When considering class in terms of income it is easy to see the varying levels from £625.5 for managers to £280.4 earned by kitchen workers (Savage, 2000). These differences affect what people have to spend on material possessions and what they choose as leisure activities, both which can be indicators of class. For instance, professionals have on average a £532 weekly disposable income compared to £216 of manual workers (Savage, 2000). Although the distribution of wealth and seemingly power is graduated from ‘rich’ to ‘poor’ it does not exclusively demonstrate where the boundaries of each class lies. The next few paragraphs endeavour to clarify the boundaries of each class and the characteristics now associated with them.
At the top of the social hierarchy is still the upper-class, this is a small minority of people who command high power and wealth. In the past this class consisted primarily of aristocracy or ‘ruling class’ but this is no longer the case (Paluski & Waters, 1996). There has been a rise in the self-made millionaires joining the upper-class and even pushing the Queen down the ‘rich list’. Her majesty was the wealthiest person in the UK in 1993 but ranked 87th just six years later. The decline in the Queens status reflects on the trend that the upper-class is becoming more extreme in the wealth they possess (Savage, 2000). This in turn has made the upper-class seem that much more unattainable to those within other classes, but also a more desirable place to be than ever before. The upper-class can be grouped as the wealthiest 1% of the population, which now controls 19% of the total population’s wealth (Giddens, 2001).
At another end of the spectrum is the working-class, this consists of the blue collared manual workers. Once the majority class it is now in decline, from a time when 40% of the population was working class to 18% now and the percentage still dropping (Giddens, 2001). The conditions of the working class are no longer what they once were, poverty is not rife within it and now the majority of working class own the own car and house. The working-class used to have strong implications and many individuals felt it part of their identity. Now people use it because they work and want to seem normal, strong bond seems to have gone (Savage, 2002). This is the class that most people relate to despite most are actually middle class. People do this because they want to seem typical to society but do not realise they are putting themselves in a lower social position than necessary (Savage 2002).
Due to declining working-class and an almost unattainable upper-class the majority class is now the middle-class. It is the largest and most diverse of today’s classes, covering a variety of lifestyles and occupations (Paluski & Waters, 1996). Mostly the occupation of the working-class is still white collar work in which unlike the working-class they can sell their mental and physical power (Giddens, 2001). One of the distinguishing factors of these occupations is that they require more credentials through higher education levels and more refined complex skills than those of blue collar work (Giddens, 2001). Claiming identification with middle-class does not seem to command the same amount of respect as it once did. In fact when people claim to be middle class it is to seem ordinary not poor or particularly well off (Savage, 2002).
At the lowest point of the class structure is the under-class. People belonging to this category experience lower standard of living than the majority of the population and a disadvantaged lifestyle because of this. Individuals may be homeless, unemployed for long periods of time, totally dependent on the state and excluded from general society (Giddens, 2001). The relatively recent concept of ‘Chavs’ could be considered the new under-class. In the past the extremely poor have always been condemned as ‘the dangerous poor’ or the ‘casual poor’. One would hope that in modern societies the irrational prejudice of the most vulnerable has long disappeared. However, the under-class are still subject to symbolic violence. This is the process of diminishing the status of a class to legitimise the inequalities. Chavs are described as lazy, aggressive and often unintelligent. These are all ways which justify them being poor but are probably more fictional or only true of a small minority.
However, even if one is placed amongst the poorest in the population it has always been possible to change ones situation in life and therefore move up or even down the class hierarchy. It would seem that many working class people have moved up into the middle class but the change movement is more likely to the increase in white collar work available. David Glass (1954) analysed mobility and concluded that British society is not particularly open to social movement although upward movement is more common than downward (Gidden, 2001). Mobility can be examined by looking at the relationship between parent and sibling occupation. It was found that 66% of sons of manual workers had a manual occupation whereas 30% went on to professional occupations. This is compared to 4% of manual workers who are the sons of professional, reflecting the likelihood of upward social mobility (Giddens, 2001).
Mobility of class is possible but requires a lot of effort on an individual’s part to break the behaviours associated with the class they initially belonged to. Pierre Bourdieu identifies this as a habitus and it is this that distinguishes them to a particular class. When people are put in situations outside that of their own class they may feel uncomfortable especially surrounded by others with a different habitus. People will consequently avoid such situations probably without realising they are doing so (Savage, 2002). This is one of the ways people could think class is declining, because they avoid other classes and so do not see the conflicting values.
In conclusion it seems unlikely, considering the above evidence that society has become classless and concepts of class abandoned. Those who argue class is dead are most likely looking for the old rigid concepts associated with class and therefore missing the new evolved concepts and the fluidity of its effects. The boundaries are no longer as clear cut as they once were but are never the less still evident for those who care to look close enough. However, the decline in individuals identifying with their class has declined and the classes seem to be less cohesive because of this. This does not mean class is dead, it is very much ‘alive and kicking’ but not so obvious to see.
References
Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Paluski, J. & Waters, M. (1996). The Death of Class. London: Sage.
Savage, M. (2000). Class analysis and social transformation. Buckingham: Open University.
Savage, M. (2002). Social exclusion and class analysis. In P. Bramham & L. Janes (Eds.), Social Differences and Divisions. Oxford: Blackwell.
