What Is Social Class How Is It Measured And Why Does It Matter - Essay Example

? What is social How is it measured and why does it matter? Introduction The term “social ” mainly shortened to “class,” denotes the horizontal stratification of the society. Within this broad definition, the notion of class bears no clear-cut agreed-upon meaning, but is employed either as an omnibus term denoting variations grounded in wealth, income, level of consumption, family background and group identification, or an examination based on these enumerated factors (Craib 2002, p.342). What is social class? Social class flows from status and refers to individuals with shared levels of wealth, influence and status. Status in this case represents a class system that is essentially achieved rather that ascribed (Jarvie 1972, p.98). Class, which is linked to prestige, power and wealth, can be regarded as entirely a universal phenomenon as it manifests in almost all modern complex societies. A social class is a fairly stable group differentiated from other classes by its habitual modes of behaviour (lifestyles of a certain class) incorporating aspects such as the mode of dress, living standards, means of recreation and cultural products. (Craib 2002, p.343). The foundation of social classes is mainly economic, although they are not simply economic divisions. This is informed by the fact that subjective criteria such as class consciousness, class identification and class solidarity always play a part in shaping the concept of class (Brooks and Svallfors 2010, p.199). Likewise, objective criteria such as occupational status, wealth and income, also exercise significant influence on the class system (Moore 2001, p.47). The class system, linked to class consciousness, encompasses a sentiment characterizing the relations between individuals and other classes. Most discussions on the concept of class seem to manifest the terminology problem detailing how the concept of class is employed within social theory, with theoretical disputes regarding the precise delimitation of the notion of class (Giddens and Sutton 2010, p.136). While all applications of the word class in social theory appeal to the problem of understanding systems of economic inequality, diverse uses of the word remain entrenched in different theoretical agendas incorporating diverse kinds of questions and hence, diverse kinds of concepts (Macionis and Plummer 2012, p.6). Major Foundations of the Concept of class Class as Subjective Location First, the concept of class sometimes features as an answer to the query: how do individuals, whether independently or collectively, position themselves, plus others, within a social structure of inequality? Class can be regarded as a possible response to this query in which the concept of class would be delineated as social categories within a configuration of economic stratification (Gordon 1949, p.262). The contents of such evaluative attributes will differ broadly (across time and space) depending on the lifestyles, occupation and income levels. The number of classes will equally differ contextually depending on the manner in which the actors within the social situation identify class distinctions. Class as Objective Position within Distributions Second, class is frequently central to the query: how are individuals objectively positioned in distributions of material inequality? In this approach, class flows material standards of living indexed in terms of income or wealth. The concept of class in this agenda can be regarded as a gradational concept positioning social class divisions from underclass to upper class. This is the concept of class that features most dominantly in popular discourse. Although, the subjective aspects of the position of individuals within systems of stratification may still be essential in sociological investigations using this concept of class, but the concept of the class itself captures the objective characteristics of economic inequality, rather than mere subjective classifications (Brooks and Svallfors 2010, p.200). Class as the Relational Explanation of Economic Life Chance Third, class may form part of the answer to the query exploring explanations to the inequalities in economically-catalogued life options. This features as an intricate and challenging question to the subject and is not something that merely rests on descriptively locating individuals within some form of stratification, whether subjectively or objectively, but spotlighting certain causal mechanisms that aid in determination of salient features of that system. Class, in this case, becomes a relational, rather than merely a gradational concept (Jarvie 1972, p.99). The concept of class is typified by both Weberian and Marxist traditions of social theory (Moore 2001, p.51). The concept of class, in this practice, is contrasted to other determinants of an individual’s life chances such as geographical location and forms of bias anchored in ascriptive characteristics such as genetic endowments, race or gender. Class as a Dimension of Historical Variation in Systems of Inequality This approach explores how individuals characterize and describe the dissimilarities within the social arrangement of inequalities. This question entails the urge for a macro-level concept, instead of a simply micro-level concept detailing the causal processes of individual lives, and it necessitates a concept that allows for macro-level differentiations across time and space. This notion is also significant in both Marxist and Weberian traditions; in Marxist tradition, the most outstanding aspect of historical variation in inequality rests on the manner in which economic systems differ depending on the way in which economic surplus is produced and appropriated and classes are thus delineated in terms of modes of surplus extraction (Grusky, Ku and Szele?nyi 2008, p.74). For Weber, in comparison, the chief problem of historical variation hinges on the degree of rationalization of diverse dimensions of inequality (Moore 2001, p.52). Class as a Foundation of Economic Oppression and Exploitation Finally, class plays a key role in exploring the kinds of transformations required to eliminate economic oppression and exploitation amid capitalist societies. This shapes out as one of the most contentious questions as it involves not merely an explanatory schedule or the mechanisms that produce economic inequalities, but a normative judgement regarding those inequalities (repression and/or exploitation). This is a characteristically Marxist question and it advocates a notion of class loaded with normative content. This approach supports a notion of class that is not simply outlined as per the social relations to economic resources, but which additionally features predominantly in a political project of emancipator change. Lower Class The lower class is epitomized by poverty, homelessness and unemployment. Individuals from this class normally have low education, suffer from inadequate medical care, housing and food, decent clothing, vocational training and safety or lack thereof. (Moore 2001, p.60). Frequently, the media stigmatize the lower class as the “underclass,” erroneously depicting poor people as welfare dependent mothers who exploit the system by having more and more babies or welfare fathers capable of working, but who choose not to, substance abusers, criminals and societal “trash.” The Working Class The working class represents minimally educated individuals who engage in “manual labour” with minimal or no prestige (Moore 2001, p.59). The unskilled workers, often labelled as the working poor, remain mainly underpaid and bear no opportunity for sizeable career advancement. Skilled workers in this class represent workers such as carpenters, electricians and plumbers. Blue collar workers sometimes may make more money compared to workers within the middle class; however, their jobs are mainly physical, taxing and in some instances relatively dangerous. The Middle Class The middle class, or the sandwich class, incorporates white collar workers who mainly have more than those below the social ladder, but equally less money than those above them. The middle class is divided into two levels according to principal elements such as wealth, education and prestige. The lower middle class comprises less educated individuals possessing comparatively low incomes while the upper middle class comprises highly educated professionals with high pay. The upper class This class shelters the lowest percentage of the society’s population such as 1-5% of the population. The upper class holds close to 25% of the nation’s wealth. The upper class can be split into two: lower-upper and upper-upper. The lower-upper class incorporates individuals with “new money,” or money derived from investments or business ventures (Moore 2001, p.61). The upper-upper class encompasses individuals from aristocratic and high-society families possessing “old money.” Moreover, individuals from the upper class also exercise significant influence and power, especially on the political class. Measurement of Social Class According to the working definition of social class, one can delineate three distinct social classes in the UK, namely: the upper class, middle class and working class. Other sociologists such as Sorokin advances three principal types of class stratification, namely: economic, political and occupational (Giddens and Sutton 2010, p.135). Based on the assertion that there are three types of social class, the next step details determining the class positions of different individuals, as guided by the notion that social class is essentially an economic concept. Hence, the measurement of social class will hinge on the analysis of attributes such as wealth, income and occupation (Gordon 1949, p.263). In broad terms, an individual with a comparatively low income, engaged in unskilled/manual occupation and with limited personal wealth is considered as working class. Individuals with higher incomes engaged in non-manual occupations (skilled occupations) and with substantial personal wealth could be portrayed as middle class (Moore 2001, p.46). Lastly, individuals with extremely high incomes, engaged in skilled occupations or receiving high incomes derived from enhanced level of invested wealth may be expressed as upper class. There are other factors considered as relevant or employed in the determination of an individual’s class position, namely: level of education, the parent’s social background, standard of living, ownership of homes and other consumer durables, leisure pursuits, individual’s accent and mode of dressing, the circle of friends and social connections and the power and influence that the individual holds in the society. This information is useful in measuring social class; however, the bulk of these factors tie to an individual’s wealth, income and occupation (Moore 2001, p.54). For instance, individuals delineated as belonging to upper social class or upper middle class are highly probable to enjoy high standards of living and pricey recreational pursuits owing to their wealth, wages and profession. Hence, in measuring an individual’s social class position, sociologists normally deliberate on income, wealth and occupation since all the other factors outlined above link to income, wealth and occupation. However, the classification of individuals into social classes is not necessarily smooth. First, the classification scheme may have been constructed from a single criterion of social class membership such as occupation. Such a schema fails to deliver sufficient information regarding the upper class as the individuals may be deriving high income from investment returns rather than occupation. Second, some individuals receive significantly high incomes and have accumulated massive personal fortunes, but are, however, difficult to designate to social classes (Moore 2001, p.55). Such individuals may entail individuals from the working class who have become self-made millionaire businessmen or highly paid sport persons and entertainers who come from the working class, but retain much of their working class characteristics. Third, sociologists frequently point out the distinction between social classes, principally perceived as an economic concept measurable by certain combination of earnings, affluence and occupation status, plus social status that is gauged of an individual’ social standing within the society. In the majority of the cases, an individual’s social status may be tied to their social class membership. Nevertheless, this is not automatic in that, for instance, nurses and members of the clergy may occupy higher social status within the society than would be suggested by their social class position. Similarly, there may be a uniform agreement that business leaders, politicians or bankers should occupy a high social status within the society, especially after the recent financial and political crises. As demonstrated by these points, although, individuals may view income, wealth and occupation as central determinants of social class position, it is essential to consider other elements of social class membership. Why Social Class Matters The diverse concepts of social class, varying theoretical perspectives on social class and the nature and construction of the social class structure are of critical importance in the study of differentiation and stratification (Andersen and Taylor 2008, p.241). There cannot be a truly classless society and the prevalence of class differentiation has translated into differential opportunities depending on social background wealth. Class matters because social class is an excellent indicator of wealth, which in turn allows choice and utilization of talents. Class differences permeate the society - classrooms, workplaces or neighbourhoods - and chart the way in which individuals lead their lives (Craib 2002, p.343). Social class does matter as it significantly dictates other aspects such as education attainment, occupational status and comfortable jobs (income) that shape social mobility. The impact of social class remains manifested by the prevalent class divisions along race and gender. Class divisions, plus the institutionalized and internalized rulebooks of class, impede the capacity of individual’s within the society to live the legacy of life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness (Andersen and Taylor 2008, p.242). Policy attitudes and preferences have long varied broadly between individuals manifesting diverse levels of income or wealth and offer the key to comprehending public opinion at either individual level or aggregate level. Individuals think differently regarding both social and political issues depending on their placing within the stratification order. Indeed, social class, which is linked to income, power and status, is a commanding force in shaping new media production and subsequently public opinion. Individuals from the low class are frequently underrepresented and misrepresented in news coverage and may be linked to negative stereotypes and criminality (Pakulski and Waters 1996, p.8). Conclusion The concept of ‘social class’ has overtime become a contentious issue in sociological theory. In contemporary sociology, a number of scholars assert “class as a concept is dying away and losing its significance to sociology” with several proclaiming “the demise of class”. However, there are others sociologists who value the concept of social class. Social class works in diverse domains including politics, education, health, gender and the family. Indeed, social class remains a fundamental part of identity within the society. The impact of social class is manifested by the variation of opportunities, whether educational or health, depending on class. Social class shapes the manner in which individuals think, feel or act. References List Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2008). Sociology: understanding a diverse society, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. pp.241-242. Brooks, C. & Svallfors, S. (2010). Why does class matter? Policy attitudes, mechanisms and the case of the Nordic countries, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 28 (2). pp.199-213. Craib, I. (2002). What is social class? Group Analysis 35 (3). pp.342-350. Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2010). Sociology: introductory readings, Cambridge, Polity. pp.135-137. Gordon, M. (1949). Social class in American Sociology, American Journal of Sociology 55 (3). pp.262-268. Grusky, D. B., Ku, M. C., & Szele?nyi, S. (2008). Social stratification: class, race and gender in sociological perspective, Columbia, Westview Press. pp. 74-78. Jarvie, I. C. (1972). Concepts and society, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp.98-100. Macionis, J. & Plummer, K. (2012). Sociology: A Global Introduction, Harlow, Pearson Prentice Hall. pp.6-8. Moore, S. (2001). Sociology alive! Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes. pp.46-61. Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The death of class, London [u.a.], Sage. pp.8-12. Read More