As the last generation has seen a de-industrialisation there has been a decline in the number of blue collar jobs and an increase in white collar jobs. This has lead to a rise in economic value, home ownership and roles of women increasing in society therefore has bridged the gap between the two extreme classes with more and more individuals moving to middle class positions within the UK today. Some view class stratification as a value consensus (functionalist theory) whereas others view it as a source of conflict (Marxism and social action theories e.g. Weber)
Functionalists see the parts of society forming an integrated whole therefore they investigate the way in which class stratification is integrated with other parts of society. To help explain this they use they biological analogy to explain society. Functionalists believe a functional prerequisites (order and stability) are essential for society to survive. Parsons (1964) states that stratification is inevitable and unite people as all societies have shared values. Inequalities are based on meritocracy; therefore the division of labour is based on differential rewards.
Davis and Moore state that stratification is a permanent and universal feature of society which is functionally necessary. Social systems share functional prerequisites to survive. Higher rewards are offered to the better jobs in society which therefore creates competition for these positions however it is difficult to decide which jobs are functionally more important. They also ignore the influence of power on the unequal distribution of rewards. They assume there is a general consensus on the patterns of rewards. Functionalists also ignore the fact that stratification can de-motivate those at the bottom of the hierarchy preventing them from achieving their potential. Those in the top of the hierarchy tend to put up barriers so not to allow those wanting to climb the hierarchy into their group. This shows that not everyone can achieve the rewards for hard work as Parsons and Moore first identified. Tumin (1953) states that many low paid/unskilled jobs are just as important as higher paid jobs e.g. bin men and cleaners are just as vital in society as doctors and lawyers.
Glass (1954) supports the functionalist’s theory of stratification. His study Social Mobility in Britain was the first sociological study on mobility in Britain and studied inter-generational mobility of men from different generations. ~It identified high levels of intergenerational mobility with 2/3 of men interviewed in different status groups to their fathers. It found that 1/3 had experienced upward mobility, 1/3 downward mobility and 1/3 had remained in the same category as their fathers. Glass found that class status of the family directly affected life chances.
Although this study, on the surface shows social mobility within society, if it is studied deeper it proves that mobility may be limited and gives evidence of social closure. The higher the occupational status of the father the more likely the son was of achieving a high status position. In the high status categories there was a significant degree of self recruitment. 45% of the members in category 1 in the Registrar General Scale were the sons of fathers also in category 1. This is 13 times greater than what would be expected by chance. If parental occupation had no influence on a person’s status then you would expect 3.5% of the sons in category 1 to have fathers in the same position. The validity and reliability of the study must also be questioned as the data was collected retrospectively. It ignored the role of women in society and also ignored the top 5% of the population however it is a significant study within sociology as it gives an indication of mobility.
An alternative view of stratification to functionalism is Weber’s social action theory. Weber, although coming from a Marxists’ point, he saw Marx’s view as too simplistic to understand class solely on economic terms. Weber saw stratification resulting from the struggle for scarce resources within society, struggles being motivated by economic resources, prestige and political power. He defined class as ‘a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy’. Class is influenced by jobs as market position is class position allowing for a number of occupational classes. Different classes have different life chances e.g. increased opportunities for better health, better housing areas etc.
Weber disagreed with Marx and stated that factors other than ownership of property are significant in the formation of classes. He identified that the market value of skills must be acknowledged. As Weber was the only theorist to experience changes and major events within society he saw no evidence of polarisation first thought by Marx. Instead he saw a decline in the number of petty bourgeoisie. Weber argued that middle class would expand as capitalism developed. He rejected the idea of a revolt as common identity does not need to occur to those sharing the same market value. He also rejected the idea that political power is derived from economic power, arguing that class forms only one possible basis of power and that party and status have a direct effect on social inequality. Weber predicted capitalism would continue to develop allowing for more administrative posts. His theory and idea are more realistic than Marx as he emphasises more factors and is the only theorist to experience the 21st century.
Weber states that groups form as their members share a similar status position. Similar status groups share similar lifestyles yet status groups stop mobility as only those who share status can join. This can be seen in the UK with the elite self recruitment ensuring social closure. Status groups may cut across class divisions, e.g. Gay rights organisations, therefore different status groups within a class can weaken class solidarity and prevent class consciousness from developing. Parties can divide and cut across class and status groups and are interested in the achievement of social power.
Although Weber’s theory is relevant and valid when applied to middle classes it tends to ignore the existence of a ruling class. His definition of class is unclear and he underestimates the importance of economy in defining social class.
In support of Weber, Goldthorpe (1972, 1980) conducted the Oxford Mobility Study. The aim of this was to investigate intergenerational mobility. It studied males between the ages of 20 and 64 and it found that there was a higher rate of long range mobility than in 1949. This mobility was more upward. 2/3 of the sons of unskilled/ semi skilled workers were in manual occupations. Relative mobility chances varied significantly between the classes. For example 45.7% of sons with class 1 fathers ended up in this class compared to only 7.1% of those men whose fathers were in class 7. The study also found that unemployment had effected all the classes but most noticeably within the working class. The findings in this study would suggest initially that mobility has increased in the UK but in 1972 class boundaries were still evident and it wasn’t as open or meritocratic as suggested.
Goldthorpe and Glass’ studies cannot be compared directly as different scales were used to measure stratification. This makes the results unreliable. The sample used was also biased as it did not include women.
To conclude, class may not be as relevant in the UK today as some theorist may suggest although it still plays a part, mainly being subjectively, how people see their own position within society. Other factors must be considered in today’s society that may not have been so relevant in the last century, such as party and status.
