Critically evaluate Weber's contention that class, status and party are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.

Critically evaluate Weber’s contention that class, status and party are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.

Weber developed a different approach to the study of social groups and classes than did Marx. According to Marx, there are two primary classes in society: bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx considers these classes to be defined and determined by whether they own the means of production. Weber agreed with certain fundamental aspects of Marx thought. For Weber, ownership and non-ownership of property was a basic fact in the determination of a class. But there are some significant differences between Weber and Marx. Weber saw class in terms of “market situation”. He defined a class that a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy and therefore share a similar life-chance in the labour market, including receives similar economic rewards. In contrast to Marx, however, Weber added to the economic dimension of stratification two other dimensions, power (party) and social honor. Property differences generate classes, power differences generate parties; and social honor differences generate status. Class, status and party are there distinct entities for Weber.

Weber distinguished four class groupings in capitalist society: the propertied upper class; the propertyless white-collar workers; the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class. Weber agree with Marx that class situation is based on ownership and non-ownership of capital, but for Weber it will also vary within and between these categories according to “market situation”. The propertyless class is defined by the kinds of services individual workers provide in the labour market. Workers are classified as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. These distinctions are based on the value of different kinds of labour. In return for what people bring to the labour market they are rewarded differently in terms of income, job security and opportunities. These differences result in unequal life-chances and could be regarded as different social class.

Marx predicted that white-collar workers have become part of the proletariat and so can no longer be considered middle class. In contrast to Marx, Weber saw no evidence to support the idea of the polarization of classes. He argued that the petty bourgeoisie would enter white-collar class rather than sink down into the manual worker class. For Weber, society is pluralistic and there are differences between manual workers and those who provide professional services. These differences result in different market situation and thus lead to diversification of classes. Weber saw a diversification of classes and an expansion of white-collar class rather than a polarization.

Weber disagree the view, held by Marx that inevitability of the proletarian revolution. He suggested that workers who feel hopeless or dissatisfied with their class situation might act in a variety of ways. They may complain, take strike action, destroy industrial machinery or organize other members of the class trying to overthrow the capitalism. He saw no reason why workers should necessarily develop an awareness of their situation and act collectively upon it. Weber argued that the extent of the contrasts between the property owners and the propertyless workers must become transparent to the workers in order for collective ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Weber also rejected Marx view that political power necessarily derives from economic power. For Marx, those who own the means of production exercise political power either directly or indirectly. Weber agreed that economic power is the predominant form, especially in the capitalism. But, unlike Marx, he claimed that power did not emerge only from economic sources. He regarded the importance of non-economic factors, principally those which are related to status and social honor. He objects that “the emergence of economic power may be the consequence of power existing on other grounds.” So the distribution of power in society is not necessarily linked to the distribution of class inequalities.

Economic power was not the source of all power. There are distinct spheres and bases for power in society. Weber said that status groups are determined by the distribution of social honor. Social honor refers to any distinction, respect or esteem that is accorded to an individual by others. Social honor is expressed in social relationships, in how we interact with each other. Social honor could recognize ethnic or religious characteristics, male-female characteristics or lifestyle characteristics. And different lifestyles have different degree of social honor. Status groups are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by lifestyle.

Status groups are usually associated with some restrictions on social intercourse or interaction. That is, there is some degree of closure to outsiders, and the status group exercises some degree of management of relationships of those within the group. Social closure involves the exclusion of some people from membership of a status group. Occupational groups who enjoy certain group-related advantages-such as high incomes, educational advantage and so on-using their resources to sustain their relatively privileged position and exclude others from it. In the higher-status groups there is a considerable degree of self-recruitment. This is a process by which members of a stratum are recruited from the sons of those who already belong to that stratum. Elite self-recruitment involves the economic and culture resources that status groups use to pass their privileges on to their children. Many members of elites attended public schools and went to Oxford or Cambridge University.

There are fairly high correlations between standing in the class and in the status order. In capitalist society, the propertied class also acquires high status and in principle propertied and propertyless people may belong to the same status group. However, sometimes similar class position does not necessitate similar status groups. Some forms of property ownership are connected with prestige, others are not. "Old money" typically confers greater status than "new money." Rentiers usually hold greater status than entrepreneurs, because their wealth is less visibly connected to labor. Status group may create divisions within classes. The manual working class may be divided into some status groups by different lifestyles. Status groups can also cut across class lines. This is especially within ethnic groups. The member of group from different class background and are involved in the whole ethnic group. They share a similar lifestyle and have their specific cultural traits. Another example of this is that homosexuals. They from different class and have Gay Rights organizations and events such as the annual Gay Pride celebration in Britain. These are their cultural traits within the status group. Gernder groupings might be seen to cur across social class, and perhaps even be more important than class. A working-class women wuld have more in common with a middle-classs woman than with a working-calss man.

While classes are in the economic order, status groups in the social order, parties in the sphere of power. Parties are organizations and they involve striving for a goal in a planned manner. Parties aim for social power, the ability to influnence the actions of others, and thus may exist in a social club or the state. Parties may be political parties, or they may be other organizations aimed at achieving other goals. Examples could be groups organized around helping to solve the problems of specific diseases, groups such as the Wildlife society. Some may have political effects, others may merely attempt to pursue a particualr aim of those in the organization. So parties concentrate on social power not speicificlly political power.

Party is pressure groups, some of these may be overt; others may hidden. For political parties to gain political power, they must attempt to represent a fairly broad rage of interests. British Labour Party primarily represent a specific class and we can see that it is a pressure group. Some parties are hidden pressure groups. For example, Protestant ethic, which was established for purely religious reasons. Weber argued that the establishment and power of this ethic had the unintended consequences of assisting the development of capitalism.

Although parties are based on class and status, they are usually organized across these distinctions. That is, it is rare for parties to be based solely on class or status interests parties may represent class or status interests, or neither. They usually represent a mix. Parties can divide and cut across both classes and status groups. Weber saw an intimate relationship between classes, status groups and parties. He described it as follows: …parties may represent interests determined through “class situation” or “status situation” and they may recruit their following, respectively, from one or the other. But they need be neither purely “class” nor purely “status” parties, and frequently they are neither. ( H.Gerth and C.W.Mills, from Max Weber, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958) So according to Weber, the relationship between party and class and status groups is far from clearcut.

In conclusion, there are several differences between Weber and Marx. Marx saw capitalist society as divided into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He argued that men in differnet relations to the means of production naturally have opposed interests. Class is based on ownership and non-ownership for Marx. In conrast to Marx, Weber defined class in terms of market situation. He saw important differences in the market situation of the property less groups. The various skills and services offered by different occupations have different market value. Weber saw a diversification of classes rather than polarization which is held by Marx. He also suggests that disatisfied among the property-less groups can be based on rational motives, and not false consciousness. According to Weber, classes are based on market stuation, status groups refer to social honor, and parties in the sphere of power. So for Weber, class, status and party are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.