Stemming from these two major groups, Marx recognised the middle or intermediate class, which he termed the petty bourgeoisie. This class contributes to the capitalist surplus, by using their skills to administer and keep the capitalist system functioning effectively, but unlike the other two classes, is considered as a transitional class. Marx considered it to be transitional as he believed that it would eventually be absorbed into both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as its function in society was not sufficiently different from the other classes for it to survive in the long term. In this respect they represent a median between the two. As such it is suggested that they are a class of their own.
While Weber agrees with Marx's theory of the class distinction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, he is more interested in the individual's market value. For Weber, an individual's class position is determined by their current market value. This market value is established by the individual's level of education, natural talent, skills and acquired knowledge. With these skills the individual is opened to numerous life chances and opportunities to further their career and increase their standard of living. Their market value equals their economic gain. Market value is defined by their ability to market themselves to a particular job opportunity. For instance, a university degree makes an individual more marketable and as such they have greater chances to work in their preferred field. They are given greater financial rewards and in turn move up the social ladder. (Krieken)
Weber did not fully agree with Marx's theory of class, instead he believed in status groups. He defined class as being an 'unequal distribution of economic rewards', whereas a status group was an 'unequal distribution of social honour'. (Krieken) The status group comprises a group of individuals who are rewarded similarly in social honour and share the same lifestyles and professions. In other words, they are rewarded for their skill as much by social honour or status, as by economic reward. Weber concentrated on an individual's market value, what things the individual did to acquire and deserve rewards. Whereas class was such a generalisation of people, it defined them only by economic constraints, not their social honour. Weber's market value identified and recognised the individual as an individual, rather than as Marx's faceless and nameless member of a mass class.
Marx and Weber differ in their thoughts on social mobility. Marx argues that there are two main groups, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that it is a predictable relationship and the only way to end this power relationship is through the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. (Krieken) Whereas Weber argues that social mobility is possible through the individual acquiring marketable skills. These skills through education, life chances and subsequent occupational choices can lead to movement in the class structure for the individual. (Krieken) For instance, a boy has grown up in a working class family and his father is a tradesmen. But the son, through education and attending university, graduates as an accountant. The son is now considered to be middle class.
Weber argues that social mobility can either move us upwards or downwards depending on our choices and opportunities. While Marx does recognise social mobility, he relates this mainly to the petty bourgeoisie, and its likelihood of being absorbed by the other two classes due to its transitional nature. For Marx, class is a clearly defined and ridgid structure with little in the way of social mobility being possible or likely. This is particularly the case with the working class, due to the oppressiveness of the capitalist system itself. (Krieken)
Pierre Bourdieu's work concerns the operation of taste in French society. It is based on a large survey carried out in 1963 and 1967-8, with a total of 1217 subjects. Within this survey, people were asked to specify their preferences in a huge range of things. People specified their personal tastes in music, art, theatre, home decor, social pastimes, literature and so on. They also responded to questions regarding their knowledge about these arts. Part of Bourdieu's aim was to undermine the aesthetic theory of Immanuel Kant, which still dominates philosophical aesthetics. Bourdieu argues that Kant's criterion of the distinterestedness of the aesthetic gaze is an essentially middle class phenomenon.
Celebrities, such as actors, singers and models particularly the most successful ones, live a lifestyle much like the upper class, sometimes even surpassing them, due to their very high incomes, yet without usually owning the means of production which Marx would claim is the defining character of the upper class. Whereas, Weber attributes their unusually high incomes to their natural skill or talent, not just education acquired skills, which allows them to substantially increase their market value beyond anything Marx would consider valuable. Therefore, their very high status in society is from their natural talents, which are usually highly respected, improves their lifestyle dramatically and in turn allows them to move up the social ladder. This shows that Weber's theory on status and income defining class is equally as valid, and in some cases sometimes even more so, than Marx's of income alone. So, using Weber's theory, it is clear that the highest paid celebrities are in fact in the upper class due to their high income and status, which gives them a lifestyle and standard of living equal to the traditional upper class. As Flemming sees it:
[A celebrity] is well-paid because he is a famed entertainer known to millions. Wealth goes
hand in hand with TV fame, and the media ceremoniously extoll these wealthy celebrities as
heroes to emulate. "Our aristocrats" obviously must live royally, as fame itself is not considered
reward enough. (Flemming, 2003, sourced from website)
This shows that membership of the upper class is a combination of income and standard of living, along with their status as individuals, while not being entirely based upon whether the individual owns the means of production. Subsequently, class is not defined as one of Marxist rigidity, but one of Weber's more flexible and less clearly defined model.
However, there is a problem with this perspective, in that although the celebrities have the income and lifestyle of the upper class, they do not fit in with the traditional Marxist view of the capitalist as the upper class. This is because the traditional upper class is, according to Marx, the upper class due to their ownership of the means of production and the economic and political power this creates. (Krieken) When seen from this perspective the celebrities would not be in the upper class, because they lack this economic and political power which is derived from owning the means of production. Or as Flemming says, "celebrities are only the most superficial aspect . . . ." of the modern upper class (Flemming 2003) In other words, they are the politically less powerful of the upper class. So the celebrities, while having as Weber suggests, some of the attributes of the upper class, also lack some of the other elements of the Marxist traditional upper class, such as the political power of owning the traditional means of production
Celebrities, when seen from a Marxist perspective, can be said to be in two classes at the same time. They are in the upper class due to their economic position and their status, while at the same time they are also in the middle class due to their actual economic function of assisting the capitalists, who do own the means of production, (in this case the entertainment industry and the media), and from their level of political power derived from their work. This would appear to undermine the Marxist perspective on class, with its rigid divisions between the classes and class membership. Rather, the celebrities fit in more with Weber and his recognition that class membership is more flexible and less clear by being defined as much by status and standard of living, as to whether or not an individual owns the means of production.
In conclusion, this essay shows that Marx and Weber's theories do have relevance in today's society. Weber and Marx differ in the emphasis they place upon the role of ideas in social change and, relatedly, in the extent to which capitalism is destined to change. Weber's analysis leads us to believe that we are trapped in an `iron cage' of rationalisation, a cage whose bars are constructed out of materialistic values from which there is no escape. In contrast, Marx argues that the bourgeois epoch is characterised by instability and uncertainty which, eventually, will produce a revolutionary transformation. Unfortunately, neither Weber nor Marx make more than passing comment on the construction of subjectivity within the capitalist labour process, and this is an area which has been neglected by subsequent generations of sociologists.
Bibliography
v. Krieken, R., Smith, P., Habibis, D., McDonald, K., Haralambos, M. and Martin Holborn, 2000, Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 2nd Edition, Melbourne, Longman.
