In contemporary UK the tri-levels of the traditional class structure still exist, however there have been several theories from sociologist who all belong to a different school of thought that have expressed their reasoning and opinions on this new class formation that influences today’s society. According to the various sociological theories and explanations, changes have occurred to each individual level of the tri-level structure. Foremost is the upper class, even though this social class still exists in modern society, it has been complicated by the introduction of the super rich (this term refers to the people who have an achieved status through wealth which can usually be the private ownership of land/property/goods). These people are not considered “insiders” of the upper classes they are not true aristocrats but they still have large economic wealth. They fail to have the same self-preservation/social exclusion techniques as the traditional “uppers” but do represent the meritocratic nature of British society. Then, is the middle class, which has now been named appropriately the middle classes. Due to the growth of non-manual work, there are many arguments that suggest that we are now all mostly a form of middle class. This is due to several reasons: people have had an increase in affluence such as the nature of employment has change or manual work has been replaced by the service sector. Factors like this have caused the boundaries between classes to become more blurred. Savage et al (1992) investigated the different types of middle class lifestyle and identities. Finally, the working class as the UK is no longer dominated by manual labour (e.g. Heavy industries and factories); the traditional working class is being replaced by a high-tech non-manual worker (who still receives a small income, in comparison to the middle and upper classes).
From the specific changes that have occurred to each of the individual social classes; sociologist have been able to summarise a number of explanations for this shift in the UK’s class formation. First is the theory of Polarisation, this is the process whereby indistinct groups become clearly separated. It indicates that society is dispersed amongst many different groups and individuals. This is mainly associated with Marxist and Neo-Marxist; the Marxist theory is based on the fundamental importance of economic processes in class-based inequalities and was based on the writings of Karl Marx. While the Neo-Marxist theory is based upon the Marxist theory but take into account not only economic factors, but cultural and social ones as well and relate them to contemporary patterns and trends of social inequalities. In terms of polarisation, Marx believed that certain aspects in the natural development of a capitalist economy will lead to its downfall. As it will result in polarisation of the classes (there are two classes according to Marx, these are the Bourgeoisie (the ruling class) and the Proletariats (the workers)). However another theory from Mount(2004), who is a social commentator; he argued that British society has failed the poor and that society has seen a deepening divide between the rich and poor, between what he calls the “Uppers” and the “Downers”. Mount says the Uppers have essentially looked after their own interests, which has resulted in the Downers becoming marginalised and to fatally become invisible.
Fragmentation, the breaking down and the splitting up of established social groups, such as social classes. The view that the traditional class structure has split divided and is no coherence/unity in the upper, middle or working classes and one consequence of this is the blurring of class boundaries. Social inequality remains a feature but the class structure has fragmented. Roberts (1977) a Weberian theorist, uses this concept to describe the divisions within the middle classes; which he showed have “splintered” into different groups. He noted from the diversity of class image, market situations and interests within the white collar group suggested how increasingly fragmented the middle class was becoming.
Meritocracy is also one of the origins for the changes to the class structure. This term refers to a system of inequality based on talent and ability: those at the top of the social system deserve their wealth because they have worked for it. It also implies that there are equal opportunities: those at the top have the most talent and have worked the hardest, while those who have little ability and/or are lazy will be found at the bottom of the system. It also implies that a person’s position in the structure is based on their achievement. The term was established by British sociologist Michael young in “the rise of the meritocracy 1870-2033” (1958); where it referred to government by those identified as the most able high achievers, with merit defined as intelligence plus effort. This viewpoint is mainly coupled with the work of new right theorist and functionalist. Davis and Moore (1945) (functionalists) argued that unequal social and economic rewards were an “unconsciously evolved device” by which societies ensured that talented individuals were supplied with motivation to undertake training which would guarantee that important social roles were properly fulfilled.
The last hypothesis used to explain the changes in class is that class is irrelevant to modern society. This view clarifies that class divisions are not useful or applicable descriptions in a contemporary society with so many different ways of identifying ourselves and others being used. Postmodernist writers Pakulski and Waters (1996) in the “The reshaping and dissolution of social class in advanced society”, argued that class is “dead”, because they believe that we live in an “individualised” society. This is where people no longer identify themselves in terms of their social class. This was caused by significant changes e.g. globalisation, which means class divisions are now status division. The incensement in consumerism means that people are now able to buy the image they want to portray. This means that because class is based mainly on a person’s occupation (which affects income) people are no able to buy go that would be usually restricted to certain class. This give they analogy that when people identify themselves in terms of class; there is no a sort of “pick’n’mix” approach towards it – people can buy the identities they want through consumption rather then basing it on class.
