Analysing class and patterns of social mobility
By A. Swaby-Burton, Contributor

HAVING LOOKED at a question last week on ethnicity and race, I would like to focus this week on the method's used by sociologists to analyse class and if possible address some questions dealing with social mobility.

QUESTIONS

"Modern industrial societies are stratified mainly on the basis of social class based primarily on educational attainment and occupational status. Sociologists often need to evaluate the class structure of a particular society."

(a) Name three methods used by sociologists to measure social class.

(b) (i) Which of the methods named in (a) above is most appropriate to sociological research?

ii) Give reasons to justify the methods you named in (a) above.

(a) Social class does not exist "out there", any more than inches, gallons and kilogrammes do.

The concept of class, like anything (flying a kite or the concept of an inch), is something people impose on reality.

A sociologist can use three methods to analyse the class structure of a society. These include the reputational method, the subjective method and the objective method.

THE REPUTATIONAL METHOD

In this method, the researcher asks people what class they believe other people belong to. In other words, respondents are asked in which classes they would place other people. One of the most influential studies using the reputational method was carried out by W. Lloyd Warner and Paul Lunt in a small Massachusetts town of Newbury Port. Warner and Lunt conducted in-depth interviews with many residents of this community. In these interviews, they tried to find out how many classes the residents saw in their community and why they believed that specific people belonged to one class rather than another. It was soon clear that this small town was anything but classless. Certain terms like 'old aristocracy', 'the folks with the money', 'snobs trying to push up', 'nobodies' and 'poor folks but decent' were constantly referred to by respondents. Six classes were identified by Warner and Lunt; an upper, a middle and a lower, each containing an internal upper and lower level.

This method is useful in small communities where residents know each other. In these cases, it can provide fascinating insights into people's conceptions of class system. The method, however, has two disadvantages. First, it is difficult to apply it to large community, where people do not know many others well or to an entire society. Second, the methods depend heavily on the personal interpretations of the observer.

THE SUBJECTIVE METHOD

This method simply asks people to locate themselves in the class system. It has been used in several studies, usually at the national rather than at the local level. In the late 40s, a Fortune poll found that 80 per cent of the respondents claimed to be middle class. The magazine took these findings as evidence that the United States was truly a middle class society. Richard Coners (1949) objected to this conclusion. He pointed out that the poll had offered the respondents only the three choices: upper class, 'middle class' and 'lower class'. Using a national random sample, centres added a fourth choice, 'working class'. Approximately a half of respondents chose this category a finding that suggested that the United States was primarily a working ­ class society. The Fortune polls had not shown that the United States was a 'middle class' society rather it had reflected the fact that Americans have a distaste for the term lower class.

The subjective method has the advantage that it can be applied to a large population by polling a random sample. However, it also has its disadvantages. First, the results are influenced by the form of the question that is asked. Second, people may rank themselves higher than their incomes and lifestyles seem to justify.

OBJECTIVE METHOD

This method carries a misleading label, for it implies that the approach is more "scientific" and unbiased than the others. In fact, it is a purely arbitrary way of analysing a class system. The sociologist first sets a standard for determining class membership and then divides the population into a number of classes on this basis.

The objective method was pioneered by Lloyd Warner (1949) in his analysis of the class system of a small community. He constructed an "index of status characteristics" based at first on six main indicators: occupation, type of house, area of residence source of income, amount of income and amount of education. All these factors were found to correlate fairly strongly.

The objective method has the advantage that it gives clear-cut results and usually requires no painstaking collection of data. The relevant statistics are readily available from statistical departments and other agencies and all that needs to be done is to interpret the data received. The main disadvantage of this method is that it is so arbitrary. Different sociologists may use different criteria for determining class membership and may divide the same population into very different class categories. This method also ignores the belief that the people themselves have about the class system. There is some debate about whether sociologists can validly classify people as, say, 'working class' when these people are convinced that they belong to another class.

The objective approach is most appropriate since it is a more scientifically precise and reliable measurement. Also it does not vary according to people's subjective opinions.