Is class still relevant to the explanation of inequality in modern Britain?

Is class still relevant to the explanation

of inequality in modern Britain?

By Asta Hansen

Inequality can be found anywhere in society as human beings are all different. In sociology the word social stratification is used when looking at inequalities between individuals and groups in society. The word stratification comes from the word stratum which means a series of layers of rock, in sociology the stratum or strata are the levels or classes in society which are layered in a structured hierarchy with the least privileged at the bottom and most privileged at the top. Class is one of the systems of stratification and can be defined as an arrangement of people into groups, that share common economic resources, and where ownership of wealth and occupation are the main basis of class differences (Giddens 2001 ;282).

With the move from a heavy industry society to more of a service industry there has been a shift in class consciousness. Before whole communities existed around one industry, where people were much more aware of the fact that they belonged to a certain class. Miners would live in communities built around a mine with other miners as neighbours and therefore identified themselves as belonging to that class. There was a clear distinction between working class and middle class because these groups did not mingle with each other the separation of the classes was quite clear. With industries becoming more efficient at production and able to make things a lot cheaper this enabled working class families to buy things normally only available to the upper classes such as cars, furniture etc. with the rise of a service industry and the availability of transport people started commuting to jobs and new suburbs and neighbourhoods were built and people found themselves living in mixed class communities. In today's Britain people are unclear about which class they belong to because the lines separating the classes have become blurred it is no longer enough to just look at where a person lives or whether they own a home as a conclusive indicator of their status. The question being asked however is whether class actually still matters in today's society when it comes to looking at the inequalities in wealth, status and power that people have.

In this essay I will examine how three different sociological theories view social stratification, social groups and social mobility. I will then look at three studies conducted on social mobility, and compare these to the theories. I will then discuss the results of these studies, and whether they support the idea of class still being relevant in Britain today.

Social Mobility looks at to what degree a persons status in the social stratification system can change either through the course of their life or in relation to their parents position. Social mobility therefore is a very good indicator of how much class can influence a persons life chances.

The Functionalist perspective looks at society as made up of institutions that perform functions that ensure the smooth running of society. As one of societies institutions the functionalist views stratification as a necessary system that maintains order and stability in society.

Davis and Moore(1954) argued that stratification is universal and a necessary mechanism in the smooth running of society. For society to run smoothly and efficiently the most functionally important positions in society must be filled with the most able people, and Davis and Moore argued that social stratification served that purpose by rewarding these positions with more wealth, power and status than less important positions in order to attract the more able people to them. The amount of rewards reflects the importance of the position in maintaining society.

The functionalist perspective does not view stratification as class based, as it sees society as meritocratic, where people are selected on merit rather than Family background, gender, race etc.

T. Parsons (1951) argued stratification is inevitable and that since it serves the need of society to have managers, administrators and other higher valued professions, the stratification system is maintained by shared value consensus; people in society agree that some positions are more important than others based on shared values in society.

In a meritocratic society social mobility would be high as the best jobs would go to the most able regardless of background. It would be expected to see a lot of Inter-generational mobility; where a person has a different class from their parents, and a lot of long range mobility both upwards and downwards. One wouldn't expect to see a lot of Intra-generational mobility; with one individual moving from one class to another, since people are expected to end up in their class based on merit and should therefore already be in that class. However further education later in life ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Functionalist perspective provides us with an explanation of how stratification works in terms of the needs and values of society. However it is based on the argument that some jobs are more important than others, which is highly debatable. Is an actor more important in terms of the needs of society than a bin man? While a bin man serves the very important function of keeping our streets clean, an actor simply works to entertain us, yet the actor is very high up in the stratification system while the bin man sits at the bottom. Another issue is the question of whether a person really needs to be rewarded to do the more important jobs, and if interest and job satisfaction should not be enough to draw the most able people to these jobs.

In contrasts to the functionalists view of social stratification as based on shared values and consensus, Karl Marx(1848) viewed stratification in society based on conflict of interests. He saw society as being divided into two social classes, and he believed that a persons class is determined by their relationship to the means of production. The means of production such as land, factories etc. are all essential in producing the necessary things for survival such as food, shelter, clothing and are therefore the most important factors in society. The capitalist class own and control the means of production while the working class sell their labour to the capitalists in exchange for wages. According to Marx the workers produce a surplus of goods; more than is needed by the owners to repay them for their labour (Giddens 2001;284) this enables the owners to profit from this surplus value and are therefore exploiting the workers. In economic terms this exploitation makes sense for without it no profit would be made, and therefore in the capitalist economic system exploitation is necessary. However Marx believed that with society becoming more industrialised the gap between the two classes would keep increasing thus creating greater inequality which he argued would eventually lead to a revolution, which would result in the collapse of this class system. In the end there would only be one class of worker-owners where the workers also own the means of production.

Marx did agree that there could be some social mobility between classes in terms of capitalists going bankrupt or a worker earning enough capital in order to start a business of their own, however he saw this as insignificant and rare cases that did not impact on the main problem of the two classes and the exploitation that takes place between them.

Marx's Theory explains the differences in wealth status and power that exist between the two classes and how society functions through conflict. However his theory fails to explain the differences in rewards within the working class. Professions such as doctors, managers and administrators are also working class jobs as they receive wages for their work and do not own the means of production yet these jobs earn a lot more rewards than a factor worker.

Max Weber(1910) like Marx saw society in conflict over power and resources. He did however feel that Marx's theory failed to explain the differences in rewards within the working class. He believed that class alone was not enough to explain social stratification, but that there in fact are a further two factors; status and party, and by combining these three factors a lot more positions in society are possible. Weber agreed on Marx's view that class is based on economic conditions, but he believed there were more economic factors than merely a relationship to the means of production. He believed that resources like qualifications, skills and credentials also affected the type of jobs people could obtain.(Giddens 2001;285) Weber looked at status as a persons social honour or prestige; where a persons lifestyle such as where they live, how they dress and the way they speak also affects how a person is perceived by others, and that people of similar status would have a sense of shared identity(Giddens 2001;285) regardless of whether they belonged to the same economic class. Party is a group of people working together with common aims and goals, but where Marx explained these as defined by class Weber believed that these groups might also come together from different social classes based on things such as religion. With all these possible positions in society there is a middle class of people who have more status and power than the working class but less than the ruling class.

Weber's approach to stratification seems to focus more on social action; a persons ability to affect their own position in society rather than class background alone.

In Webers theory there would be a lot of short- range social mobility within this middle class. But not much long-range mobility from the bottom to the top.

Webers theory explains the differences in wealth status and power that exist within the working class by bringing in the other factors of status and party. However he fails to explain the relationship between the three factors in depth which makes it difficult to define where one social group begins and one ends. “Weber's analysis of stratification tends to produce a picture of a highly fragmented class structure, there is no way of knowing where this fragmentation could stop - in effect, the level of fragmentation appears to depend more upon the way in which a stratification system is defined than to anything more useful. Ultimately, in this respect, it is possible to visualize a "subjective / objective" stratification system in which each individual occupies a unique class, status and power position ”()

Many studies have been conducted on social mobility in Britain. As mentioned above the degree of social mobility between classes is a good indicator of whether class has an effect on a persons ability to move up the social ladder.

In 1972 the second large-scale social mobility study was conducted at Nuffield college, Oxford, by John Goldthorpe and his colleagues. Usually referred to as the Oxford mobility study (Goldthorpe et al., 1980) the study examined the class of men ages 20-64 compared to the class of their fathers.

The study utilised the Hope-Goldthorpe scale for categorizing occupations; which is a seven class scheme often compressed into a smaller three class scheme :

Service class

Higher Grade Professionals
Lower Grade Professionals / administrators

Intermediate class

Routine non-manual
Small proprietors / self-employed

Lower grade technicians / supervisors

Working Class

Skilled manual workers
Semi to unskilled manual workers

What the study found was that there was a greater degree of long term social mobility compared to a previous study conducted in 1949.(D. Glass, 1949). It showed that 7.1% of sons who had fathers in class 7 had risen to class 1 while 32.2% had remained in class 7. Also of the sons of fathers in class 1 45.7% had remained in class 1 while 6.5% had moved to class 7. also in no class did more than 50% of those interviewed originate from that class this showed that in terms of absolute mobility (total mobility in a society) the rates were quite high and there seemed to be more upwards mobility compared to downward mobility. However the authors argued that this was due to an increase in service class and intermediate jobs creating more room for upward mobility. Instead they focused on the relative mobility(mobility from a group of a particular class background, to another class compared to other groups) in society. By comparing those born in 1908-1917 with those born in 1938-1947 they found that 55% of men with fathers in the service class remained in that class. 25% of men with intermediate class background and 14% of men from workin-class background had moved into the service class. This lead to the 1:2:4 rule of relative hope (Kellner and Wilby, 1980) and meant that whatever the chance a man from a working-class background had of moving into the service class a man from the intermediate-class had double that chance and a man from a service-class had four times the chance; this showed that there was still inequality between the classes and that Britain had not become more open.

The Oxford mobility study has been criticised for discarding results in terms of absolute mobility which showed an increase, and only considering relative mobility. Also the study only looked at the male population completely disregarding women in the labour market. Peter Saunders who I will look at more closely later also criticized the study for not taking into account natural inequalities that could also affect a persons chances in the stratification system.

Like the Oxford mobility study, The Essex mobility study (Marshall et al, 1988) found that absolute mobility especially upward had risen due to a change in the occupational structure in Britain.

The authors collected data on both male and female mobility, and both intra- and inter-generational mobility. They used the Hope-Goldthorpe seven-class scheme and compared the class of the chief childhood supporter to the current class of participants. The Results for men in regard to inter-generational mobility showed similar results to the Oxford study, the Essex study however also looked at mobility among women and the results indicated that there was a great concentration of women in Class 3 with a lot of social mobility into that class both upward and downward. They found that when men from service class backgrounds and working class background compete for service class destinations the men from service-class backgrounds were 7.76% more successful, the number for women 14.07% more successful. These results show that inter-generational mobility rates for women are also influenced to a similar degree by class.

The Essex study also looked at the relationship between sex, class of origin and class at entry into employment. The data suggested that sex had a very strong influence on first jobs but a weak influence on class. Class of origin had a strong influence on present class and on class at entry into employment, and showed that it effects which class people will end up in. Another interesting discovery was the fact that 84% of men and 77% of women who started in service class jobs who came from service-class backgrounds were still in service class jobs when interviewed while only 64% of men and 43% of women from Working-class backgrounds who had started in service class jobs were still in service-class jobs. This showed that even when starting in the upper part of the stratification system class still has an influence on life chances.

The Essex study took into account some things that were lacking in the Oxford study such as including women in the participants and also looking at the chief childhood supporter rather than simply the fathers class position. Again however the focus was mainly on relative mobility rather than absolute mobility.

Peter Saunders (Unequal but fair?, 1996) disagreed with both previous studies. He believed that occupational selection and recruitment was much more meritocratic than most realise. Although he did not claim Britain was a perfect meritocracy he believed merit is the most important factor in determining the jobs people end up in.

He argued that the previous studies had shown a lot of upward mobility from the working class. For example the Essex study had found that 1/3 of service class people were from working class backgrounds. He felt that the previous studies also failed to look at the absolute mobility instead focusing mostly on relative mobility. His main argument was the fact that the inequalities discovered could be explained in terms of inherited intelligence, talent and motivation. “What if sons and daughter of Doctors are on average more talented or motivated than the sons and daughters of dockers?” (P, Saunders Unequal but fair?, 1996)

In order to test his claims Saunders used evidence from the NCDS a study that had collected a wide range of information on all children born between the 3rd and 9th of march 1958. in 1991 the government was still collecting data from 11.397 participants of which 6.795 were in full time employment and were already allocated to three classes based on the British government classification. Saunders referred to them as middle class, intermediate class, and lower working class. He found that those with middle class fathers were twice as likely to end up in middle class than those with lower working class fathers, where the other studies had showed a much larger difference of four times the chance. The participant in the study had all been tested in verbal and non-verbal abilities at different ages in childhood and Saunders found that ability was closely linked to the job people ended up in. This suggested that occupational status was closely linked to merit.

The study also found that a large amount of low-ability children from middle class backgrounds ended up in the middle-class; the study showed that the number was as high as 38%, however Saunders explained this by suggesting that meritocracy also involved effort and that children of middle-class families simply work harder.

Saunders study by including ability takes into account the fact that some people may be more naturally able for middle-class positions. However he suggests that middle-class children put in more effort but has no data to support this.

The Functionalist theory sees merit as the main factor in determining a persons social status, and that the stratification system is based on a social value consensus. Marx on the other hand sees social stratification as a result of conflict and exploitation between two classes based on an economic relationship. Weber agrees with Marx's view that social stratification is based on conflict but he felt that additional factors to class; which he agrees with Marx is determined by economic factors, played a role in a persons place in the social stratification system. Weber in a way takes bits from the functionalist theory such as abilities in terms of qualifications playing a role but combines that with Marx's idea of conflict and exploitation.

All the studies have found that in terms of absolute mobility there has been an increase in upward mobility, while both the Oxford and Essex studies explain this as due to the expansion of service and intermediate class jobs Saunders argues that it is due to society becoming more meritocratic. Both the Oxford and Essex studies also showed that when looking at relative mobility there had been little chance in the social mobility between classes in Britain and that class background still has a large effect on a persons life chances, Saunders argues that ability plays a larger role and that people from higher class backgrounds have more natural abilities and put in more effort than those from working-class backgrounds and therefore are still the most able for the higher class jobs.

Saunders study supports the functionalist theory on stratification in that it is individual merit that determines ones position in the stratification system.

In conclusion all the studies conducted have shown that social class still exist and it has an effect on inequality in Britain. Both the Oxford study and the Essex study showed that the 1:2:4 relative rule of hope applies and that a persons social class background has a big impact on what opportunities are available. Saunders study also showed that social class has an impact although he found that the level of inequality was not as large, the fact that 38% of the less able children from upper class backgrounds still had upper class jobs, suggest that it is not only merit but also their class-background that determines their life chances. So from the results of the studies it seems clear that class is still a factor when it comes to inequality in modern Britain Saunders study also does show that there is some evidence that Merit alco plays a part but is not the main factor.