Talk:Social class/Archive 1

Old talk

The little NY Times graphic is classic! So the five classes in the USA end with people making $100,000 a year. Right! What about Teresa Heinz who made $23 million last year and didn't work, paid taxes at as 12% effective rate and owns 7 houses, each worth millions. Same class as a dentist. There are no rich in America, just hard working professionals.

addition

I added "Class in the United States, c. 2004".

It's long, so it probably needs some work. Also, I tried to keep neutral, but my bias (socialist poet boy) may have snuck in. That's for future editors to decide. I won't complain if some of the leftist teeth are removed. :) Mike Church 21:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to let "Social class" be an article about the concept of social class, and discuss the class structure of different societies in separate articles? -- till we *) 11:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I did just that Mike Church 22:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added "Language" as a criterion for class, but maybe it needs to be revised [User: Janky Jamaican] 22:27, Apr. 4 2006

Mastery of the dominant language (even if one has an accent) generally implies employability at a higher level and a higher potential for education. That said, poor grammar and a weak vocabulary surely make one vulnerable to derogatory treatment if one meets persons whose status depends upon mastery of the dominant language.--Paul from Michigan 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Medieval

How do you call in English the medioeval social divisions of warriors (bellatores), religious (oratores) and peasants (laboratores)?

"the Feudal System, defined by the 11th century by various ecclesiastics who propounded the theory that human society was divided into three orders, the oratores, the bellatores, and the laboratores" from http://www.martinstown.co.uk/WEBSITE/indexinside.htm Matt Stan 18:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

English language, and English culture doesn't have the heavy 'oratores,' 'bellatores,' 'laboratores' distinction of Continental europe due to the nature of feudal (or feodal) land tenure in England in the medieval period. While these distinctions did to some extent exist: Clergy, Nobility and Others; they weren't central. The central divisions of English culture were between Crown (The King and retinue), Lords (Secular and Divine through Bishoprics), Commons (free land holders) and an enslaved under proportion. None of these are really "Social Class" in either the Weberian or Marxian meanings. For Marxism, the Crown, Lords and Commons were as one class: possessors of land, and through land the labour of others. Fifelfoo 22:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But in the Parliament, you have at least the Lords and the Commons. Is there an English concept for a property whose value is "Secular Lord", "Common", "Bishop"? It would be similar to "class" to be worth mentioning.

What I wanted is an English translation of French état as in Etats Generaux and Tiers Etat.

I guess the problem with état being translated into English is the difference in social forms between France and England. The union of the ecclesiastical and secular lords through the Lords, and their affinity with the major Commons breaks down the possibility of an état. Remember too that the third estate was produced almost entirely by the process of selling titles of Nobility to commoners involved in government in France. In England in the late period all one had to do was get rich and powerful. ie: These estates aren't really medieval in the full sense. The difference between the third estate of the 11th Century and the third estate of Louis XIV's time is immense. People resisted buying titles (due to the recurrant costs involved). Maybe we can use other terms dividing society here, it isn't really class? Fifelfoo 23:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there an English translation of Max Webers "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft"? There he defines class and what in German is called stand (which would be equal to the etats). -- till we *) 20:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Against unsupported criticisms of class

Without a reference to a major critique of class, attempting to 'argue' refutation of the concept is POV. nPOV in this context is citing someone else's argument, particularly if they made an important contribution to the field. If you can find a well respected secondary source making your argument, then bring it forward. I'm sure that the American right (the obvious source of your argumentum ad plebium) has a number of commentators, well respected in their field, who refute Class. Find one, summarise or paraphrase his argument, and write your paragraph, "According to the well-respected political commentator, A.N. Example in her book 'End of Class' ..." My argument is against a) Your paragraph's advocacy, rather than explanation and b) The lack of a reference to a major body of work on the controversy. Fifelfoo 00:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the post-war period, sociologists argued that increasing individualism and commodity-consciousness was eroding collective working-class identification. Working class access to material wealth had significantly improved due to practically full employment, higher wages and the effects of the Welfare State. A change in fortune led to the embourgeoisement thesis, which proposed that rising affluence was negating class divisions as the working class adopted the culture, lifestyle and voting patterns of the middle classes. The solidarity exhibited by traditional close-knit working-class communities was arguably under threat from the self-contained, socially and geographically mobile, nuclear family. Similarly it was argued that the rationale behind Labour Movement involvement and trade union activism was being challenged by the growth of the ‘privatised’ worker, characterised by low job involvement, weakened family links and individualistic socio-political proclivities that stressed self-advancement through conspicuous consumption and social mobility. [1] Matt Stan 20:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Woo. Good one. Seems a bit Brit specific, but then again, the British Labour Movement had a really weird identification of marxian and weberian class as one and the same. I might dig up some marxian criticisms of marxist class to add to your developing article classlessness (Gortz, the anarchists, &tc.) Fifelfoo 23:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I heard of but did not see a news item this week of a university professor who gave up his post in order to become a plumber - more pay, presumably more 'academic' freedom, ability to manage own time, etc. etc. Quite a classless gentleman, no doubt. Matt Stan 20:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I have taken a small chunk out that I found repetitious:

Class can be used to describe the stratification of a society. This leads to schemes like the following, relating class to income:

• Upper class
• Middle class
• Lower class

Modern western societies tend to generate a large middle class in the Weberian meaning. Often, class schemes are extend to include sub-classes like "Upper middle class" and "Lower middle class".

This repeats material at the top of the article, and is out of place under the Weber header. Moreover, I don't think "middle class in the Weberian meaning" is correct.

There is a lot of diverse interest in contributing to this page, which is good, but it leads to poor structure. Also people seem to have very different ideas about what class is, which risks some incoherence. BrendanH 14:14, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have modified the Relevance of Class section, changing the wording to avoid suggesting that castes are classes (I would consider them status groups), deleting the following piece on caste (which made the caste!=class point, but gave wikilinks to info on two specific castes -- the wikilink to Caste should be enough). I also expanded a little on the differing relevance of class across countries -- evidence suggests that class is as strong as ever on hard outcomes like education and health, particularly in countries like the US and UK, and only weakens as the result of persistent social democratic policies over several generations as in Sweden. The Erikson and Goldthorpe book would be a reference. BrendanH 14:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Lower/Working/US/Propaganda

This is copied from Kenneth's talk page:

Kenneth, I've just noticed your addition of "patriotic" in the Social class entry. I don't understand what patriotism has to do with saying "working class" instead of "lower class". "Socialist" or "egalitarian" I could understand, but "patriotic" doesn't seem to make sense. BrendanH 10:42, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit clearer, but I'm still not sure what it achieves. I'd be inclined to trim that sentence ruthlessly rather than elaborate it -- to e.g.

Some people find the term "Lower Class" condescending or offensive and use "Working Class" instead.

Working class and lower class are not neccesarily the same thing.

As I've noted on Talk:Social class this page is getting somewhat chaotic, and I think we ought to work to make it more concise and relevant first, rather than adding new ideas, such as the link to propaganda, or the reference to the US (I don't think the lower/working issue is more acute there). I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Social class, and see what support there is for my pruned version.

So, does Some people find the term "Lower Class" condescending or offensive and use "Working Class" instead find favour? BrendanH 15:16, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

I cut this little section, mainly because I don't understand it! --Uncle Ed

Critiques of the concept of class

Newer sociological theory often sees class as category that isn't very helpful for describing societies. Other approaches include using strata instead of classes, changing the view from objective -- income-based -- classes to subjective classes, having a look at lifestyle based milieux or discussing different kinds of capital (Bourdieu).

Is this guy saying the term "classes" should be dropped in favor of the term "strata"? Or is he saying the concept itself isn't useful?

And what the heck are "objective" or "subjective" classes?

Is this guy just saying he doesn't want to have a society where some people are richer or poorer? ...or have higher or lower status of any kind? --Uncle Ed 15:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ja, semantics don't really need so much attention here. ----

I think what is useful about this could be integrated into the "Relevance" section above it (i.e. the critique is usually that class is not relevant). You're right that "strata instead of classes" is meaningless. "Objective" class means assignment to a well-defined class according to observable attributes (e.g. self-employed, no employees => petty bourgeoisie); subjective class means self-defined identity (usually "middle class", "working class" or "classless"). (A huge ongoing problem with this page is the continuing movement between formally defined notions of class and everyday notions of social identity.)

However, the critique section mixes a number of different ideas -- there is the relatively recent postmodern idea that in the postmodern age we choose our identities as consumers, and class as an imposed identity is therefore passé; previously Math Stannard made reference to embourgeoisement (1960s/70s argument about affluence making us "all middle class now"); Bourdieu's ideas might be seen as extensions to class theory, looking at various forms of cultural capital and their importance for the reproduction of the class structure. BrendanH 15:31, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Class and status are quite different. Class is generally defined as an objective condition determined by the extent to which an individual has control over the means of production. The concept is essetially Marxian, but is central to almost all scholarly examionations of class - i.e., the concept is freely borrowed by non-Marxian sociologists and, so long as we don't get bogged down in obscure and hotly disputed minor points, not particularly controversial.

Status in the sense used above ("other approaches include using strata instead of classes") — more commonly written as socio-economic status os SES — is a completely different concept. It has little to do with class. SES is determined by income and wealth. Some measures include other indicators, such as the general social esteem associated with an individual's occupation (for example, a poor MD might be regarded as having higher SES than a rich used car salesman) or education. Unfortunately, lay people are often unaware of the difference between class and status and confuse the two, which is why so many people (e.g., first year students) have considerable difficulty with both concepts. SES is a functionalist (i.e., non-Marxian concept) which is frequently borrowed by both Marxian and other non-functionalist sociologists. SES has nothing to do with control over the means of production, except insofar as there happens to be a moderate correlation between SES and class in most societies.

Objective class is class as measured by some external and relatively objective criteria, typically wealth or income.

"Subjective class" is class as measured by self-reports of which class the individual feels himself to belong to. Subjective class is not a very sensible term, as class is, by its very nature, determined by objective, material factors. What we are really talking about here is subjective SES, not subjective "class".

Some authorities use class in a different sense, more or less following Weber, and pretty much as a synonym for status. This is uncommon, and most modern sociologists avoid this usage as it has not been particularly productive of good theory (at least not since the early part of the 20th century) and it causes no end of confusion.

Does that clear it up, Ed? Tannin 15:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tannin, I think I object to a number of your points: Strata and status are not the same thing. Strata means layers, status means honour, prestige, etc. Status in this sense is quite different from socio-economic status (which has a special meaning and is usually operationalised as a combination of income, occupation and education). However, re: "Unfortunately, lay people are often unaware of the difference between class and status and confuse the two" -- I absolutely agree -- this is where a lot of the more ad-hoc upper, upper-middle, middle-middle etc hierarchies come from.

A second point I disagree with strongly is the "Weber, class as a synonym for status" line. Weber's biggest contribution is to separate class from status, and to show that class (in a sense indeed close to Marx's) has an importance that varies from one era to another.

I would agree that "subjective class" is a bit of an oxymoron, but people do have subjective ideas about what class they "are" -- they simply use a lay definition of class. "Subjective SES" is even worse, though, as SES is a very well defined empirical measure in social research.

Sorry to be so howlingly negative -- I agree with a lot of what you said, and certainly its general drift. I just needed to pick on a few details that I think are just wrong. BrendanH 16:04, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I thank both Tannin and Brendan for their long responses. I'm feeling a bit daunted, in a sophomoric kind of way, so I guess I'll grab a bit of lunch and take a fresh look afterwards. You're both "classy" guys, in my estimation. ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I know I haven't answered the above yet, but here's one more cut:

The composition and characteristics of the Lower Class, especially in the United States, is highly controversial because of propagandic chauvinism, ignorance and general desire to be above what is considered outmoded by modern political standards; some writers eschew the term Lower Class in favor of the term Working Class.

I read chauvinism, and I can't see what it has to do with some writers preferring the term working class over the term lower class.

Is there some general chafing about being labelled "low class"? Like "trailer trash", "bum", worthless no-good shiftless lazy etc.? Oh, and what about upward mobility? Should we mention that, too?

• self-made man
• rags to riches

--Uncle Ed 17:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with the cut; see my exchange with Kenneth Alan above. Whether to talk about mobility is another question: it is a big issue in its own right. BrendanH 17:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Overdue replies

Tannin wrote:

Class is generally defined as an objective condition determined by the extent to which an individual has control over the means of production. The concept is essentially Marxian . . .

You seem to be saying Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which an individual has control over the means of production. A statement like that could go straight into the article.

But you also seem to be talking about a distinction between objective measures, which an impartial observer could discern -- and subjective measures, involving self-identification.

Over the past 2 or 3 years, I've often strained to catch the gist of what you've been saying, Tannin. Even though I've probably failed more times than I've succeeded, I've always regarded you as earnest and well-informed. :-) --Uncle Ed 17:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm a bit concerned that the article doesn't make it clear that, until fairly recently (in the last 200 years or so), most people didn't actually use the word "class" to describe their position in society. One wouldn't for example, hear someone in the 16th c call himself a middle-class farmer -- he was a farmer, or proprietor perhaps. Implicit in those terms were his legal status -- free, economic status -- landholding or owning, and social -- his peers were other farmers like him, and perhaps others who could also be termed as proprietors. Boots

What's in a word? Until 120 years ago, no one ever referred to "germs" as causing disease. Does that invalidate Pasteur's germ theory of disease?

If there's a debate among sociologists or historians, about whether social stratification ever existed, then by all means mention this debate in the article. "We all lived in a glorious classless society, until X happened..." --Uncle Ed 19:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the article is pretty clear in linking class as a formal concept to Marx and Weber. 200 years ago Marx wasn't born. Taking your point more seriously, we can say, yes, class in the modern sense didn't exist in feudal society -- stratification was into estates (though Marx called these classes too; Weber wouldn't). In an important sense, class is the form of stratification arising from the fundamental structure of capitalist society, so it wasn't relevant before. However, you seem to be going back to the idea of subjective identification, or the lay concepts used to describe stratification, and that is really a different issue from class as a formally defined concept (I believe it actually maps much better onto Weberian "status" FWIW). BrendanH 09:53, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Relations of production

I added a short sentence regarding relations of production, because I believe it is important to locate Marx's engagement with social class in his wider notions of 'relations of production' and 'mode of production'.

--Imagine&Engage 10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Markwiki's edits of the 22nd

The edits of the 22nd are fundamentally corrupt, particularly the subsumption of a coherent intellectual organisation of ways of thinking about class into a trite iteration of lists. Most heinous, putting Marxian concepts of class under the heading "2 classes". The article has gone down hill, and needs reversion, and then reintegration of recent edits. Fifelfoo 23:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge "working class"

Is anyone interested in merging working class into this article? I've tried to make some contributions to that article by clarifying the definition, but have been frustrated by disagreements with other editors, and in the end the conceptualization of working class depends on how we conceptualize social classes in general.

The main contribution that working class would make to this article is the discussion on class mobility at the end of the article. If you decide to do this, good luck. AdamRetchless 23:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Some info may be useful, but basically working class is supposed to be a subarticle to the more general social class article, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No mention of nobility

This is a terrible article. It's so skewed towared the Marxist and Weberian concepts of social class that it doesn't even mention the word "nobility" one single time in the article.

Some countries, including Russia, China, and the United States either have little heritage of nobility or aristocracy or have suppressed the old nobility at one time. That is not to say that privileged classes do not exist in such societies. Those privileged may be a former communist-era nomenklatura who dominate the economy after de-collectivization or an executive élite that enriches itself through bureaucratic power. That members of such élites claim that their favored positions result from merit and that they do not take on the behaviors characteristic of old aristocracies does not deny their capacity to exploit others severly. They do not, for example, attach "noble" prefixes as the German von to their surnames and do not have such titles as Count, Lord, Burgess, Baron, or the like as one might expect in much of western Europe, India, or Japan.

It is my suspicion that most societies have either an aristocracy or a nomenklatura (the American executive class acts much like a nomenklatura) and that one suppresses the rise of the other.--Paul from Michigan 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Technology and social class

In the section on class stratification, this passage

In this way, it used to be assumed that the upper classes were the first to try new products, which then 'trickled down ' (the name of the theory) to the lower classes. Historically, there may have been some justification for this.

is hardly incontrovertible. Although disposable income allows one to purchase objects of technological innovation, one can argue that the middle class was more likely to use automobiles, phonographs, electric lights, and radios. The technology of class upper-class indulgence is more primitive: an army of domestic servants and other retainers from messengers to even household orchestras. If one was in the Esterházy family in much of the eighteenth century, one needed no radio or phonograph for the simple reason that one had an orchestra under employment and a composer (Joseph Haydn) to write the music. Upper-class people didn't need telephones with which to bark out orders, and if there was some distance between the commander and the commanded, there were messengers often under employment to the upper class person. The earliest electric lights did nothing that the gas lamps that the upper classes used with apparent satisfaction -- except to light things more cheaply. The upper class was happy to use horses and carriages that at first were more reliable than the earliest automobiles. Automobiles supplanted horses and carriages because automobiles were cheaper to own and operate.

With their buying power, the very rich of the time in which movies were introduced could listen to live music far superior in sonic qualities to any recordings before recent times and to live theater. The middle class could not afford such entertainment.

At the extreme, the television was more likely to be adopted by the working class than by the upper or middle classes. Vance Packard tells us that television antennas sprouted profusely in working-class neighborhoods before they appeared in middle-class neighborhoods. In Class, Paul Fussell contends that the rejection of television is a signal of high -- not low -- status. In effect, television generally made its way to the working-class Ralph Kramdens before it reached the middle-class Ward Cleavers. --Paul from Michigan 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverse Markwiki

One of the surest ways to ruin an insightful article is to turn it into a collection of lists. I support Fifelfoo's argument that article needs reversion and reintegration. --Imagine&Engage 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists are not perfect, but unless they are factually erroneus, they should not be removed, since they contain useful information. Instead of reverting, I recommend expanding/resectioning and possibly moving the information to subarticles if you feel it does not belong here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Petty Bourgeoisie in "Marxian class"

I think it might be useful to include a short summary of the petty bourgeoisie (small businessmen and professionals) in the discussion of Marxian class. Would anyone be interested in doing this? metzerly 05:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

worldwide view

I reached this article via link from Gosford Park and comedy of manners so it was disappointing not to find much about social classes other than in the United States. The U.S. material is fascinating, but it would be great to have much more added about other societies around the world. 65.92.125.9 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fussell's class question

This is simply a question for learned sociologists. The "Bottom-out-of-sight" class in Fussell's ideology does not seem to be consistent with the rest of his theory. Suppose Bill Gates is arrested tomorrow, and is incarcerated for one month. It is not clear how this would drop him so far down, especially since he would most likely be running Microsoft from prison and living in a room full of feathered pillows... Anyone? And no, I am not writing from prison.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOcelot (talk • contribs)

Well, Paul Fussel is not a sociologist and his book was written mostly for entertainment purposes. While it is an interesting book, it is not a textbook. I replaced the Fussel model with one acutally used in a textbook by sociologists. Regards. Signature^brendel 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

TOoS

I removed 'Celebrities' from the Top Out-Of-Sight category. Not only are they not applicable by Fussell's definitions because most income is derived from work but celebrities cannot, by definition, be "out of sight."