However, this theory has many weaknesses; it assumes we all agree about the relative merit of certain occupations, when in reality this is not true. It also assumes that there are no structural barriers in society to those who have talent, for example, race or gender. Although this meritocratic approach has been developed more recently by the “new right”, with sociologists such as Saunders arguing that inequality is a necessary push for economic growth which in turn increases living standards, it has also been criticised by those such as Will Hutton who argued that inequality has led to poorer economic performance and not better.
Another theory which sociologists have developed to explain class inequality is very structural. They explain class inequality as being embedded in the structures, institutions and practices of society. They disagree with the functionalist view that inequality of talent causes class divisions and argue that inequality is the result of social classes existing, that it is not inevitable, not functional in thus, not good. The Marxist analysis of class inequality states that in a capitalist society, a meritocracy is impossible due to one class exploiting another (for example, the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat). They argue that class conflict is an essential part of a capitalist society and they state that it is impossible to introduce reforms which would lessen the inequality produced by capitalism. The Marxists argue that class is determined by an individual’s relationship to means of production and state that inequality is the result of a person’s class. Marxists say that change and conflict are in the middle of the social process and that class conflict is the only thing that will actually lead to a new society (communism). Marx believed that the working class would develop class consciousness when they changed form. He said that there would be a “class in itself” where the members would objectively share a similar relation to the means of production and that there would be a “class for itself” where the members would subjectively become conscious of their own power and act together. Marx argued that inequality is a result of capitalism and that there are only two classes that are defined by ownership of the means of production. He stated that the gap between them would increase and that they will become increasingly polarised. The Marxists argue that inequality has arisen as a result of the exploitation of one class by another.
However, Marxist theory has many weaknesses, it does not explain the rise of the middle class and the term “production” only applies to paid work and thus feminists say it ignores unpaid, domestic work done by women. They argue that it cannot explain inequality in relations not centred on the wage relationship (for example, husband and wife). The social, political and cultural factors and ideas can cause change, Marx’s attempt to explain the whole of society from an economic base, therefore is impossible. There is also the main factor that the majority of the working class have not risen up to challenge capitalism.
Another, structural approach which attempts to explain class inequalities is the Weberian approach. Weber argued that all forms of inequality are based on some form of power. He stated that such power could appear in a number of different ways, for Weber, class and inequality were merely one example of power, whereas Marx believed that ultimately all forms of power have economic origins. Weber argued that a group who shared an identity and acts as a community is better understood as a status group who receive a similar amount of prestige in society. He stated that ascribed status has declined in modern times to be replaced by achieved status. Whereas Marx said that status came from your class, Weber contradicts and said that it could be the other way too, that status can give a person economic and political power. Weber saw class in terms of similarity of life chances brought about by similar market positions, that is classes are made up of people with similar incomes, skills and qualifications and that therefore they have similar life experiences in many areas. Weber criticises Marx for ignoring the differences and divisions between different types of bourgeoisie. He also argued that there are differences between proletariat based on the level of skill needed to do a job. Weber saw four main classes, but within these he saw many divisions based on levels of skill required. Thus, Weber explains inequality along two strands, class and status. He stated that class and status interact to determine people’s life chances. He welcomed the growth of bureaucratic and rational forms of authority, which treats everyone equally and impersonally, unlike the traditional forms of authority which worked on the basis of favouritism. Weber argued that the unequal position of workers in the workplace is only one aspect of their inequality. Thus Weber drew a distinction between class and social class. He stated that class is based on market position and purely economic and that social class is a group of classes linked by similar chances of mobility, he predicted that the middle class would grow, especially the group of property less, white collar employees who sell mental or intellectual labour.
However, the Marxist school of thought argue that Weber was too concerned with identifying trivial market details and neglected the basic split between capitalists and workers. Marxists argue that class and status are strongly linked and that the capitalist class not only has wealth but also high status and political power. However, Weber recognised that these can overlap, but suggests that a person can have wealth but little status (for example, a lottery winner).
Thus, it can be seen that there are many sociological explanations for class inequality. Both the functionalist and Weberian theories seem to apply to the contemporary society in which we live. They explain that class is not a rigid structure, that social mobility is achievable and that you are not born into a class, where you must remain for the remainder of your life. The functionalists explain that qualifications and higher education can enable you to obtain a better position in society, however it is interesting to note that there are still less working class children entering university than those from a middle class background. The Weberian theory argues that class and status are interlinked, that it is possible to have wealth without status which seems to apply to the society in which we live in today. The Marxist view of class inequality does not seem to apply to today’s society, with many people today being part of the middle class, there is no explanation for this in Marx’s theory, and he does not account for the growth of the service sector, an industry which is expanding in the contemporary UK. There are many explanations for class inequality which show that although class is not as important as it has been in previous times, it still plays an important part in the lives of individuals today.
