Sociological Explanation of Social Class - Assignment Example

Sociological Explanation of Social Marx, Weber and Functionalist Views on Social Different social thinkers have considerably different views about the concept of social class as a fundamental phenomenon of modern society. According to Ferrante, “Sociologists use the term class to designate a person’s overall economic and social status in a system of social stratification” (161). In addition, Ferrante opines that social class is normally considered as a basic factor in deciding an individual’s life chances (Ferrante 161). It has been observed that the differences based on social class have considerably declined in recent decades especially in the case of developed nations. However, social inequality is still a nagging problem in many societies around the world, which is yet to be addressed and resolved. This work aims to focus on three important theoretical perspectives on social class; Marxism, Weber and Functionalism. Marx’s idea of social class can be traced back to the publication of his principles in the Communist Manifesto which was created in collaboration with Friedrich Engles. Ferrante notes that according to Marx’s manifesto, industrialisation and mechanisation resulted in a change in the labour process, and this led to the formation of a class divide between individuals who claimed ownership of the means of production and the working class who had no control over the means of production (161). The ones who owned are called “the bourgeoisie” and the working class is called “the proletariat”. Browne opines that if the bourgeoisie are the people who own the means of production, they also are the people who own key resources which are essential for fulfilling society’s demand for goods and services (400). In accordance with the Marxist perspective, this situation leads to the accumulation of profits in the hands of the bourgeoisie. When these profits are not shared with the working class, the differences in wealth grow. This situation promotes social inequality because of sizeable differences in assets, finances, income and wealth (Browne 401). An interesting aspect of Marx’s theory of social class is that as bourgeoisies enjoy superior social standing, they have the opportunity to impose their views and decisions on other members of society. The result of this phenomenon is that it puts the proletariat in a state of ‘false consciousness’ in which they are unable to understand their own true interests (Browne 401). On the other hand, Weber’s view on social class claims that an individual’s position in the social class system is decided by various factors like their expertise, skills or other qualifications. These factors are termed as “varying marketable abilities” (Ferrante 162). In other words, the concept is that a person’s chances to acquire a higher social standing increase when he/she possesses expertise, skills or qualifications that meet two criteria – they are in demand and also rare (Browne 404). As already mentioned, Marx’s ideology mainly focuses on the different scenarios that are experienced by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. On the other hand, Weber classifies people as the negatively privileged property class and the positively privileged property class. The former lacks skills, expertise, employment prospects and assets. As a result, the latter is able to enjoy expensive consumer goods and services because of their superior market situation or marketable abilities (Ferrante 162). From the analysis, it becomes evident that the views of Marx and Weber on the matter of social class and social inequality are similar because of the presence of a conflict view. Still, their fundamental natures are considerably different. These views are considerably different from the functionalist view which is largely based on consensus. In the opinion of Browne, according to functionalists, social class and the inequalities associated with it are an unavoidable part of the social system (399). The reasoning provided by the advocates of this view is that certain professionals provide more benefit to society because of the nature of their jobs. Evidently, it is not possible for everyone to possess the talents and skills required to acquire the qualifications that are required for these jobs. It is claimed by Functionalism that it is necessary to base the entire system on inequitable rewards to encourage talented individuals to work hard to gain better qualifications. Without the motivation of a successful future, no one will be ready to undertake key professional positions which require expertise and skills (Browne 400). Though functionalists successfully develop a rational view on social class, the view faces stringent criticism from various angles. Firstly, it fails to acknowledge the fact that many significant occupations which are considered essential for maintaining society receive very small incentives. In addition, this theoretical perspective also ignores the fact that money is not the sole motivating factor for all people. While some are motivated by income, some others find job satisfaction and recognition as motivating. Therefore, income cannot be recognised as the sole source of motivation for individuals (Browne 400). Social Class and Life Chances According to the definition of Browne, the term “life chances” means an individual’s possibility of getting access to all those things that are considered as desirable and staying away from acquiring those things which the society categorises as undesirable (37). In the opinion of Ferrante, sociological definitions of class define it as the phenomenon in which an individual’s association with a particular section of society is responsible for defining his/her life chances (161). In order to understand how various groups as well as the wider community are negatively affected by social inequality, it is necessary to analyse the impact of life chances on an individual’s prospects. When life chances are taken into consideration, Browne identifies that access to quality education is an important element in deciding a person’s success in future endeavours. That means an individual’s affiliation with a lower strata of society negatively impacts his/her chances of receiving quality education (37). This example proves that a person’s birth into a lower class in society determines the poor course of his/her academic future. Such a person will get education in substandard schooling systems. In fact, poor schools are characterised by 1) high turnover rate of teaching staff; 2) absenteeism; 3) low enrollment rate; 4) poor standard of teaching; 5) lack of school supplies; 6) substandard books and reading material; 7) presence of social problems; and 8) unstable environment. Once a child from a poor background is exposed to such an education system, the child’s possibility of getting better quality higher education in future is nearly nil. This example shows how education in substandard schools can affect life chances by preventing the individual from gaining a lucrative job, purchasing a house and accessing adequate medical facilities to maintain good health (Browne 37). In fact, it is wise to examine multiracial groups in order to fully understand the impact of social class on groups. According to Korgen, racial inequality is a critical factor of consideration in detailing trends and applying the concept of social stratification in society (166). A large-scale survey that was conducted on a sample size of multiracial groups in the United States established that different racial groups have different levels of economic status. For example, the findings of the research revealed that Asians and non-Latino Whites can be identified as the most advantaged racial groups within the nation with their standing in the social stratum correlating with the factor of home ownership, family income, geographic location and geographic mobility in a positive manner (Korgen 175). In the community, the impact of social class on life chances can be better understood through the “cycle of poverty” as suggested by Browne (440). According to Browne, it is difficult for a group to come out of this cycle and improve their social and economic situation. For example, people living in the poor neighbourhoods are likely to face unhygienic surroundings, malnourishment, more violence, and poor education. That means poor hygiene and poor food result in poor health and more diseases, and poor education and poor opportunities result in poor employability and poor income. Thus, the cycle of social inequality continues unabated. This view is supported by a comparative analysis of a slum neighborhood in Mumbai, India and an affluent community in London, England. The comparison reveals that social class shapes community prospects because individuals that belong to an upper section of society do not face social issues and problems which are usually present in working class communities. The provision of quality education, availability of healthcare facilities and sound housing conditions contribute in the enhancement of individual’s lives because they are not faced with the same social pressures and unstable environment which members of a working class community are subjected to. As identified by Browne, communities that survive in slum neighbourhoods do not possess even the most basic resources that are required to sustain life (36-37). The impoverished conditions in slum communities lead to instability and conflict because members experience resentment in their existing conditions. Moreover, in an unstable situation, the community’s chances of successfully meeting social challenges become restricted as its inhabitants are essentially stuck in what Browne describes as a “cycle of poverty”. This limits the chances of the community’s progress (440). The core of this argument is that the cycle of poverty makes their cost of living very high. As a result, a community which belongs to a lower class of society cannot hope to escape its conditions. This eventually has a permanent and negative effect on each individual’s life chances in the community. Social Class Models Government agencies often use an individual’s occupation or affiliation with a specific socio-economic group as the definition of social class (Browne 405). Governing bodies within the United Kingdom widely employ the stipulations of The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC), which are based on the recommendations of The Standard Occupational Classification, 2010 (SOC2010). NS-SEC is established to determine the occupational standing of individuals in addition to the financial security, opportunities for economic progress, and the extent of autonomy and power that their job provides them (Browne 406). NS-SEC identifies eight classes in the society and these classes are termed using common terminology, which are upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, skilled manual workers or upper working class, skilled manual workers or upper working class, semi-skilled manual workers or working class, unskilled manual workers or lower working class and the underclass (Browne 406). Out of the eight classes, NS-SEC includes class 3 and class 4 under the terminology of lower middle class. These are such individuals that perform non-manual work in either intermediate occupations or render their services to employers of a small scale (Browne 406). Similarly, class 5 includes employees that perform jobs that are of a supervisory nature but on a lower level or within technical professions. In addition, manual labour comes under class 3 (Browne 406). Furthermore, the lowest class that has been represented in the model consists of individuals that have never fulfilled their duties in an employment position or been bounded by a long-term employment contract. Browne understands that such individuals also include those persons who are not able to seek employment because of health reasons or longstanding illnesses (Browne 406). Admittedly, this NS-SEC model has serious limitations. To illustrate, this occupational framework does not take into account the additional power that the group of wealthy upper class or the elite of society enjoys. Browne understands that such individuals are the ones who enjoy ownership of substantial assets, property, authority, power and influence in society which are not the result of their occupation (406). Due to the presence of this element, occupational scales such as the NS-SEC possess a critical limitation because they fail to reveal and highlight income and wealth discrepancies in society that are a consequence of significant class differences. The principles for occupational classification under SOC2010 are based upon the skills which are required for each occupation. Thus, the positioning of occupations in this framework arranges jobs according to the similarity of training, education, capabilities, skills, experience and qualification (Browne 407). However, this model shares the limitations faced by NS-SEC. Importance of Social Class-based Models According to Rose, the need for developing socioeconomic classifications that are primarily based on the occupational differences of individuals or social class based on occupation (SC) has been documented extensively in literature and scholarly works (8). In fact, the usefulness of occupational scales and the manner in which they have been utilised by governmental agencies have been proved by research into the applications of the models. As stated by Rose, Pevali and O’Reilly, these assessments based on occupational difference have proved vital in the identification of health inequalities and discrepancies that prevail in the U.K, specifically with regard to the assessment of the relation between socio-economic condition and mortality (8). The development of models based on occupational difference has allowed researchers to develop public health policies that reflect a substantial difference between the state of the upper class and underclass. The usefulness of occupational scales indicates that presence of what Rose, Pevalin and O’Reilly define as a “class gradient in health” whereby social class has been highlighted as a fundamental factor in promoting health inequalities. It is because of this factor that employees falling in the category of class 1 and class 2 occupations report greater life expectancy than those workers who belong to unskilled occupations (8). Rose, Pevalin and O’Reilly point out that with the aid of social class frameworks, the U.K government was convinced into accepting the reality of health inequalities in the nation and initiated the Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation campaign amongst several other measures throughout the decade of the 90s (8). The major objective of such campaigns was to eliminate the widening health gap and to enable each citizen to have access to quality healthcare irrespective of his/her social standing or occupation. Rose, Pevalin and O’Reilly assert that the assessment of variations in citizens’ health is a precondition for identifying trends in healthcare and producing appropriate public health policies for better governance (8). Accordingly, the identification of correlations and causal relationships such as the association between social class and health inequality is of fundamental significance in addressing the root of the problem and formulating strategies that are effective and successful in the long term. As a result of this view, occupational scales have indeed aided governmental agencies in public health policy formulation. Apart from the public health policy implications of Social Class based on Occupation (SC), the framework has also aided the development of comprehensive demographic reports, literature, and key social surveys on the state of society for the purposes of highlighting issues and problems. This acts as a major source of information in research for academic purposes (Rose, Pevail and O’Reilly 9). An evaluation of the ways in which occupational classifications have been utilised by governmental agencies is essentially linked with conducting an assessment of the state of the nation from a sociological perspective and developing solutions to resolve issues that have existed because of social inequality and the wealth and income gap. Therefore, the premise of Social Class based on Occupation is based on the concept that occupation is a key determinant in defining class. This identification aids in the establishment of correlations and causal relationships between phenomenon and helps in prioritizing governmental actions by narrowing down the scope of recovering appropriate solutions for pressing social issues. It is evident that occupational scales do possess certain limitations because of the exclusion of non-paid employment and the wealthy upper class that could possibly bound the effectiveness of solutions by hiding the true depth of income and wealth discrepancy. However, it is not possible to ignore the fact that occupational classifications have been a key source of data for research on social issues in the U.K. Works Cited Ferrante, Joan. Sociology: A global perspective. Cengage Learning, 2012. Ken Browne. An introduction to sociology. Polity, 2011. Korgen, Kathleen Odell, ed. Multiracial Americans and Social Class. Routledge, 2010. Rose, David, David J. Pevalin, and Karen OReilly. The national statistics socio-economic classification: origins, development and use. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Read More