• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In this essay, I would try to critically evaluate Weber's contention that class, status and party are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Unlike Karl Marx's view that the society could be simply stratified into different classes, Max Weber argued that there should be three main dimensions in social stratification: class, status and party. In this essay, I would try to critically evaluate Weber's contention that class, status and party are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class. Though Weber agreed with Marx that in capitalist society, the ownership and non-ownership of the means of production is a very important factor to determine different classes, he considered the market situation as an important one as well and defined a class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy, and by virtue of that fact receive similar rewards. (Haralambos, 2000, p36) Weber classified the capitalist society generally into four classes: the propertied upper class, the propertyless intelligentsias (white-collar workers), the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class. The members of the top class always possess property through birth, inheritance or education, and the propertyless intelligentsias are employed by the top class to run their businesses or high-ranking state employees such as university teachers. Petty bourgeoisie are small businessmen and the manual working class are those who maintain their living by selling their labour. Weber differentiated the situations of propertyless classes mainly according to the skills and services people could offer. ...read more.

Middle

They share similar life style and make collective action for their share interests or objectives, for example, preventing outsiders from interacting with them, which was called "social closure" by Weber. An extreme example is the caste system in India. No one is allowed to marry a person from another status group by the law, so no one could join into another group. Similarly, in South Africa before 1992, there was an apartheid system that kept people from different race apart. Another typical example is that in modern Britain, some specific occupations always only accept people educated in public school and only the children from high status family could go to public schools. This is called elite self-recruitment. Property, which is the key element of class, will be the qualification of status in the long run, so status and class are closely linked, but they differ at the same time. A class could be divided into a few different status groups sometimes. Margaret Stacey distinguished the manual working class in 1950s into three status groups: the respectable working class, the ordinary working class and the rough working class. Though the rough working class always has the similar income with the ordinary working class, they belong to different status groups. So economic factor does not determine status solely. On the other hand, sometimes the members of a status group could come from different classes. ...read more.

Conclusion

This is a much more complex theory that is much closer to the reality nowadays, but to some extent, it could not understand the crucial importance of the ownership of the means of production so that the significance of class as a way of analyzing social inequality is reduced. Also, as there are so many different groups in the society due to Weber, and the groups can fragment further, so it is difficult to differentiate between them. But, on the other hand, many people choose to use it because sometimes distinctions simply in the ownership of property could not analyses the problems well. Moreover, Marxists cannot accept two views of Weber's that status and party could equal value to class and social divisions could be based on race or gender that belong to status rather than to class differences. They think that Weber ignored the existence of oppression experienced by some social groups. Weber also argued that the working class is consisted of various groups so that there is no unified class consciousness and there is social mobility existing in working class which is very difficult to occur. At last, a serious failure made by Weber is that when he explained the social stratification, he seldom considered of the class position of women and members of ethnic minorities in terms of conflict within society. (Griffiths, 2000, p22) As my evaluation, Weber made a great leap in the studies of social stratification after Marx, but his theory is still not completely right and good enough due to the concrete social situation he lived. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Sociology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Sociology essays

  1. Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class in contemporary societies.

    those who own factories, farms, coal mines, raw materials etc) and those who work for these 'bourgeoisie' 'proletariat' (i.e. the manual workers). So for Marx, private ownership of economic resources is the key factor of distinguishing the two classes. Weber agreed with Marx's view that different classes exist but he

  2. Comparisons and contrasts between the theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on social ...

    Weber felt that there is more than just one explanation to the rise of capitalism. Regardless of their differences there are many similarities in the theories. The underlying theme in both of the theories is that capitalism rose from a personal society to a highly impersonal society.

  1. Compare and contrast two of the perspectives - Marx & Weber

    Status separated these classes into lifestyles, occupations and religion. People of high status had high degrees of prestige or esteem. In general he believed that your behaviour reflected your respectability and 'worth' judged by other members of society. Examples of this are the 'newly rich', people who have recently and often suddenly acquired vast sums of money or assets.

  2. Compare and contrast Karl Marx's and Michel Foucault's analysis of the concept power.

    was able to exercise the absolute power that s/he owned that was a gift from God. However in the Modern ages the monarch was no longer identified as being the bearer of absolute power. God no longer decided who held power - the state through its various clusters of forces did.

  1. SOCIAL INEQUALITIES- CASTE AND CLASS

    In Jayaraman's essay, we can see that they considers the idea of Sriniva, where he states that 'relations between castes are governed not only by the concepts of pollution and purity but also economic, political and numerical power" (4), the power of purity overrules and is the power, which in fact controls all aspects of society.

  2. What are the major dimensions of social stratification?

    Functionalists seek to explain how stratification is functional to society as a whole. They believe that society have basic needs or "functional prerequisites" that must be met to maintain a certain a degree of order and stability for society to survive.

  1. I will examine the social class theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber, and ...

    Weber concentrated on an individual's market value, what things the individual did to acquire and deserve rewards. Whereas class was such a generalisation of people, it defined them only by economic constraints, not their social honour. Weber's market value identified and recognised the individual as an individual, rather than as Marx's faceless and nameless member of a mass class.

  2. Deforestation of the Amazon Rainfores- Humanities Essay

    Locally deforestation has alone killed off thousands of species of plants we once used to make medicines and the one's we could use in the future too. Deforestation destroys all the soil as it becomes defenceless against rain, soil erosion and soil fertility.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work