inequality could be measured by three proxies; class, status, and party. The inequality
that was reflected through class was concerned with exploitation and the individuals
‘market position’ by this Weber meant skills and qualifications that made the
individual attractive to an employer. “According to Weber, class divisions derive
from economic differences… such as resources including skills and credentials, which
effect the types of jobs people are able to obtain” (Giddens, 2001, P.g 285). Weber
believed that the more skilled the individual, the better the opportunity for social
mobility or ‘life chances’ they had. Status and party, in Weber’s stratification, was
reflected in the material the individual owned and the manner in which they
conducted themselves. Party was simply the group membership or political identity
reflexive in the individual’s ideology. Weber’s theory has been influential to modern
day thinking on class; because it allows for the complex interplay of class positioning
that is so prevalent in post-modern society. “Most sociologists hold that Weber’s
scheme offers a more flexible and sophisticated basis for analysing stratification than
that provided by Marx” (Giddens 2001, P.g 286)
The Goldthorpe class scheme is an example of a neo-Weberian stratification
of class. It is so called because it has taken certain elements of Weber’s theory and
embellished upon them. Goldthorpe believed that there should be two main focuses or
proxies for inequality, ‘market position’, and ‘work situation’. Market position is
similar in design to Weber’s ‘life chances’ it focuses on the skills a person has in
relation to the power that gives them to negotiate for better working conditions and
advancement opportunities. “Market situation… emphasises material rewards and
general ‘life chances” (Giddens 2001, P.g 288). Work situation focuses on the
contract that exists between the individual and the higher authority. He distinguished
eleven categories of people who fall into three main classes. The service class have a
high level of skill and either employee workers or are in similar hierarchical positions
to the employer. The intermediate class have a reasonable level of skills and can exert
some power over their employer, and the working class have little skills and are at the
mercy of the employer.
Goldthorpe’s class scheme, although an occupational stratification, also
focuses heavily on employment relations. It has some merits when applied to
contemporary society “It has been useful in highlighting class based inequalities, such
as those relating to health and education, as well as reflecting class based dimensions
in voting patterns, political outlooks and general social attitudes” (Giddens 2001, P.g,
288). However it has come under criticism for three main reasons. Firstly it excludes a
large number of people such as the unemployed, students, old age pensioners, and
people who live off unearned income. This exclusion is particularly problematic when
taken in context to post-modern society. “Longer periods in education, rising
unemployment and lower retirement ages mean that the individuals spend less of their
lifetime in ‘work’” (Crompton, 1996, Pg 19). Secondly the scheme takes the family as
a unit, and classifies it in context to the major breadwinner. However this definition
does not account for situations where the lower wage earner can be a higher rank
within the Goldthorpe scheme. Similarly the idea that an individual should be
classified as a part of a unit has been disputed “class position of an individual should
be determined without reference to the household” (Giddens, 1996, pg 299). The third
criticism of Goldthrope’s scheme is that it does not take account of the upper classes.
Goldthorpe argues that the upper classes are unimportant because they are
proportionally insignificant, the focus should be on the service sector “The rich are so
few in number they can be excluded from schemes detailing class structure” (Giddens
2001 P.g 289). This view has been criticised by both John Scott and John
Westergaard. Westergaard argues that although the upper classes are few they still
have enormous control over the proletarians and thus there is still an element of
Marxist exploitation, “It is the intense concentration of power and privilege in so few
hands that makes these people top” (Giddens 2001 P.g, 289). Scott believes the upper
classes are changing, but this change does not effect there hierarchical position.
Paradoxically these changes could be used as a counter argument to Scott, “The
increasing prominence of cooperate, rather than individual patterns of wealth
holdings, has lead to suggestions that the very rich (or ‘upper class’) have declined”
(Crompton, 1996, Pg 20). The core problem with theorising about the upper class or
the elite rich is the inaccessibility of reliable data collection; the rich do not often
publicise information about there wealth, an even if they do it is not always reliable.
However, there are certain trends that are occurring that can be used as a tool
for class analysis “Noteworthy trends have arisen in Briton in recent years, many of
the wealthiest members of society are quite young… and ethnic minorities are
increasing there presence among the super rich” (Giddens 2001 P.g, 291).
An interesting alternative to Goldthorpe’s stratification, and one that
incorporates the upper classes, is Erik Olin Wright’s theory of class. Wright believes
that class can be operationalized by using the individual’s access to economic
resources as a proxy. He suggests that there are three elements to theses economic
resources; control over capital, control over means of production, and control of
labour, “According to Wright there are three dimensions of control over economic
resources in modern capitalist production, and these allow us to identify the major
classes that exist” (Giddens 2001 P.g 286). The capitalists or upper classes have
access over all three economic dimensions and the proletarians or working classes
have access to none. The middle class Wright terms the ‘Contradictory class location’
and this is where ninety percent of the population fall into “Wright calls them
contradictory class locations because they are able to influence some aspect of
production, but are denied control of others” (Giddens 2001 P.g 286). To further
distinguish between these contradictory classes Wright, as with Goldthorpe’s
stratification, depends on two factors, relationship to authority, and possession of
skills.
The main ideology behind both Goldthorpe and Wright’s class scheme is that
through occupational positioning and an in-depth analysis of the relationship to
authority, the stratification can correctly evaluate the individual’s life chances or
overall standard of living and their opportunities for social advancement. However
this ideology raises a number of questions. Firstly can occupation really be a true
measurement of everyone’s life chances? Giddens believes not “Class schemes based
upon occupational distinctions are unable to reflect the importance of property
ownership and wealth” (Giddens 2001 P.g 289). Secondly occupation does not
account for other inequalities such as racism and gender. This problem, compounded
by globalisation and thus a higher numbers of ethnic minority migrants, is becoming
an increasing challenge to the concept of class “Since the early 1970’s sociologists
have become more aware of the relative importance of gender and race” (Marsh,
1998, P.g 149). Thirdly some sociologists have argued that the very structure of
contemporary society is moving more towards a ‘meritocracy’ therefore the concept
of class is outdated, “Clark and Lipset suggest that there has been a decline in the
importance of social class as a determinant of lifestyle and life chances” (Marsh,
1998, P.g 152). In counter to this some sociologists would argue that although the
structures of society are changing, the inequalities that are displayed through a class
scheme are still inherent in society “Changes in the distribution of reward, social
welfare, social mobility and education have simply blurred class boundaries and
created an illusion of equality. Whatever the case may be one thing is for certain, that
the increasing division of labour, coupled with the rise of individualism, is going to
bring about an ever increasing sociological challenge to the concept of class.
