Then and Now: Social Classes in the UK - Essay Example

Then and Now: Social classes in the UK The study of sociology, and even history, is not complete without delving into the social es that permeated different societies and cultures at one time or another. The most known and studied social stratification is in India, wherein the Caste system is still very much prevalent. However, India is not the only country wherein social classes prevail. Sociological research has shown that the United Kingdom—although not as obviously visible as that of India—is a society that is infused with a social hierarchy that breeds inequalities in opportunities, not only in its monarchy but also in its workforce. Social stratification is defined as the separation of a particular society into a hierarchy of disparate social classes. It has been present in the most ancient of civilizations. However, it has been noted by M. L. Bush (1992, p. 13) that it is particularly difficult to define the boundaries of what a social class is for its specific purposes differ in each hierarchy. For the purpose of this paper, social classes will be used as the parts of a social hierarchy, which is different in every country. This paper aims to show the social class differences that pervade British society then and now. The author will show, based on sociological research and analysis, that social class differences are still present in the UK today, albeit different in form. The effects of this social stratification will also be discussed. Social Classes in the UK: Then There have been many types of social stratification. There was slavery in ancient societies like Greece and the more recent slavery of the African-Americans in America, feudalism in Medieval Europe, the Caste System in India, the nobility in Genoa and Poland, the estates in Imperial Russia, and the elitist social classes in England (Bush, 1992). It is interesting to note that information on the subject of the social stratification in England during and before the 18th century are difficult to find (Bush, 1992, p. 116). However, the records created by Gregory King in 1688, Joseph Massie in 1760, and Patrick Colquhoun in 1803 have provided historians and sociologists with enough data to be able to recreate society back then (Bush, 1992, p. 116). Elizabethan England (mid-16th to 17th century) was composed of three social classes: Gentlemen; Burgesses; Yeomen, and Artisans or Labourers (McCann, 2002). The Gentlemen were the titled nobility headed by the Royal Family and the Bishop (McCann, 2002). The Yeomen was made up of free men who own small parchments of lands and make good money out of them (McCann, 2002). Burgesses are the citizens of England who belong to a borough and manage and represent their universities (McCann, 2002). The Yeomen work for the landed gentry, sometimes as footmen and butlers, until they have their own money to buy their own land (McCann, 2002). The last class was composed of farmers, laborers, tailors, shoemakers, and the like, who do not have their own lands to work and were thus employed with low wages (McCann, 2002). These four social classes were later on categorized into the three more generals, yet still similar, social classes which composed the social hierarchy during the 18th century: the elite landowners, the middling sort, and the laboring poor (Bush, 1992, p. 116). Form this data, the three basic English social classes can be seen—the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class, respectively. The Elite Landowners The elite landowners are the (usually) titled nobility of England that comprise less than 2 percent of the population during and before the 18th century (Bush, 1992, p. 116). However small in number they were, Bush (1992, p. 116) found that they comprise 15 percent of the country’s income. The 20th century saw these elite landowners evolve into the Upper Class. The members of the Upper Class was defined not solely by their wealth, but more importantly, by their status—“how their money was spent rather than how it was earned” (McKibbin, 1998, p. 1). Ross McKibbin (1998, p. 2) states the members of the Upper Class as: the members of the extended royal family and senior functionaries of the court, the old aristocracy, the political élites attached to the peerage by birth, marriage, or social affiliation, a good part of the gentry, many of the very wealthy and a few who were none of these but who had achieved rapid social ascent one way or another. The Middling Sort As with the name given to its class, the Middling Sort is characterized by the vast variety of its members. “They stretched from judges, state officials and great merchants at the top, on the margins of the landed elite, to small farmers and semi-independent craftsmen at the bottom, blurring into the ranks of the laboring poor” (Bush, 1992, pp. 116-117). The Middling Sort, which was labeled as the Middle Class in the 20th century, was composed mainly of the small businessmen and employees who earn a reasonable amount of wages between £250-£300 per annum—all of them are not entitled to the assistance of the state (McKibbin, 1998, p. 44). Their disposition was characterized by their perseverance in their professions and their aspirations and dreams of bettering their status (McKibbin, 1998, p. 45). It can be said that the Middle Class is neither luxuriously comfortable as the Upper Class or hardly making ends meet like the Labouring Poor. The Labouring Poor The Labouring Poor was composed of the unskilled laborers, soldiers, seamen, the vagrant, and the beggars and paupers (Bush, 1992, p. 116). During the 20th century, this class became the Working Class. The Working Class comprised the majority of the nation’s population, with an average range of 72-78 percent (McKibbin, 1998, p. 106). They do the manual labor and are present in all of the industries as janitors, factory workers, and the like. Bush (1998, p. 45) also expounded on this class by stating that they are defined in a particular business, such as a factory, against the Middle Class. While the latter was part of the management circle, the former was in charge of the manual labor, like sewing the buttons on a blouse, and so forth. Social Classes in the UK: Now Having thus discussed the history of social classes in England, it is now a lot easier to show how these classes are still present in today’s society. This section will discuss the relevance of the three social classes mentioned previously to the present time. This section is based on sociological research, studies on social mobility, and the use of the Marxist Model in order to prove the thesis that social class differences are as real today as they were centuries ago, although different in form. The Proletariat and The Bourgeoisie Karl Marx is known for his two divisions of social hierarchy. These two social classes can be applied to the UK at present in order to see the basic class struggle in British society. The two classes that Marx pertains to in The Communist Manifesto that divides society is the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat is the working class, the laborers who sell their skills in order to earn—in short the wage-earners or the employees while the Bourgeoisie is the “class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of production and employers of wage-labor” (Engels, 1888 in Marx and Eastman, 1956, p. 321). While this is a simplistic and general view of a social stratification, the resulting class enmity is a good way of showing how social class differences are still present in British society. The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, simply put, are the employees and their employers, respectively. Marx stated that the profits the capitalists make are due to their exploitation of the workers and labourers—their employees (Harris, n.d.). With 29.02 million British people employed in January 2007, it can be said that the relationship between employers and employees is crucial to the societal structure of the country (National Statistics Online, 2007). This relationship, however, is plagued with inequality brought about by the social class differences between the two, as elucidated by Richard Sennett (1999) in his article. Sennett (1999) stated that social inclusion at work has been weakened by the fact that workers fail to associate and relate well with their employers, and vise versa. The employers live in their own worlds filled with all the luxuries that money can buy, while the employees work their bodies to the ground in order to earn the salaries that they feel do not compensate well for their efforts. There is a clear demarcation line between the employers and the employees and both feel it. Few employers act to close the line, while almost all of the employee's dream of crossing over to the other side and the relationship that exists between them is marred by bitterness. Thus, the two act as social classes in an economic and social hierarchy. The Upper, Middle and Lower Classes The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie discussed above can further be divided into three modern social classes: the Upper, Middle, and Lower Classes. The Upper Class is composed of the employers, the Bourgeoisie—the owners of businesses and large corporations, similar to that of the elite landowners of the 18th century. The Upper Class can also include the upper management—the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of large companies that are also considered as employees (those high positions that are not occupied by the owners). The members of this class are characterized by their luxurious way of life brought about by their wealth—whether inherited or earned. Doctors, lawyers, and others of the same profession who earn a lot and can afford luxuries like sending their children to Eton are also considered to be part of the Upper Class. The Middle Class is comprised of the white collared professionals. They are the managers, clerks, programmers, teachers, nurses, and the like—those that can afford to live comfortably, although not extensively. The Working Class is composed of the blue collared workers who do the manual labor. They are the technical workers, factory workers, janitors, maids, etc. Although they earn very little, they can still afford to eat three times a day. Here, one can see how the modern social classes are based solely on wealth and the luxuries associated with it. Social Mobility Social mobility is defined as the movement or the shift from one stratum or class to another (Covington, 1997). With the creation of more industries and occupations and good education come big opportunities for the rate of social mobility to increase. However, Goldthorpe (quoted in Saunders, 1995) found that “recruitment into higher class positions is socially biased in favor of those who themselves originate in these classes, and that those born into the higher classes are to some extent insulated against the possibility of falling into the working class.” Even though there are a lot of opportunities to transfer from the Middle Class to the Upper Class, the latter remains elusive as it is described as “unfair” and extremely elitist (Saunders, 1995). Here, one can see how the prejudices from the social stratification of 18th century England remain. Even with amassed wealth, some people are still considered outside the Upper Class and considered “nouveau riche,” a deprecating label for those who have just acquired their wealth and wish to be considered a member of the Upper Class. Conclusion It is evident that social class differences are still present today in the way the British treat one another, whether at work or in social events. Although there have been opportunities to increase the rate of social mobility, studies show that the increase is not proportionate to the opportunities that have opened (Goldthorpe, cited in Saunders, 1995). Even though many would deny that social classes are still prevalent in British society, this paper proves that social class differences have transcended time. Albeit different in form and characteristics, one thing has not changed—that is the fact that wealth and status will always remain, and as they do, so does the presence of social classes. The excerpt of a newspaper article below is a strong economic proof that social classes still exist and they are classified according to the salaries people make and the luxuries they can afford with it: Who are the top 1%? They earn over £100,000. There are over half a million of them, and two-thirds live in London and the south-east. Most are in jobs, with only a quarter self-employed. This 1% earns 8% of the nation's income, while the bottom tenth earns just 3%. The rich pay a smaller proportion of their money in taxes, and that of the poorest is much higher due to the regressive VAT. (Toynbee, 2004 quoted in Harris, n.d.) References Bush, M. L. (1992). Social Orders and Social Classes in Europe since 1500: Studies in Social Stratification. London: Longman. Covington, P. (1997). Social Mobility. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.sociology.org.uk/pcsocmob.doc Harris, D. (n.d.). Social class in the UK -- an introduction. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.arasite.org/socclUK.html Marx, K. and Eastman, M. (1959). Capital, The Communist Manifesto, and Other Writings. New York: The Modern Library. McCann, B. (2002). Elizabethan England: The Social Classes. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.storyoflondon.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=300&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 McKibbin, R. (1998). Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press. National Statistics Online (2007). Labour Market. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12 Saunders, P. (1995). Might Britain be a Meritocracy? Sociology, 29(1): 23 – 41. Sennett, R. (1999). How Work Destroys Social Inclusion. New Statesman, 128(4438): 25+. Read More