Is the Concept of Class War Still Valid?

'Social stratification' is the term used to describe systematic structures of inequality. In pre-industrial or traditional societies, inequalities and thus social stratification were widely held to be natural. Aristotle stated that 'by nature' there were free men and slaves, yet if inequalities are natural, Crompton suggests there be no need to explain them. The Hindu Caste system, as with the Feudal system of western Europe, both saw inequality as natural, yet it was not until the seventeenth century that, by virtue of their humanity, all humans were thought to be born equal. From this moment the need for a sociological explanation of 'class' arose. In this essay I shall first briefly outline the history of the concept of 'class' and then evaluate this concept in modern terms with specific reference to two key papers, by Pahl (1989) and Goldthorpe and Marshall (1992).

It was the social contract theorists, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, who first arrived at explanations of inequality in the eighteenth century. As traditional society gave way to the more modern forms of capitalist industrialism, rationality governed the modern economic order, and the landless labourer was created, an individual with only one commodity to sell, his labour. It was Karl Marx was first scrutinised the 'bourgeois freedoms' created by the English and French revolutions. Marx saw the unfolding of human history to be due to the outcome of economic, rather than merely political conflicts: 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle' ( Marx and Engels 1962).

Marx saw inequality as a reflection of differential access to the means of production and what was produced. For Marx, state power was inseparable from economic power, and capitalism was but a mechanism for the development of the capitalist mode of production. Political equality could exist with material inequality and indeed , by defining the inequalities associated with this dominant system of production and exchange as 'non political, bourgeois ideology served to make them legitimate. Thus, the landless labourers created as a consequence of the development of industrial capitalism constituted a new class of individuals, a class which would eventually transform capitalist society, the proletariat.

An important theme which I would like to stress is that 'class' as concept has existed not only in the modern period, but throughout the history of man kind, although the actors may not have been consciously aware of the concept itself. True inequality is an ideal, by the very nature of natural selection there are always to be winners and losers, an inequality is inextricably linked to human nature. It is therefore important to remember that whilst the concept of class was only recognised by mankind in the seventeenth century, its existence may be traced back to the origins of mankind. This implies that in modern times, a notion of class, although radically altered in definition and nature, can be thought to be functioning in the background of society. Whether or not this notion is valid as a concept and analytical tool is now to be discussed.

Before any useful debate as to the validity of 'class' can be achieved, it is necessary to summarise the various definitions of the word 'class'. Firstly, class may be used to describe groups ranked in hierarchical order. The plebeians in ancient Rome, and the system of Feudal estates, the lords, villeins, freemen, and serfs was a structure in which different legal rights and formal inequalities, were associated with particular classes in society. Weber described such legal and quasi legal orders as being composed of 'status groups', nevertheless the term class is still used to describe the hierarchical ranking of groups of individuals in society.

This association with hierarchy has led to a second common use of the term, a term indicating social standing or prestige. 'Upper class' and 'lower class' are therefore shorthand terms used to describe an individuals social standing.

A third meaning of class reflects structures of material inequalities. Thus in modern societies, unequally rewarded groups are often termed classes, and this reflects the competition for resources in capitalist market societies. As a result classes may correspond to income groups, consider the Registrar General's 'social class' groupings for example. Occupational groupings are some of the most useful indicators of patterns of material advantage and disadvantage in modern societies.

Classes are not used only to describe differing levels of material inequality, the term is also used to identify actual or potential social forces, or social actors, which have the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Classes are not used only to describe differing levels of material inequality, the term is also used to identify actual or potential social forces, or social actors, which have the capacity to transform society. Marx was a major proponent of this view, seeing class struggle as the major motive force in human history.

The use of the single word 'class' therefore may describe legal or traditional rankings, social prestige or material inequalities, as well as revolutionary or conservative social forces. It is here that we encounter one of the major stumbling blocks in this debate, that it is not possible to define and isolate a definition of class which is universally accepted as being the 'correct' definition from a sociological perspective.

A major point of conflict between the theoretical approaches of Marx and Weber concerns the question of class action. Although Mark's writings on this point are ambiguous, it is difficult to dispute the fact that he viewed class conflict as the major motor of social change. Weber on the other hand, saw class conflict as contingent, that is as highly likely to occur, but by no means inevitable. He did certainly not view class as the only or even major force of societal transformation. The foundings of the debate as to the 'declining significance of class are therefore well established in the roots of sociological theory.

One of the main sources of empirical evidence for arguments concerning the declining significance of class in late twentieth century industrial societies, has been the changes in the structure of work as employment, as well as the kinds of persons engaged in it. Britain, America and other parts of Western Europe have now for a long time witnessed the decline of manufacturing industries and primary sector employment. The reasons for this decline are highly complex, although major contributing factors have been technological innovation and shifts in the global division of labour. The collapse of heavy industry in the west and the rise of industry in the east followed on from the 1970's oil cirises to plunge the Western world into recession, thereby stimulating a massive economic restructuring of society. As the economy picked up once again. employment was created in the service sectors of the economy, in the tertiary and quaternary sectors, resulting in a dramatic decline in the numbers of what had long been considered to be traditional 'working class', and replacement by the white collar workers of the 'middle classes.

Due to these changes in occupational structure it has been argued that 'work' as employment has become considerably less important in the structuring of social attitudes. Due to technological change and the expansion of state provisions, people are spending less time in paid employment and are therefore less dependent on the sale of their labour in order to obtain the services they need. Work as employment i therefore of declining importance as a source of social identity in the second half of the twentieth century.

It is therefore evident that the definition and relative size of the working class has changed significantly over the second half of the twentieth century, and the evidence of occupational class schemes might continue to demonstrate that occupational class and voting behaviour were still closely related, yet it is difficult make a strong cases to the effect that the working class, or indeed any other class, in the West has been engaged in any sustained 'revolutionary action' since the second world war.

Furthermore it has been argued that 'new social movements' have taken over the role of classes as agents of change in the political environment. Environmental groups, groups concerned with world peace, and representatives of women and subordinate ethnic groups are now shaping the face of political change. Rights are being extended beyond human adults, to include their children and animals. The support of these 'new social movements' cuts across the boundaries of class and contributes further to the weakening of old class politics and class based political action.

The question of women and feminism also erodes away at the support of class theory. Occupational class schemes and indeed much of class politics had been shaped by males with full time male employment in mind. As this phenomenon has changed, so too has the need for alternative theories arisen. The gendered division of labour is posing tremendous obstacles to the development of a single classification which would encompass both men and women.

As work declines in importance in the twentieth century, so too do other factors become relevant for the analysis of stratification systems. The most notable of these is consumption. Peoples identities are increasingly expressed through consumption rather than production, and as a consequence it is argued, that outdated nineteenth century class theories, obsessed with productivism, should be finally abandoned. It is important to note here that the arguments do not suggest that the capitalist system is not highly unequal.

Some of the more recent debate concerning the concept of class has involved three main authors, Pahl and Goldthorpe and Marshall. Although clouded by a variety of semantic technicalities, I now turn to Pahl's 1989 paper Is The Emperor Naked? The basis of Pahl's argument revolves around the Structure-Consciousness-Action (SCA) concept. The basic idea is that there is something inherent in the social and economic circumstances of categories or classes of people that leads them to acquire a radical consciousness of their oppressed, deprived, or exploited situation. Once consciousness takes hold, it is thought to become a force for social change, manifesting itself as political or violent action leading to social changes. The model is based upon power from below, 'class', and Pahl questions the links of causality in this chain.

Pahl notes the flexibility of the applications of this model, to minority groups such as gays, squatters, single parents and any other group which feels it is being oppressed. Furthermore it might be applied to larger scenarios, to Nation States and groups of Nations such as the EEC. He argues however that the model is rarely invoked to explain the top down revolutions of scenarios such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, or social change originating at the top of social structure, for example 'Thatcher's Britain'. Pahl questions the fundamental assumption that S produces C more readily amongst the powerless than the powerful.

It is argued that supporters of the concept of class would like to fit it into the SCA model using class to define S. Evidently it is of little analytical value to report that poor people are of working class when poverty is a fundamental defining factor of class itself. Circular reasoning is seen to be a major hazard.

It is argued that individuals will vote for the politcal party which they perceive to offer them more in terms of material wealth, and those who are better advantaged will strive to hold on to what they have already got. This has long been the basis of class politics. However many now argue that in a society which perceives itself to be richer, divisions such as those mentioned above are becoming less significant in comparison with particular goals and values based upon factors such as locality, race, religion, gender and nation. It might therefore be argued that a categorisation of individuals should shift from a categorisation by attributes to one by attitude. Pahls argument hinges around the fact that economic position and social attitude do not correlate empirically, effectively discrediting traditional class analysists.

Classification according to 'lifestyle' might therefore be more appropriate in the current situation. Lifestyle categories are based upon clusters of common attitudes gathered from regular surveys. They are ad hoc and pragmatic and do not derive from any clear theoretical orientation, yet seem to provide a better understanding as to what people will do with their money than categories based upon socio-economic categories. Market researchers have therefore abandoned class for empirical, not theoretical reasons.

Similarly damming arguments are postulated for the explanation of voting behaviour. Pahl finds it difficult to believe that individuals will vote out of 'ideological commitment' to capitalism, just as others will not vote because of an 'ideological commitment' to overthrow the system. Pahl suggests that factors such as housing, health, education and consumption are more probable candidates for motive.

Class analysis was developed by people in the UK in the nineteenth century when the concentration of manufacturing industry and the more transparent structure of the relations of production made the connections between a bourgeoisie and a proletariat more obvious, and both state intervention and state employment were negligible. Recent empirical analysis has evidently been very different in all respects, including a globalisation of production and division of labour. It is undeniable that these phenomena have had a tremendous impact on the validity of the concept of class as first defined.

Pahl does not suggest that the modern capitalist system does not create inequalities, he is instead an advocate of the proposition that class has ceased to be a useful analytical tool. In their response to Pahl's paper, Goldthorpe and Marshall , in The Promising Future Of Class Analysis: A response To Recent Critiques (1992), argue convincingly for the continued usage of the concept of Class as an analytical tool.

Their underlying proposition is that class has its value as a research tool, a tool unrelated to any particular theory of class, within which different theories may be formulated and then assessed in terms of their heuristic and explanatory performance. In this way their perception of class differs greatly from a Marxist or Weberian class concept, and they identify four elements which their idea of class is not. Class is not seen to entail any theory of history according to which class conflict serves as the engine of social change. Nor does it imply any theory of class exploitation according to which all classes must be necessarily and exclusively antagonistic. Thirdly the version of class analysis endorsed by Goldthorpe and Marshall takes in no theory of class based collective action, whereby individuals holding similar positions within the class structure will automatically develop a shared consciousness of their situation, and be urged to together in the pursuit of their common class interests.

It is noted that the models of class action to which critics such as Pahl and Holton and Turner refer, are those based upon the gemeinschaftlich model of working class action. It is currently argued that class action has taken on a radically different form, such as the use of Unions. In such instances workers abstain from action, such that their representatives may more easily achieve the aims of full employment and redistributive social welfare policies. From this point of view, the consciousness agency link which Pahl criticises as taken for granted, is radically rethought and qualified. Thus, although action in it traditional sense may not be visible, to quote Elster class consciousness is "the ability to overcome the free rider problem in realising class interests".

Finally their form of class analysis does not include a reductionist theory of political action which expresses simply class relations and structurally given interests. These disclaimers are adequate evidence of the aforementioned obstacle to class evaluation: semantic conceptualisations.

It is therefore argued that critics such as Pahl and Holton and Turner have failed to distinguish adequately between class analysis in its Marxist version and class analysists involved in research. Whereas Goldthorpe and Marshall concede that objections to the former may well be valid, they do not apply to the latter as valid critique.

Three central topics are used to show that the research programme of class analysis has infact given results which reject the claims of Pahl and Holton and Turner, that class as a concept no longer does useful work, and retains only a rhetorical and not a scientific value.

The first of these topics is Social mobility. Goldthorpe and Marshall argue that different social classes exhibit different 'mobility characteristics', or differing propensities to upward social mobility. In terms of 'inflow' the crucial factor lies in the homogeneity of the class origins of those who make up the current class, and in 'outflow' terms, the degree of retentiveness or 'holding power'. Whereas service classes of modern societies are highly heterogeneous and tend also to have great holding power, the working classes are highly homogenous in origin and show lower holding power. These mobility characteristics indicate a natural history of growth or decline in relation to the structural development of the economy and also a propensity for social mobility.

The fact that classes show distinctive mobility characteristics is argued to indicate that classes can be defined by boundaries more concrete than purely arbitrary categories. The analysis of class and political partisanship exhibits similar evidence to support the usefulness of class as a concept.

Those who believe that the impact of class on lifechances is in decline, must follow the natural progression to the further claim that class is also of reduced importance in the determination of the response of individuals to their social situation, particularly through political partisanship. Class, it is suggested, is dissolving as the basis of political partisanship, and this is most evident in the declining support of working class for the parties of the left. Goldthorpe and Marshall cite the Conservative election wins of 1979 and 1983 as evidence of this, yet argue that this class dealignment is due not to a disappearance of the working class, instead a change in the shape of class structure, most importantly the growth of the services sector and decline in manufacturing. And secondly, the change in the number of parties actually contesting political elections. Again it is suggested that class maintains its role as a useful analytical tool.

It is in my opinion therefore that the concept of class is still a valid concept. However it is a clouded concept with tremendous difficulties of definition. The argument between Pahl and Goldman and Marshall is ample evidence for this. What is therefore required is a revaluation of the concept, permitting a universal alignment of definition. It is undeniable that the concept of class is radically different today than it was at the turn of the century, and it is therefore futile to criticise an outdated concept with empirical evidence of today. Goldthorpe and Marshall define their vision of class as a modern analytical tool and work within that framework. It is in this way that the concept of class will maintain its validity. Sociology is a dynamic subject, and although theories may have their roots in the nineteenth century, their relevance to today's society can be enhanced through definition and revision.