Social stratification and social mobility
Max Weber ­ Class and Status
By A. Swaby-Burton, Contributor

WELCOME BACK as we continue our discussion on the theories of stratification with emphasis on Max Weber.

WEBER AND CLASS

Although Weber accepts Marx's view that class is founded on objectively given economic conditions, he sees a greater variety of economic factors as important in class formation than are recognised by Marx. According to Weber, class divisions derive not only from economic differences which have nothing directly to do with property. Such resources, according to Weber, includes the skills, credentials or qualifications which affect the types of job people are able to obtain. Those in managerial or professional occupations earn more, and have more favourable conditions of work, than for people in blue-collar jobs. The qualifications individuals possess, such as degrees, diplomas, certificates and their skills make them more 'marketable' than those without these qualifications.

At a lower level, among blue-collar workers, skilled craftsmen are able to earn higher wages than the semi-skilled or unskilled. A printer, for example, normally has greater skills and higher income than a casual labourer, and so it is over-simplified to describe them both as 'working class' as Marx did. So Weber's approach allows for a considerable number of finely graded occupational classes, each based on market position. All the people within each class share broadly similar life chances.

STATUS

Status refers to the degree, honour or prestige which is attached to social groups in society. According to Giddens (Anthony), status distinctions often vary independently of class divisions, and social honour may be either positive or negative ­ positively privileged status groups include groupings of people who have high prestige in a given social order. For example, lawyers and doctors have a high prestige in most societies, in particular Britain. Pariah groups are negatively privilege status groups subject to discrimination that prevents them from taking advantage of opportunities extended to most persons. The Jews were a pariah group in medieval Europe, they were banned from participating in certain occupations and from holding public or official positions.

Different status groups compete with each other for a greater share of social esteem. Moreover, the members of status groups tend to share common values and lifestyles and so they resemble a community in many respects. They use 'status symbols' to announce their membership of this community.

Possession of wealth normally tends to confer high status on individuals. However, there are many exceptions. For example, the term 'genteel poverty.' In Britain, individuals from aristocratic families continue to enjoy considerable social esteem even when they lose their fortunes. Conversely, 'new money' (for example, money obtained from the 'Lotto' or drug deals) is often looked on with some scorn by the well-established wealthy.

Status, then, has more to do with social evaluation based on consumption styles than with production. Thus, whereas class is objectively given, status depends upon people's subjective evaluations of social differences. So status groups are not quite the same thing as social classes. Classes derive from the economic factors associated with property and earning; status is governed by the varying styles of life groups tend to follow.

PARTY

In modern societies, Weber points out, party formation is an important aspect of power. When Weber talks about party, he is referring to the exercise of power by pressure groups, political parties, trade unions and other organised interest groups. These groups compete for power which Weber defined as the probability of imposing one's will even against the resistance of others.

Parties may form around social classes or status groups, a combination of these or on some entirely different basis. Parties can use their power to enhance their economic wealth but Weber does not accept that economic wealth automatically confers power. For example, a bureaucrat or trade union leader might exercise greater power than a rich employer. For him, power is concentrated in large bureaucracies rather than in the ownership of the means of
production.

See you next week as we explore the functionalist explanation of stratification.