Class Inequality and Stratification (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes
Class Inequality and Stratification
The relationship between social class and life chances
Social class has a profound impact on an individual's life chances - the opportunities and resources available to them throughout their life. This relationship affects multiple areas of social experience, creating systematic patterns of advantage and disadvantage that persist across generations.
Life chances encompass all the opportunities available to individuals throughout their lifetime, including access to education, healthcare, employment, and social mobility. Understanding this concept is crucial for analysing how social class creates and maintains inequality in society.
Impact on health and mortality
Social class directly influences health outcomes and life expectancy. Infant mortality rates demonstrate this pattern clearly - in 2001, professional class families experienced 3.6 deaths per 1000 births compared to 7.2 deaths per 1000 births among unskilled manual workers.
The health gap between social classes has widened over recent decades. The Black Report (1980) documented these health inequalities and found the differences were increasing. Working-class individuals face higher risks of illness and have shorter life expectancies than their middle-class counterparts.
The widening health gap between social classes represents one of the most concerning aspects of modern inequality. Despite improvements in overall healthcare, the relative disadvantage faced by working-class communities has actually increased over time.
Two main explanations account for health inequalities:
- Material deprivation: Working-class people cannot afford healthy lifestyles, nutritious food, or quality healthcare
- Cultural deprivation: Working-class culture may discourage healthy behaviours like regular exercise or preventative healthcare
Educational and employment effects
Children from higher social class backgrounds consistently achieve better educational results. This educational advantage translates into employment opportunities, as middle-class children are more likely to secure professional careers with greater job security.
Working-class individuals face higher unemployment rates and often work in less secure positions. The rise of temporary employment has particularly affected working-class communities, creating additional economic uncertainty.
The relationship between social class and educational achievement creates a cycle of advantage and disadvantage. Middle-class parents can provide cultural capital, private tutoring, and educational resources that give their children significant advantages in the education system.
Life expectancy differences
Social class affects longevity significantly. Men from higher managerial and professional classes live approximately six years longer than men from routine manual occupations. For women, the difference is around four years, though this gap has increased since the 1980s.
Functionalist perspective on stratification
Functionalists argue that the class system serves important social functions and helps society operate effectively. This perspective views inequality as both inevitable and beneficial for social order.
Core functionalist principles
Functionalism rests on the belief that the class system enables individuals to find their appropriate place and role in society. The most important positions must be filled by the brightest and most capable people, creating a natural hierarchy based on talent and effort.
According to functionalists, people reach high positions in society because of their abilities and hard work, not due to their class background. The rewards associated with high-status positions (power, income, prestige) motivate people to work hard and develop their talents.
Functionalists believe stratification is not just inevitable but actually necessary for society to function properly. They argue that without inequality, society would lack the motivation systems needed to ensure important roles are filled by capable people.
Parsons' contribution
Parsons' Functionalist Theory (1953)
Talcott Parsons established key functionalist ideas about stratification:
Core Arguments:
- Stratification is inevitable and useful in all societies
- Stratification systems evaluate individuals based on common social values
- High status rewards people for conforming to society's values
- Stratification reinforces collective social goals and establishes order
Key Insight: Parsons viewed stratification as a mechanism that helps maintain social consensus by rewarding those who contribute most effectively to society's goals.
Davis and Moore's role allocation theory
Davis and Moore's Role Allocation Theory (1945)
Davis and Moore developed the concept of role allocation, arguing that without stratification, society would collapse.
Their Key Claims:
- Stratification ensures the most able and talented people take on the most important roles
- Inequality in rewards and status motivates the best individuals to pursue demanding careers
- Important positions require extensive training periods, so high compensation justifies this investment
Core Principle: The theory suggests that society naturally develops unequal rewards to ensure its most crucial functions are performed by the most capable individuals.
New Right perspective on stratification
New Right theory emerged in the 1980s, arguing that social stratification is unequal but ultimately fair. This approach combines functionalist ideas with free-market economics.
Saunders and meritocracy
Peter Saunders' New Right Theory (1990)
Saunders represents key New Right thinking on stratification with several core arguments:
Economic Benefits:
- Societies with stratification systems function more effectively than those without inequality
- Stratification motivates hard work because unequal rewards encourage people to improve their position
- Inequality promotes economic growth by incentivising individuals to start businesses and create jobs
Fairness Principle:
- Legal equality and equality of opportunity matter more than equality of outcome
- Britain operates close to being a meritocracy, where economic rewards match individual merit and ability
Market-based inequality
New Right theorists support free market economics, believing market forces should determine rewards. They argue that people whose skills are in high demand but short supply earn more money naturally. This system rewards talent and effort fairly.
Saunders suggests that apparent inequality of opportunity between classes actually reflects inequality of ability and effort rather than structural barriers.
New Right theorists distinguish between equality of opportunity (which they support) and equality of outcome (which they oppose). They argue that ensuring everyone has the same starting chances is fair, but equalising final results would be both unfair and economically damaging.
Criticisms of functionalist and New Right theories
Tumin's critique of functionalism
Melvin Tumin's Challenge to Functionalism (1953)
Tumin challenged core functionalist assumptions, highlighting several critical flaws:
Problems with Meritocracy:
- True inequality of opportunity exists in society, contradicting meritocratic claims
- Pay inequality between groups often reflects differences in power rather than usefulness or importance
Motivational Issues:
- Stratification can create barriers to motivation rather than encouraging it
- The functionalist view ignores negative aspects of stratification, including how it excludes people from society
Evidence against meritocracy
Gordon Marshall and Adam Swift (1993) argue that capitalist societies are not meritocratic. The free market does not ensure equal chances for all, as opportunities vary significantly according to social class background.
Research demonstrates that people from working-class backgrounds are less likely to obtain top jobs, even when they have the same educational qualifications as middle-class people. This suggests that class background continues to influence life chances regardless of individual ability.
Empirical evidence consistently shows that social mobility is limited and that class background remains a powerful predictor of life outcomes, even when controlling for educational achievement and individual ability. This challenges both functionalist and New Right claims about meritocracy.
Marxist perspective on stratification
Marxists view stratification as a tool for exploitation that deliberately creates and maintains inequality. This perspective fundamentally opposes functionalist views by seeing class conflict as the driving force of social change.
Marx's two-class model
Marx argued that class represents the key to understanding all social relationships. He identified only two classes in society:
- Proletariat (subject class): The majority who only own their labour power and depend on the ruling class for wages
- Bourgeoisie (ruling class): The minority who own the means of production and control wealth and power
A class is defined as a social group sharing the same relationship to the means of production.
Marx's Class Structure
The Bourgeoisie (Ruling Class):
- Own factories, machinery, land, and other means of production
- Control the labour process and working conditions
- Extract profit from workers' labour
- Represent a small minority of the population
The Proletariat (Working Class):
- Own only their ability to work (labour power)
- Must sell their labour to survive
- Have no control over production or working conditions
- Represent the vast majority of the population
Exploitation and alienation
The subject class (workers) experience exploitation because they only own their labour power and have limited control over society. They become dependent on the ruling class for employment and survival.
Marx described how workers become fulfilled when they see the products of their labour, but under capitalism, they become alienated - disconnected from their work and from others.
Marx identified four types of alienation under capitalism: alienation from the product of labour, from the labour process itself, from fellow workers, and from human potential. This alienation is a direct result of the capitalist system's structure rather than individual psychological problems.
Ruling class control
The ruling class maintains power through multiple mechanisms:
- Owning the means of production and controlling both production and worker wages
- Paying workers less than the value they create through their labour, generating profit
- Using their economic power to control other social institutions including education, legal systems, police, and media
- Promoting dominant ideology through institutions that spread ideas supporting the existing system
Marx called these institutions ideological state apparatus - they communicate ruling-class ideology to everyone and help maintain the system by preventing workers from recognising their oppression.
Marx's vision for change
Marx believed that workers would eventually revolt and create communism - a system where everyone owns the means of production equally. He expected workers to recognise their oppression under capitalism and overthrow the ruling class.
However, large-scale communist societies in the 20th century (like the USSR) ultimately failed, leading many sociologists to question Marx's predictions about inevitable revolution and the possibility of truly equal societies.
Marx's prediction of inevitable communist revolution has not materialised in developed capitalist societies. This has led to significant debate about whether his analysis of capitalism was flawed or whether the revolution has simply been delayed or prevented by other factors.
Neo-Marxist theories
Neo-Marxists adapt traditional Marxist ideas to explain modern class structures, particularly the growth of the middle class. These theories attempt to address some of the limitations in Marx's original two-class model.
Wright's class analysis
Erik Olin Wright's Class Analysis (1978, 1989)
Wright developed a sophisticated Marxist analysis to explain the middle class of salaried professionals:
The Petty Bourgeoisie:
- Has some control over the means of production
- Does not control large sections of labour power
- Occupies a position between the traditional bourgeoisie and proletariat
Contradictory Class Locations:
- Individuals may share characteristics with both classes at different times
- Example: Middle managers may have middle-class lifestyles and incomes but could lose their livelihood if they lose their job or share prices fall
- This explains why class identity can be complex and shifting
Continued relevance of class
Wright concludes that class conflict and exploitation remain more complex in the modern era than Marx predicted, but class remains the basis of power and wealth in society.
John Edgell (1993) supports Wright's analysis, noting that Marx's focus has more in common with Weber's broader understanding of class structure.
Neo-Marxists argue that Marx's basic insights about exploitation and class conflict remain valid, but his simple two-class model needs updating to reflect the complexity of modern capitalist societies. The key message is: don't dismiss Marx completely just because he didn't predict the middle class's growth.
Weber's theory of stratification
Max Weber offered a more complex understanding of class and stratification than Marx's two-class model. Weber's multidimensional approach provides a more nuanced analysis of social inequality.
Weber's three dimensions of power
Weber identified three distinct dimensions of stratification in modern society:
- Class power: Economic power to access material goods and resources
- Social power: Status and prestige, being respected by others
- Party power: Political power and ability to influence decision-making
These dimensions tend to be interlinked - people with social power often have political and economic power as well, but they can also vary independently.
Weber's three-dimensional model shows that social stratification is more complex than purely economic relationships. Someone might have high status but low economic power (like a respected teacher), or high economic power but low social status (like a wealthy but socially excluded criminal).
Class and market position
Weber argued that an individual's class power and class position derive from their market position - their economic opportunities and ability to control wages and working conditions.
Market position varies depending on how much demand exists for someone's skills and talents. It also affects ownership of property and assets like shares.
Weber's class hierarchy
Weber developed the concept of life chances, believing that good life chances depend on having a strong market position. An individual's life chances can change throughout their life based on how much demand exists for their skills.
Rather than Marx's two-class system, Weber identified a hierarchy of four layers:
- Upper class: Lots of property, high market position, high social and party power
- White collar professionals: Good market position from owning shares, some social and party power
- Petty bourgeoisie: May own some property (like a small shop) but have lower social and party power
- Working class: Lack property and share ownership, lack social and party power
White collar professionals and the petty bourgeoisie represent the upper and lower parts of today's middle class.
Weber's Class Hierarchy in Practice
Upper Class Example:
- Large property owners, major shareholders
- High income from investments and business ownership
- Significant political influence and social prestige
White Collar Professionals Example:
- Doctors, lawyers, senior managers
- Good salaries and some investment income
- Moderate political influence and high social status
Petty Bourgeoisie Example:
- Small business owners, shop keepers
- Variable income dependent on business success
- Limited political influence but some local status
Working Class Example:
- Manual workers, service employees
- Income from wages only
- Little political influence or social status
Postmodern theories on class
Postmodernists argue that class has become less important in contemporary society. They suggest that traditional class-based analysis no longer adequately explains social stratification in the modern world.
Declining importance of class
Postmodernist theorists claim that other differences such as gender, age, and ethnicity are now at least as important as class in determining social position.
Pakulski and Waters (1996) argue that cultural differences (values, lifestyles, and beliefs) now classify individuals into social groups more than economic position.
Postmodernists suggest that in consumer societies, people's identities are increasingly shaped by lifestyle choices, consumption patterns, and cultural preferences rather than their relationship to production or their economic position.
Individual choice and identity
Postmodernists emphasise that stratification can be subjective - individuals can define themselves as belonging to particular social groups and can freely move between groups by choosing their lifestyle and identity.
An important aspect of how people define their social status involves symbolic consumption - the way people buy goods and choose lifestyles to express their identity. Postmodernists view consumerism as a form of differentiation, where people use material goods to communicate their social position.
Critics argue that postmodern theories overestimate individual choice and underestimate the continued importance of economic constraints. While consumption patterns may create new forms of identity, fundamental economic inequalities continue to shape life chances significantly.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Social class significantly affects life chances - impacting health, education, employment opportunities, and life expectancy across all areas of social life
-
Functionalists argue stratification is necessary for society to function effectively by motivating people and allocating the best individuals to the most important roles
-
Marxists view class as fundamentally exploitative - the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat through ownership of the means of production and control of social institutions
-
Weber offers a more complex class hierarchy based on three types of power (economic, social, and political) rather than Marx's simple two-class model
-
Contemporary theories debate class relevance - Neo-Marxists adapt classical ideas to explain the middle class, while postmodernists argue other factors now matter more than economic class position
Essential Understanding: While theorists disagree about the exact nature and future of class stratification, all acknowledge that social class continues to play a significant role in shaping individual life experiences and opportunities in modern society.