Social class has long been used as a measure of society, and often as an explanation for many of the phenomena within it. But what is social class? Depending on the viewpoint, there are a few different answers to this question. Some theories, such as Marxism would argue that class is defined as “economic, in relation to the ownership of the means of production” (Platt, 2010), meaning that class is in terms of who owns the means of production. Other theories, such as Weberism, would argue that “a class situation is one in which there is a shared typical probability of procuring goods, gaining a position in life, and finding inner satisfaction” (Breen, 2009), meaning that, essentially, members of the same class will have access to the same life chances as one another. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, emphasised the link between status and class, with status being “seen as manifestations of social class differences” (Weininger, 2009). In 21st century society, there are many ways in which these theories could be applied. The theory of class explains a lot of phenomena observed in society, for example wealth inequalities can be explored using the medium of classes, for example, the phenomena of the upper classes having more material goods than the lower classes. However, some conceptions of class are better suited to 21st century society than others. This essay will explore the different conceptions of class, and conclude that the Weberist concept of class is best suited to 21st century society
The Marxist concept of class views society in two classes; those being the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is defined as the ones who own the means of production, and so can use this to their advantage at the expense of those less fortunate than themselves. The proletariat are defined as the class do not have access to the means of production, and only have access to their capacity to work for the bourgeoisie, allowing the bourgeoisie to use them to their gain. A theme of the Marxist concept of class is that of exploitation, with the bourgeoise exploiting the proletariat for their own gain, with the proletariat seeing no real rewards for their effort. The Marxist concept of class could apply to 21st century society on a very basic level, however there are issues with it. As Marx stated, “To each according to need, from each according to ability” (Wright, 2009). This statement illustrates one of the main principles behind the Marxist concept of class, which is that of radical egalitarianism, essentially meaning that all members of society must work together in order to achieve the best overall situation for all members of society. The attributes of Marxism including that of the dynamic between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat fit into society in very broad terms; when society is stripped back, it could be argued that all components of society can be classed as part of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, for example in terms of business, the venue manager could be classed as bourgeoisie in relation to the venue staff, but then classed as proletariat in relation to the CEO of the company. This is the social relations of production. “the people that participate in production have different kinds of rights and powers over the use of the inputs and over the results of their use.” (Wright, 2009). This illustrates how the application of the Marxist concept of class to the 21st century can, in some ways, fit well. However, just as some ways gel, others do not. The element of the Marxist concept of class which does not fit well into the 21st century is the simple classification of classes. Marx allows for tow social classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In the era when Marx created this theory, these may well have fit, however in the 21st century, they are less fitting. The structure of society can change drastically over the course of just a decade, so considering that Marx died over a century ago, it is easy to consider how when applied to modern society, the concept of class does not fit as well as it may have. “Class inequalities have to be seen in the context of dramatic shifts in class structure across the twentieth century” (Platt, 2010) Whilst the presence of class inequality in society is endemic, the intricacies of these inequalities have changed greatly, and society can no longer be classed into two broad groups. This means that in terms of being applied to 21st century society, the Marxist concept of class is not necessarily the best fit.
The Weberist concept of class views class in different terms to that of Marxism; whilst Marxism views class as purely based on economics, Weberism views class in terms of life chances, more specifically, two members of the same social class will have the same life chances as one another, as compared to two members of two different social classes, who will have two separate groups of life chances. “Their possession of goods and opportunities for income as well as conditions of the labour market were relevant to class groupings” (Platt, 2010) This statement illustrates the viewpoint of Weber, in that class is not necessarily strictly based on whether the individual owned the means of production or not, but more so on the opportunities that the individual has, which brings in the idea of social mobility, which is the change in social position of an individual. This also introduces the idea of social closure, which is where the holders of social positions exclude others from these positions, and so keep these opportunities to themselves, therefore making themselves socially mobile and excluding others from becoming so too. Life chances can be defined as “the chances an individual has for sharing in the socially created economic or cultural ‘goods’ that typically exist in any given society” (Breen, 2009) The Weberist concept of class fits well into the 21st century society, as it allows for the changing structure of society. The position of an individual within the class structure depends on multiple things, including the ownership of any wealth, the level of authority within employment, and any skills or education, these of which can be affected by social closure preventing these from being accessible to all members of society. “It is well known that Weber saw class only as one aspect of the distribution of power in society.” (Breen, 2009). For Weber, class and status are among the most important ways power is distributed within society. Weberism often uses the Goldthorpe class schema to categorise members of society into different social classes. The Goldthorpe schema is based off of the type of employment an individual has, rather than the income brought in from it. (Platt, 2010) This is much more suited to Weberism than an income based system, due to the fact that Weber defines class as groups with similar life chances, and two members of society in similar lines of employment are much more likely to have the same life chances than two members of society with the same income and completely different types of employment. This lends itself nicely to 21st century society, as it allows for the changing social structure of employment and also allows for more than two broad classes, meaning that Weberism is more specific in terms of classes. This is good for practical applications of social class, for example in creating social policy, having multiple, more specific classes allows for the policy to be targeted specifically to those it needs to help, rather than having two broad general social classes. This means that the Weberist concept of class is better suited to society within the 21st century.
Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of class views society in a similar manner to the Weberist concept of class, in that Bourdieu’s concept of class “takes as its object the relation between social classes and status groups” (Weininger, 2009). Bourdieu works off of Weber’s acknowledgement of the separation of status and class. Bourdieu’s concept of class has three parts – the economic capital, cultural capital, and the social capital. Cultural capital refers to the patterns of behaviour that are associated with elite culture. However, “the notion of a class structure encompasses the entirety of the occupational division of labor” (Weininger, 2009). This is a broader view than that of the Marxist concept of class, in that Marxism restricts itself to two very broad class groups as defined by whether or not an individual has ownership over the means or control of production or not. This allows Bourdieu to avoid the problems encountered by the Marxist concept of class, which is that there are simply too many different groups to be categorised, that the two class system of Marxism does not work, as there is too much disparity between two individuals of the same supposed social class. Bourdieu’s concept of class applies well to the 21st century, as there are multiple classes, rather than just two broad general classes. The class of the petit-bourgeoisie is brought in, allowing for individuals that have gained social mobility to be classed more specifically to their position within society. Bourdieu also uses cultural capital as a measure of class, again allowing for social mobility to be taken into account, and specifically allowing for the observation of intergenerational and intragenerational social mobility over a number of years. Using cultural capital illustrates the changing nature of society. Bourdieu also uses social capital in his concept of class, which whilst cultural capital is about the dispositions you have, social capital is made up of bonding social capital, which is to have access to support networks, and bridging social capital, which is to have access to multiple societal groups. This lends itself well to the 21st century as it allows for changes within society, whilst also making allowances for social mobility.
To conclude, depending on the viewpoint taken, there are multiple definitions of social class. The Marxist concept of class would say that class is based on purely economic divides, with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the two broad general social classes, with the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production and so exploiting the proletariat for their own gain. The Marxist concept of class does not necessarily fit in well with 21st century society, as due to the changing nature of society, members of society can no longer be generalised into two broad groups. This leads on to the Weberist concept of class, which would say that class is based on life chances; that being classes consist of people with the same life chances, these life chances being the chances that individuals have of gaining access to opportunities not available to everyone. This concept is well suited to society, as it allows for the changing face of society. The position of an individual does not just rely on material goods, but on the status within society of the individual, and takes into account, other factors, such as social and cultural factors. This allows it to be well suited to 21st century society. Bourdieu’s concept of class would say that class is based off cultural and social capital, and due to this, avoids many of the problems encountered by Marx, as there are more than two broad social classes, allowing the class system to be more specific. To conclude, the Weberist concept of class is best fitted to the 21st century society, for many reasons but not limited to the fact that it is adaptable to a changing society, takes into account multiple factors, and allows class to fit society.