The Class Structure of the UK (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes

The Class Structure of the UK

The British stratification system experienced substantial transformation during the 20th century, reflecting broader societal changes. These shifts have sparked intense debate among sociologists about the nature and relevance of class in contemporary Britain.

Changes in work patterns and wealth distribution

The employment landscape has undergone dramatic changes since the early 20th century. Manual labour jobs have declined whilst non-manual positions have expanded significantly. This shift reflects the growth of service industries, particularly in leisure sectors, whilst primary industries (like mining) and manufacturing have contracted.

Women's participation in the workforce has increased dramatically, rising from 53% of working-age women in 1971 to nearly 70% by the early 21st century. This change has reshaped household economics and class dynamics.

Between 1945 and 1980, income and wealth became more evenly distributed across British society. However, this trend reversed after 1980, with the wealth and income gap widening considerably. Despite these changes, the majority of wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a small minority. Many state-controlled industries were privatised during the 1980s and 1990s, leading to increased private share ownership, though this has not fundamentally altered wealth concentration patterns.

The ruling class debate

Sociologists hold conflicting views about whether Britain's ruling class still exists as a coherent entity.

New Right theorists, particularly Saunders (1990), argue that the ruling class has disintegrated. They suggest that increased share ownership has created a "nation of stakeholders" where power is more widely distributed. This perspective emphasises that more people now own shares, democratising economic influence.

Marxist sociologists strongly disagree, insisting the ruling class remains "alive and kicking". John Scott (1982, 1991) acknowledges that share ownership has increased but argues this hasn't broken up the ruling class. Most individuals own only small numbers of shares with minimal real power. Scott, alongside Westergaard and Resler (1976), maintains that a power elite continues to control business and the economy, regardless of broader share ownership.

Middle class expansion and fragmentation

The middle class has undoubtedly grown throughout the 20th century. Functionalists and Weberians point to the rise of professions (such as lawyers and doctors) as evidence of middle-class expansion.

Embourgeoisement theory

Embourgeoisement describes the process whereby working-class people adopt middle-class lifestyles and values as their incomes increase. This concept gained popularity among sociologists during the 1950s and 1960s.

Middle class fragmentation

Some sociologists argue the middle class is fragmenting into several distinct classes with different life experiences and opportunities.

Goldthorpe identifies an intermediate class of low-grade non-manual workers who share little with middle-class professionals. These groups differ significantly in terms of wages, employment benefits, and relationships with employers.

Harry Braverman (1974) discussed how non-manual workers have been deskilled by technology, making them more similar to working-class employees in terms of job security and wealth. This process is called proletarianisation.

Roberts et al (1977) interviewed middle-class workers about their class identity and found wide variations in self-perception. They concluded that the middle class is fragmenting into smaller, distinct groups.

Giddens (1973) similarly argues for a distinct middle class that differs from both the working class through members' ability to sell their intellectual or "brain power" rather than physical labour.

Postmodernist perspectives on class

Pakulski and Waters (1996) make the bold claim that "class is dead", arguing that class analysis in social science has become obsolete.

Their evidence includes:

• Wealth became more equally distributed during the 20th century, reducing economic class differences whilst providing more people with disposable income for consumer goods
• Educational achievement has gained importance over economic factors for determining life chances
• New postmodern politics focuses on non-economic issues such as ethnicity, identity, gender, and environmental concerns
• People are less likely to vote along class lines - manual workers don't automatically support left-wing parties

Pakulski and Waters propose that society evolved from an economic class society in the 19th century, through a hierarchical class society in the first half of the 20th century, to a status society in the late 20th century.

However, Marxist sociologist John Westergaard (1995) challenges this view, arguing that gaps between rich and poor are widening rather than narrowing, making class more rather than less relevant in contemporary Britain.

The weakening and division of the working class

The decline of traditional working-class sectors, particularly manufacturing and heavy industry, has reduced the size and cohesion of the British working class.

Ralph Dahrendorf (1959) argues that rather than uniting, the working class has disintegrated into separate groups of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers. This division has occurred due to technological changes that have created different levels of expertise and job security.

Penn (1983) researched cotton mills in Rochdale and found evidence that the working class had been divided into these skill categories since at least the 1850s. Crewe (1983) supports this view, arguing that the working class is splitting into groups with different concerns and interests.

Some sociologists identify a "new working class" primarily in the South, employed in private sector jobs and owning their homes. This group has very different life experiences compared to the "old working class" concentrated in the North, living in council housing and working in public sector jobs.

Marxist sociologists criticise this fragmentation thesis, arguing that the working class can change occupations whilst remaining fundamentally working class. Beynon (1992) notes that old working-class jobs have been replaced by new occupations that are equally poorly paid with poor working conditions - such as call centres and fast-food outlets. The employment relationship and lack of power remain constant, which Marxists argue defines working-class status.

The emergence of an underclass

The concept of an underclass below the traditional working class has gained attention, though sociologists disagree about its definition and causes.

Charles Murray (1989), representing New Right thinking, defines the underclass by behaviour - characterising them as uneducated, delinquent, and work-shy. This perspective sees the underclass as dangerous to society.

Runciman (1990) offers a different definition, identifying the underclass as people who are permanently dependent on welfare benefits rather than focusing on behaviour.

Giddens (1973) defines the underclass as the most disadvantaged in the job market, including groups like illegal immigrants. He argues there's a secondary job market with low-paid, insecure work that represents the best opportunities available to the underclass.

Dahrendorf (1987) suggests the underclass is growing rapidly, potentially due to globalisation effects. As manual work moves overseas, there's reduced demand for manual workers domestically. Automation also decreases the need for manual labour, whilst increasing labour market flexibility has created more insecure, temporary, or casual employment opportunities.