class:\
1. Class positions which are neither exploited nor exploiting—i.e. the petty bourgeois who
has enough to sustain self.
2. Societies are characterized by more than one form of exploitation and, therefore, more
than one form of production and class systems.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1974). “Class Conflict in the Capitalist World Economy”
Main Argument: Wallerstein perceives the relationship between core and periphery nations as
analogous to that of the bourgeoisie and proletariat, thereby extending Marxist analysis from
that of an economy of one nation to an analysis of the interrelation of international “world
systems.” The state functions as an institution whose sole function is representing the dominant
interests and to augment the exploitation of those generating surplus value.
13
“To oversimply, capitalism is a system in which the surplus value of the proletarian is
appropriated by the bourgeois. When this proletarian is located in a different country
from this bourgeois, one of the mechanisms that has affected the process of appropriation
is the manipulation of controlling flows over state boundaries. This results in patterns of
‘uneven development’ which are summarized in the concepts of core, semiperiphery, and
periphery. This is an intellectual tool to help analyze the multiple forms of class conflict
in the capitalist world system” (112).
B. THEORIES OF CLASS: WEBERIANS AND POST-WEBARIANS
Weber, Max. “Class, Status, & Party”
Main Argument: Classes, statuses, and Parties are phenomena of the distribution of power
within a community.
Power: “the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal
action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action” (113).
Classes are not communities per se but rather the basis for communal action. A class is any
group of people that is found in the same class situation (i.e. similar life chances, experiences,
resources, etc.)—it they share a market position with each other, especially in relation to
production. Classes are based on the economic order.
In contrast, Status Groups are based on the social order and almost always represent a
community. Status Situations are those in which the life chances or fate of the members are
determined by a specific social estimation of honor, either positive or negative. This is generally
depicted through life-style and consumption rather than production or markets. However,
political membership or class situation have always been a source of status groups.
[From Giddens: Class = objective; production ; status = subjective; consumption]
Point: Classes are stratified according to relations of production and acquisition of goods. Status
groups are stratified according to principles of their consumption of goods represented by specific
life-styles.
Parties lie within the realm of power. Parties seek to influence communal action through the
acquisition of power
Weber, Max. “Status Groups and Classes”
Main Argument: A class situation refers to the probability that a given state of (a) provision
with goods, (b) external conditions of life, and (c) subjective satisfaction or frustration is
possessed by an individual or group. Very broadly, Weber identifies three types of classes:
1. Property Classes. Class situation is determined by differentiation of property holdings.
2. Acquisition Classes. Class situation is determined by opportunity for the exploitation of
services on the market.
14
3. Social Classes. Class situations involve the interchange of individuals on a personal
basis over generations.
Unlike Marx, for Weber no one has absolutely identical class situations except completely
unskilled, propertyless persons who are dependent upon employment but do not have a consistent
occupation.
Status will be applied to a typically effective claim to positive or negative privilege with respect
to social prestige so far as it rests on one or more of the following bases: (a) mode of living, (b) a
formal process of education, or (c) on the prestige of birth.
Weber, Max. “Open and Closed Relationships”
Main Argument: Open relationships are those that do not deny participation to anyone who
wishes to join. Closed relationships are those in which the participation of certain individuals is
excluded, limited or subjected to conditions. The decision between open and closed is based on
the perception of members in order to improve their situation. Relationships tend to shift towards
closeness and the methods of shift vary. Principle motives for closure include: (a) maintenance of
quality often combined with interest in prestige, honor, profit; (b) contraction of advantages in
relation to consumption; (c) growing scarcity of opportunity for acquisition.
Weber, Max. “The Rationalization of Education and Training”
Main Argument: The effect of the rational-bureaucratic structure of domination on the nature of
training and education is the development of the “rational-matter-of-factness” and the
“professional expert” rather than the ‘cultivated man.’ Modern systems of education, training,
and examination serve the purpose of protecting exclusionary interests of the privileged class and
restricting access to their position from all those excluded.6
Giddens, Anthony. (1973). “The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies”
Main Argument: Giddens discusses the structuration of class—hoc economic relationships
translate into non-economic social structures. While the difference between class and status is a
difference between subjective versus objective and production versus consumption, class and
status tend to be linked through property. But, class and status are not just two dimensions of
stratification, rather, they represent the distribution of power. After reviewing Marx and Weber,
Giddens discusses his own propositions. The structuration of class is facilitated to the degree of
mediate and proximate factors in a given system:
- mediate factors: “The factors which intervene between the existence of certain market
capacities and the formation of classes as identifiable groups” (136). These factors are
6
Similar to Marx.
15
largely determined by mobility causes. The greater the closure of mobility chances the
greater the likelihood of identifiable class structuration b/c it reinforced the reproduction
of class situations across generations. There are three sorts of market capacities which
important:
(1) ownership of property
(2) possession of education
(3) possession of manual labor-power
Where these three things are tied closed to intergenerational experiences, the distribution
of these market capacities is associated with the creation of three-tired class system—
upper, middle, and lower—each in respect to one of these three capacities.
- proximate factors: “localized factors which condition or shape class formation”
(Ibid). The three most important proximate factors are:
(1) The Division of Labor. The DOL separates people , i.e. differentiates
tasks./jobs/occupations, (Marx) as well as binds people, social
solidarity/unions/etc. (Durkheim).
(2) The Authority relationships within the enterprise/system. Reinforces
DOL. Seperates administrative workers (who enforce or frame commands) and
manual workers (who are subject to them).
(3) The influence of distributive groupings. Reflects patterns of consumption
rather than production.
“The extent to which the various bases of mediate and proximate class structuration overlap,
classes will exist as distinguishable formations” (138). If classes become social realities, there
must be a common patter of behavior and attitude that goes with them. Class awareness is the
recognition and acceptance of similar attitudes and beliefs. Class consciousness involves the
recognition that these attitudes and beliefs signify a particular class affiliation and that there exists
other classes with different attitudes and beliefs. The former can include the denial of the reality
of class existence.
Parkin, Frank. (1979). “Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique”
Main Argument: The main class cleavage in the literature [manual vs. non-manual] should be
looked at as a system of antagonism similar to those in Marx but not necessarily based on
production—Marx’s ideas are problematic given the “middle class problem” (Wright) and the
growth of the public sectors which skew ideas of actual “classes” in the Marxian sense. Here is
why Parkin is a “Weberian”7
“ . . manual and non-manual groups can usefully be thought of as entities socially
differentiated from each other in terms of life-chances and opportunities, but not as
groups standing in a relationship of exploiter and exploited, of dominance and
subordination, in the manner presumably required of a genuine conflict model” (142).
Parkin expands on Weber’s idea of social closure: “the processes by which social collectivities
seek to maximize rewards by restricting access to resources and opportunities to a limited circle
7
Or perhaps, “Inside every neo-Marxist there seems to be a Weberian struggling to get out . . .” (143)
16
of eligibles” (143). Social enclosure entails processes of exclusion. In short, the nature of these
exclusionary practices, and the completeness of social closure, determine the general character
of the distributive system.8
Social Closure leads to (a) exclusion and the inverse and, (b) usurpation, collective response
from those being excluded. Conflict between classes is not based on production but on the
processes of closure and exclusion.
Parkin cites two forms of exclusion which confer benefits to few by denying many:
- Property. Only property as capital has consequences for life chances (Marx)
- Credentialism. Tests/formalized education that measure class (Weber)
Class is reproduced as these exclusionary practices are passed along generations.
Generally, there are two criteria [ideal types] of exclusion:
- Collectivist exclusion. Exclusion based on race, religion, etc. which produced a subordinate
group with a communal character—that is “one defined in terms of all-encompassing negative
status” (151). E.g. racial segregation.
- Individualist exclusion. Exclusion based on individual criteria which gives rise to a
segmental subordinate group. E.g. meritocracy.
In society, both types of forms are used, and the generation of social classes results.
8
Similar to Gidden
C. THEORIES OF CLASS: THE RULING CLASS AND ELITES
Mosca, Gaetano. (1939) “The Ruling Class”
Main Argument: All society is made up of two classes: a class that rules and a class that is
ruled.
- The Ruling Class. Is smaller, performs political functions, monopolizes power, and is
intellectually and morally superior. It maintains its power through heredity.
- The Ruled. Is larger in size, is dominated by ruling class, and provides them with
subsistence for survival.
Two facts of ruling class:
(1) Almost always has a chief or group of leaders.
(2) Must have at least some support or legitimation from the masses.
In general, it is a rule that an organized minority (the ruling class) will rule over an unorganized
majority. The ruling class validates its power via ideology (Marx).
Mills, C. Wright. (1956) “The Power Elite”
Main Argument: The Power Elite in the U.S. constitute the major decision makers in the
triangle of power: the political, the economic, and the military institutions. “By the power elite
we refer to those political, economic, and military circles which as an intricate set of overlapping
cliques share decisions having at least national consequences” (168). The concentration of power
in these institutions (as opposed to religion, family, education) is due to the increased
concentration of power and information; these institutions, therefore, link positions/men with
historical events. The decisions (and non-decisions) of these three institutions are interlocked and
within each institution there is an “higher circle” of power. Mills suggests that it is only by
studying the gradation of power in these institutions can one begin to understand the power elite.
18
Giddens, Anthony. (1973) “Elites and Power”
Main Argument: Giddens tries to clear up some of the misuses of the various terms “ruling
class”, “power elite,” etc. The elite groups, for Giddens, are “those individuals who occupy
positions of formal authority at the head of a social organization or institution” (171). The
struturation of the upper classes is determined by:
(1) the mobility or recruitment into the class (mediate structuration—i.e. how closed is
the system) and
(2) the degree of social solidarity within and between elite groups.
Based on these two criteria, Giddens devises a four-fold typology [ Inegration (2) either HIGH or
LOW ; Recruitment (1) either OPEN or CLOSE] of elite formation:
(1) Solidary elite. Open recruitment; but high integration. Seems “unlikely” in
Capitalism, but could be common in socialism.
(2) Uniform elite. Restricted recruitment; tight-knit group.
(3) Abstract elite. Open recruitment; low integration. Pluralistic democracies.
(4) Established elite. Closed recruitment; low integration.
These typologies say nothing of power, must add two dimensions:
(1) Institutional mediation. The General form/shape of state and economy
(2) Mediation in terms of Control. The actual power of policy-formation and decision
making held by the members of a particular elite group.
Combining all of these principles with previous four-fold chart, gives a typology of power
structures within these four elite “classes”
(1) Autocratic. Consolidated power; broad issue-strength.
(2) Oligarchic. Consolidate power; restricted issue-strength.
(3) Hegemonic. Diffuse power; broad issue-strength.
(4) Democratic. Diffuse power; restricted issue-strength.
Combing the types of elites with the types of power structures clarifies pervious ideas/definitions
of ruling class etc.
(1) Ruling Class. Uniform/established elite ; autocratic/oligarchic
(2) Governing Class. Uniform/established elite ; hegemonic/democratic
(3) Power Elite. Solidary Elite
; autocratic/oligarchic
(4) Leadership Groups. Salidary Elite
; hegemonic/democratic
19
Useem, Michael. (1984) “The Inner Circle”
Main Argument: In response to the debate of whether the elite is a unified rather than a nonunified entity, Useem suggests that it is both—namely that the “inner circle” is organized but that
the majority of other business actors are not. The inner circle refers to the politicized leadership
of major corporations that play a major role in defining and promoting the shared needs of big
business.9 The inner circle, however, is not necessarily a completely unified group—there are
various sub-sets within the inner circle with varying degrees of cohesion and identity. This
creation of the inner circle, in part, arise from the development of institutional capitalism (as
opposed to family or managerial capitalism)—meaning corporations take interests not necessarily
of their own firm but of corporations in general.
Useem suggests three main principles that structure business organizations:
1. The Upper Class Principle. The defining elements is the social networks of wealthy
families, upper-class culture. These people enter politics with an upper-class agenda
2. The Corporate Principle. The defining element is the corporation itself, its position
in the economy and in relation to other firms. Look after own interests.
3. The Class-wide Principle. Location is primary determined by position in a set of
interrelated, qusi-autonomous networks of larger corporations—i.e. business
associations, etc.
In relation to Mills, Useem states that business is one of the triangle of power or three pillars of
the power elite, larger because of the concentration of power, resources, and continued
development of exogenous networks.10
Shils, Edward A. (1982) “The Political Class in the Age of Mass Society:
Collectivistic Liberalism and Social Democracy”
Main Argument: Shils, using Mosca, discusses the role of the political class, which has a
political vocation and shares a sense of solidarity and identity about shared rights and obligations
to rule. While Shils suggests that there was a quasi-political class in the USSR, no political class
has every had to face the current conditions of the West. This lack of a political class in the West
is mainly due to the “openness” (Weber) of the system and the degree to which the Government
has seeped into the various aspects of daily life which require special knowledge (i.e. technology,
science, alal Bell): “[this] was not a burden which the ‘political class’ had to bear. That burden
is, however, one which contemporary politicians must bear” (16). Furthermore, the continued
diversity of the public and the “eye of the public” (i.e. the media) help to maintain the “virtue of
the statesman.” To the extent that there is a political class in modern America, it is the national
legislative bodies (“the best club in the world”) which has its own distinct norms, culture,
socialization processes, etc.
9
In a sense, the “business elite”.
How has globalization increased this further?
10
D. GRADATIONAL STATUS GROUPINGS: REPUTATION,
DEFERENCE, AND PRESTIGE
Warner, W. Lloyd. (1949) “Social Classes in America”
Main Argument: Lays out the basic 6-tier class system commonly used in American society and
variations of this system by the three U.S. Regions (New England, the Middle and the Far West,
and the Deep South).
1. Upper-Upper (old aristocracy). Inherited wealth from long generations.
2. Lower-Upper (new rich). Came up through industries and finance. Money itself
does not dictate class.
3. Upper-Middle. Active in Civic affairs and “get things done.” Hope to gain
recognition and move into lower-upper class, but this rarely happens.
4. Lower-Middle. Upper part of the “Common Man”, this strata is made up of clerks,
white-collar workers, and some skilled workers. Often are homeowners. Some are the
more successfully of ethnic groups.
5. Upper-Lower. “Poor but honest.” Hard to distinguish, often semi-skilled or
unskilled.
6. Lower-Lower. Bad lot: Considered “lazy, shiftless, and unemployed.” by other
classes, though there is apparently little evidence to support this.
The UU, LU, and UM are above the “Common Man”; LM and UL are the “Common Man”; and
the UL is below the “Common Man.”
Differences in Class: In the Middle and the West, there is often no UU, so they often just have
“five class structures.” In the Deep South, not only is there a six-class system, but it is further
differentiated by intense racial discrimination.
Generalities of Class: Almost all recognize class, but often pretend that class does not exist.
Money is not the only determinate of class; consumption (style) are also important (Weber;
Bourdieau).
General comments: This article makes a lot of assertions, but provides no data. Apparently all
the data is in the author’s previous work The Social Life of a Modern Community, which he
references quite a bit.
Shils, Edward A. (1968) “Deference”
In an interactional11 approach, Shils focus on how deference creates stratification. Deference
refers to the act of appreciation or derogation that occurs in every social interaction, where
11
Like Simmel, this approach for stratification is based on the interaction between parties.
21
appreciation is positive or high deference and derogation is negative or low deference. Everyone
is in a relational position of deference to everyone else. “The disposition to defer and the
performance of acts of deference are evoked by perception, in person or classes of persons
perceived, of certain characteristics or properties of their roles or actions”
The Bases of deference: These properties are entitlements which include: occupation,
education, wealth, ethnicity, titles, rank, etc. Shills says that “Occupational role is ordinarily
thought od as one of the most significant entitlements to deference” but it was unclear to me if
that was his view, or just a comment about the literature in general.
Deference Behavior: His deference position is what others call status. “. . . status is not a
substantial property of the person arising automatically from the possession of certain
entitlements but is in fact an element in the relationship between the person deferred to and the
deferent person” (198-199).12 He prefers deference-position because it highlights the
active/relational aspect of deference.
The distribution of deference: Researchers often try to work with an ‘objective’ conception of
social stratification, but it’s really too amorphous a property for this methodology to be
appropriate.
Deference systems:
Main Argument:
This is similar to other ideas of status. Status is used as deference-position. Centers of
Society, those positions that exercise power of society, command the most deference. Every
occupational role is measured in terms of this power. Deference Systems tend to become
dispersed in local systems.
12
Again, like the Simmelian roles in the various forms of interaction—i.e. domination.
E. GRADATIONAL STATUS GROUPINGS: OCUPATIONAL
HIERARCHIES
Blau, Peter M. & Duncan, Otis Dudley. (1967) “Measuring the Status of
Occupations”
Main Argument: There are two types of approaches to the study of occupational hierarchies:
1. Socioeconomic Classifications. Based on objective characteristics like education,
income, salary, etc.13
2. Prestige Scales. Respondent asked to classify occupations in regards to
prestige/status. Problem: small samples and small lists of occupations.
Blau and Duncan suggest the Socioeconomic Index of occupational status in which all of the
census occupations receive a score from 0 to 96. This index has high reliability and explains 5/6
of the variance. Their approach is based on the assumption that occupational structure is
continuously graded regarding status rather than consisting of discrete classes. Therefore,
occupational prestige needs to be measured as a continuous variable.
Trieman, Donald. (1976) “Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective”
Main Argument: In comparing occupational studies (n = 85) from 60 countries, Trieman finds
three consistent results:
1. The ranking came out the same regardless of the wording of the survey (i.e. prestige
rather than status, etc).
2. On average, everyone had roughly the same ranking of occupations from educated vs.
non-educated, urban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, etc.
3. Although the exact DOL varies from countries, roughly the same occupations seem to
exist everywhere.
This leads Trieman to the conclusion that “there is substantial uniformity in occupational
evaluations throughout the world” (209) and, therefore, comparative studies are possible and
reliable.
This universal approach generates a theory of the determinants of prestige: high prestige is
given to those occupations that require a high degree of skill or involve authority over others or
control over capital. “Skill, authority, and economic control are singled out as the basic
resources which differentiate occupations because these are the fundamental aspects of power—
they provide the crucial means to the achievement of desired goals” (Ibid).14
Furthermore, the greater the power of an occupation, the easier it will attract competent
personnel; the basic rewards-system gives higher rewards to these positions.15
This goes against Shils’ call for subjective measures.
This is the Weberian notion of “power” as opposed to “authority.”
15
This supports the Davis-Moore hypothesis.
13
14
23
Goldthorpe, John & Hope, Keith. (1972). “Occupational Grading and Occupational
Prestige”
Main Argument: A critical critique of occupational prestige studies. Prestige, from their
perspective refers to “a particular form of social advantage and power, associated with the
incumbency of a role of membership of a collectivity” (212). Prestige is symbolic and it employs
meanings and values rather than the exploitation of materials/resources.16 A hierarchy of prestige
is formed from relational and attitudinal terms. As such, a prestige hierarchy occurs when
actors:
1. Defer to their superiors.
2. Accept their equals as partners.
3. Derogate their inferiors.
Occupational Prestige is defined as “the chances of deference, acceptance, and derogation
associated with the incumbency of occupational roles and membership in occupational
collectivities” (213).
Goldthorpe and Hope ask three questions:
1. Whether such a conception of occupational prestige has been that generally held by
authors of conventional occupational prestige studies?
2. Whether the results of such studies provide valid indicators of prestige in the sense in
question?
3. Whether the uses to which results have been put have been appropriate ones?
In response, the authors suggest that the conception of prestige measured by these indexes do not
measure “the symbolic significance of certain features of an occupation”; rather, they measure
desirability of a given occupation. Because of this occupational studies, especially those
“universal approaches” (e.g. Trieman) are faulty.
The authors present three propositions for improving the area:
1. Ratings may be indicative of the position of an occupation within a prestige order.
This implies that mobility involves not simply resources but also changes in life-style and
patterns of association.
2. Prestige ratings may be seen as indicative of generic, or socio-economic status of
occupations as derived from data on income, education, etc. Mobility research should not
necessarily be based on these measures.
3. Ratings may be taken to be indicative of popular evaluations of relative “goodness” of
occupations in terms of the whole range of prevailing criteria.
Overall, prestige and mobility studies should be focusing on symbolic significance and the
processes of deference, acceptance, and derogation.
16
I.e. Weber’s notion of prestige as opposed to Marx’s class.
24
Featherman, David L. & Hauser, Robert M. (1976). “Prestige or Socioeconomic
Scales in the Study of Occupational Achievement?”
Main Argument: These authors prefer the socioeconomic scales because prestige indicators are
less valid indicators of the dimensions of occupations that are relevant to the study of
occupational mobility and status attainment processes—i.e. Prestige Scores are bad estimates of
socioeconomic attributes. Prestige does not appear to measure deference as indicated in mobility
theory.
Hodge, Robert W. (1981). “The Measurement of Occupational Status”
Main Argument: A critique of SEI scales (Duncan). Hodge offers three interpretations
(problems) with SEI scales:
1. Methodological issues. The scales not properly weighted and the equations are faulty.
2. Since education is the indicator of social status and income is of economic status,
Duncan’s scale combines the two and it is often interpreted as a socioeconomic index of
occupational status.
3. SEI scale as a linear transformation of the “average.” As such, SEI is merely a tool,
an ideal type, and not necessarily a social fact.
This tends to treat occupation as a contextual variable—i.e. creating aggregate characteristics
from individual level data.
Hodge favors prestige scores for two reasons.
1. Prestige scores are not derived from the characteristics of the incumbents and,
therefore, are not reduced to contextual variables
2. Prestige scores come from well-defined theory in stratification literature (i.e. Weber,
Shils).
The problem with prestige scores, however, is that they have not performed well relative to SEI
measures.
F. CONCLUDING COMMENTARY TO PART III
Sorensen, Aage B. (1995) “The Basic Concepts of Stratification Research: Class,
Status, and Power”
Main Argument: Lays out the basic 6-tier class