While Weber agrees with Marx’s theory of class distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat he argued that “social inequality needed to be understood in terms of a number of distinct categories which are not reducible merely to economic property relations: the ownership of land, factories and so on is accepted as an important determinant of social position but is only one factor shaping social stratification” (Bilton et al, 1996, pg 144). ‘It is evident that Weber seemed to be more interested in an individuals ‘market value’, meaning their level of education, skills and gained knowledge. With these skills the individual is open to numerous life chances and opportunities to further their career and increase their standard of living’ (). However, Weber established a fundamental difference to Marx’s theory instead, he believed in status groups. “he defined class as an ‘unequal distribution of economic rewards’ where as a status group is an ‘unequal distribution of social honour’ (Giddens, 1991, pg212). Haralambos (2002 pg34) describes a status group as a ‘group made up of individuals who are awarded a similar amount of social honour and therefore share the same status stratification. (Haralambos & Holborn, 2002, pg 37).
In Britain today social class is a very powerful influence on our lives and affects almost every aspect of day to day life from housing to occupation to health. During the 1990s in Britain though not drastic sources seem to show a pattern of narrowing class inequality. Haralambos and Holborn (2002) pay particular attention to the closing gap of inequality for example, the nature of employment or socio-economic group has for centuries been influenced by social class. The lower classes have often only had the opportunity to work in a semi skilled or unskilled manual occupation, the fact that their class determined their level of education and knowledge meant that they didn’t have the ability to move up the socio-economic scale, this of course would fit in to Marxs idea of a capitalist culture. In the 1994 General Household Survey the results showed a long term trend for the proportion of non manual jobs to increase and a decrease in the proportion of manual labour, in turn leading to an increase in professionals and employers (see below table).
(Haralambos & Holborn, 2002, pg 41)
The above table shows the narrowing in occupation groups; but what were the reasons behind this? Haralambos (2002) believes it is due to the decrease in the manufacturing industry and a shift to a more service based industry but it could also have to do with the ever increasing availability of higher education, equal opportunitie, and the increased availability of the health service and welfare state. All these put together would contribute to a general better standard of living for the entire society. Obviously there would still be a gap between the classes, after all 1990s society was still a capitalists run environment and the middle and upper classes still had a larger share of the wealth and power but the narrowing gap was a step in the right direction. This idea follows suit with Webers theory that it is an individuals ‘market value’ that is important and with the potential skills and knowledge to be gained a certain amount of social mobility could be attained. Goldthorpe and Payne carried out a study in the late 1980s that attempted to bring figures on social mobility more up to date. They examine the data from the 1983 British Election and found that absolute mobility increased between 1972 and 1983 but relative mobility stayed about the same (Haralambos and Holborn, 2002, pg 100).
There is however, evidence to back up Marxs theory that society is and will always be a capitalists controlled arena. Although there have been trends in recent evidence such as that detailed in Haralambos & Holborns 2002 fifth edition proving the narrowing of the class division there is also evidence available that not much has changed. In a report titled ‘Social Inequalities’ carried out by the Office for National Statistics, damming evidence can be found for the growth of social inequality in Britain over the last few decades. The report notes that in the 1970’s the income of the richest 10% were three times higher than the poorest 10%, this rose in the 1980s and by the 1990s income inequality was four times greater. It also showed that income rise was unequal throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the top 10% saw their income raise by 38% where as the bottom 10% saw their income raise by just 5%. The report also proved that although there was significant advances in health care and its availability the rate of infant mortality for children of lower social status was still twice that of professionals. Although in education, children from poor backgrounds recorded lower exam results, and in 1998 only a fifth of those 15 and 16 year olds whose parents worked in manual labour achieved 5 GCSE passes, compared to two thirds of the professional class. The study was carried out by the Labour government to show that they were tackling the issues involved but it just seem to add power to the notion of an ever present class division that Marx portrays through his theories and ideas.
In conclusion, this essay shows that Marx and Weber's theories do have relevance in today's society. British class structure throughout the 1990s and indeed today is indeed based partly on Marx's theory of the bourgeoisie and proletariat and their struggle and conflict with one another to secure their separate common interests for personal gain, which in turn created the upper, middle, working class society. Weber however takes a different approach with his idea of natural talents and skill and the income and status this provides, which in turn determines class position. This can be seen where class mobility has taken place. This shows that the traditional Marxist theory of the upper class, based primarily on their economic wealth from owning the means of production, is increasingly inaccurate for today's society in determining class. While Weber's more flexible theory allows for a more realistic and modern understanding of how class is determined. However, class structure appears to be alive and well in society, and while some parts of the theories have aged and to a degree have become outdated, the structure and inequalities still stands reasonably intact.
