These are generally based on a structured functionalist view or a conflict view
(Goodman, 1992).To understand how these theories reflect and influence the notion on
inequality in Australia’s social classes, this paper explores different classes in Australia
and how these may contribute to inequality.
Australia is believed to be a classless society. But, it is impossible to understand Australia
or the lives of Australians without referring to class ( Mcgregor, 1997). It helps to explain
everything from ‘ lifestyles to accents, from voting patterns to real estate prices, from
TV soaps to social climbers to the politics of the labour party, from John Howard to Ita
Buttrose to Paul Hogan, from the social makeup of Australian cities to the myths and
images juggled by the advertising agencies, to the most profound conflicts within
Australian culture’ ( Mcgregor, 1997., p.2).Therefore to live in Australia, we have to
realise and understand that different social classes have different jobs, live in different
suburbs, go to different schools, get different incomes, speak different ways, experience
crucial differences in privilege and inequality.
There are said to be three main classes in Australia – the upper class, the middle class and
the working class. The boundaries between these classes can be disputed (Haralambos,
Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996).Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small minority
of the population regarded as ‘upper class’. Their wealth is derived from direct ownership
of property and capital (Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996). A middle class
consists of individuals with non manual occupations. They enjoy the benefits of high
income. The white collar workers like secretaries, clerks and shop assistants are ‘lower
middle class’ (Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996). The working class people
are defined as having non ownership of production, their role is to provide labour to the
dominant or ‘ruling class’ (Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996). The concept
of an underclass was constructed in 1987 for people who are unemployed long term and
others dependant on welfare payments and aboriginal people (Haralambos, Krieken,
Smith & Holborn, 1996). Family break up, drug and alcohol misuse, and crime appear to
be the consequences of an underclass phenomenon. Significantly the social disadvantage
transfer from generation to generation.
According to the functionalist view some form of stratification is inevitable socially.
They view society as composed of a complex system of statuses and roles. In order for a
society to function those ‘statuses’ must be occupied by well qualified people. The most
important positions require extensive training. Subsequently the person undertaking such
responsibility has to be compensated with high rewards and opportunities. Therefore
society develops some systems of unequal rewards. Functionalist argues that talents and
skills are not equally distributed in society (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis 1979). Thus
stratification is necessary to motivate those with necessary skills to occupy necessary
positions and maintain stability in the society. This case appeals to the professional class
or ‘upper class’ in society but creates inequality (Goodman, 1992). The Functional
importance of any position in society can be difficult to establish, and for example a
garbage collector who requires little skill and training, is essential for the community as
well as a doctor ( Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996).This possibly creates
unequal life opportunities and rewards for the society. Stratification also tends to
perpetuate inequality. People in a hierarchy tend to foster their children’s interest and
perhaps deny opportunities to those with superior talent. This is reflected in Steing an
Wai’s study of interlocking directorates ( Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996)
Such situation can harm both parties and deprive society of talent (Goodman, 1992). In
functionalist theory the society is a meritocracy, in which the relationship between
qualities and rewards earned does not reflect reality (Goodman, 1992). There are two
types of inequality which are inherent inequality and inequality by merit. The first
inequality occurs ‘biologically’ and the later because of a meritocracy society based on
assignment of position and greater social rewards (Mckee, 1981).
Karl Marx argued that there are only two major classes in society ; masters and slaves in
ancient societies, lords and serfs in feudal societies and capitalist and wage labourers in a
capitalist societies (Goodman, 1992).In other words there are only two classes in society :
those who own the means of production and those who do not. He saw the divisions
stemming from the difference in ownership of wealth and production as inherently
exploitative (Goodman, 1992). This is a characteristic feature of inequality in society and
can be perceived in various ways for example economic inequality, access to material
resources, and inequality of status ( Jamrozik, 1991). There is also a middle class in
Australian society which can be said to contradict Marx’s two –class view.
Like Marx, Weber saw class in economic terms. In Weber’s terminology power is the
capacity to get things done (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis 1979). Therefore economic wealth
is the power to get what one desires. All forms of inequality are inequality of power. The
three dimensions to power are economic, prestige and absolute power (Cuff, Sharrock &
Francis 1979). Both Marx and Weber focused on conflict aspects of social life rather than
integration that refer to class struggle, domination and subordination. This conflict
implies a hierarchical order and stratified society (Jamrozik, 1991).
Theories have a practical basis for stratification that perceives inequality in the classes. In
a general consensus there is more than one way class inequality can be interpreted; the
role of the educational system, changes in the occupational structure, women’s role in the
economy, access and equity (Worsley 1991).Stratification is not only economic but has a
significant base of social prestige and of power in its own right. For example, political
party- basis to exercise power does not derive simply and directly from ownership of
wealth or from having an established position in the society (Worsley, 1991). Such
theories of stratification focus on individuals rather than groups or institutions and make
it difficult to identify how some groups of individuals engage in organised social and
economic actions (Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996). The types of variables
used in mobility research are unpredictable and makes it difficult to pinpoint class
relations in the Australian society ( Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996).
Especially in the Marx and Weber perspective, theories concentrate on level of income
and neglect the examination of the ownership of wealth and property or the source and
type of income (Haralambos, Krieken, Smith & Holborn, 1996).
In conclusion, it is difficult to discuss stratification without either justifying or attacking
it. Most theories of stratification explain why there must be inequality in society. There
are a number of ways inequality has been justified, but mainly tends to fall into two main
perspectives: Inherent inequality explains the biological superiority and Inequality by
merit that endorses opportunities for qualified people. The functionalist view supports the
later and asserts that in every society there are some positions that are of greatest
importance and require a great amount of training or talent. From a functionalist
perspective, stratification is an unconsciously evolved device. In contrast, Marx argues
that private ownership of the means of production created the oppressive class system.
Likewise, Weber asserts that the class struggle is over the distribution of goods in which
power is significant to distribution. Theories which justify inequality can be seen as
convenient rationalizations (Mckee, 1981).The existence of inequality is seen by some as
a persistent feature in Australian society. Classlessness, it would seem, is an idea whose
time has not come yet. Therefore class is important in Australia, even more today,
because inequalities appear to be increasing.
Bibliography
Cuff, E.C., Sharrock, W.W., & Francis, D.W. (1979). The Perspectives in Sociology. New York: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Goodman, N ( 1992). Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Haralambos, M, Krieken, R.V, Smith, P & Holborn, M (1996) Sociology themes and perspectives – Australian edition. Melbourne: Longman.
Jamrozik, A. (1991). Class inequality and the state. Melbourne: The Macmillan company of Australia Pty. Ltd.
McGregor, C. (1997). Class in Australia (p.p.2). Victoria: Penguin book Australia Ltd
McKee, J. (1981). Sociology – The study of society. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Worsley, P. (1991). The Sociology Readings. Engalnd: Penguin group.
