Social ineqality: 1C

• This topic examines explanations of iniquality by looking first at the nature of the stratification system- capitalism- which generates inequalities.
• This is followed by an analysis of leading theoretical approaches marxism, waberian theory and functionalists 

• Social differences are found in every society . People vary in their personal qualities( inteligence, beauty) social roles (occupations) and their general group characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity). These differences may mean that people have unequal chances of success when they compete for scarce and desirable resources.
• its clear society distrobutes rewards unequaly between individuals and groups. these inequalities often take the form of social strata: layers or groups organised in a hierachy of privledge, where those at the top tend to possess greather wealth prestigue and power.
• Stratification takes different forms in different societies and historical periods. The magor system of stratification in contemporary britian is the social class system.The term class is defined slightly differently by each theorist but there is agreement that those at the bottom of the social class scale and those at the top differ in terms of identity, economic position and life chances. 

• Marx beleived inequality was not inevitable in all socities just in capetalism. He argued the two class model where the bourgoisie and the proletariate were defined by their relationship to the means of production. The bougoisie own the means of production and so are in a highly privledged and powerful economic position where as the proletariate don't own productive property and so they can only survive by selling their labour power to the bougoisie.  
• This basic division between the owners of capital and the workers is what creates major conflict. Social inequality is caused by the bougoisies opression of the proletariat. marx notes that capitalism has the potential to create wealth for everyone but it exploits and opresses large sections of the population. its the workers who create wealth through their work but the economic rewards are seized by the factroy owners (this is known as surplus value). 
• Theres a basic conflict of interest between bosses and workers since its in the employers interests to keep wages low in order to increase proffits. This creates all sorts of strain and conflict within capitalism. 
• marxism can explan why theres continuing inequality in out society. 

• marx beleived to reduce social inequality there must be a communist revolution.
• he argued the proletariate find it hard to become class concious because the prevalent set of idea's in socity support the illusion that we live in a meritocracy hence workers beleive their in a position based on their own merit i.e they lame themselves for their position of less wealth and power rather than blaming the system which creates the inequalities (falce class conciousness).
• The super structure (schools media religeon etc) are ultimatly controlled by the bourgosie and hence teach the dominant ideology which controls our minds.
• The dominant ideology supports and tollerates inequality, meritocratic arguments reasure people that the system is fundamentally fair, the successful are seen as deserving while the less successful are expected to resign themselves to their fate. This ideology masks the unequal opportunities in society: WC people face greater material and cultural obsticals which hinder their educational and occupational acheivments.

• Marx died over a centuary ago and its unfail to expect him to have predicted every development since then. Neo marixism describes the work of later marxists who wrestled with the problem of why things didn't work out like expected. Thesre's no single neo marx aproach but most agree culture deserves more serious attention than it was given by Marx. They see culture as a force of its own, one that can't be treated as a mere reflection of economic forces (although its never entirly free from economic factors) 
• Bourdieu - describes how cultural tastes splay a part in creating boundries between social classes and aruges the bourgoisie use cultural capital to maintain their class position.
• Gramsci: explains capitalists use their superior resources (ie mass media and education) to win the hearts and minds of the workers. they attempt to convince the workers that the capetalist system is legitimate, normal and a matter of common sense. he called this hegemony: dominance by political and cultural means. however he notes its a precarious thing as its usually contested by rical groups with competing ideologies
• Mrcuse: the hypnotic power of the mass media deprives us of the capacity for critical thought which is essential if we are to change the world.

however its not proved the mdeia is controlled by the bourgoisie or that they intentilly set out to legitimise capetalism mc Robbie argues people are increasingly critical of the mdeia and use a multitude of media sources to make a sophisticated analysis regarding each story. 

Another problem that prevents the proleatraite from uniting is the underclass. KinKaid beleives the underclass are created by and used by the bourgoisie for the following reasons. 

• Reserve army of labour- the poor act as a warning- having a group in poverty provides a direct warning to the rest of the workforce of what could happen to them if they don't work hard.
• Divide and rule- those within the wc are encouraged to see themselves as seperate and different from the underclass ie promoting racism, sexism to pin the workers against eachother distracting them from their real enemy the bourgoisie. 
• Scape goats for socities ills- the bourogisie blame the underclass for the problems in socieity so people are distracted by the real causes- the class system itself. 

Determanistic- gave the impression there were scientific "laws of history", implying history is predictable. With one historical stage leading to the next in some rigid predetermised fashion critics argue marx underestimates the freedom of people to alter the course of history. Some neo's such as Gramsci eventually accepted that history involves genuine decisions and choices and the outcome is by no means certain. 

Predictions- many of Marx's predictions didn;t come through instead of deeper poverty and misery, the living standards of workers in capetalist socities have generally risen instead of polarisation the mc have steadaly grown and instead of revolution workers have reconciled themselves to capetalism. The fall of the burlin wall suggests its not capetalism but communism that has fallen under its internal contidictions. 

falcly concious?- perhaps capetalism has survived because despite its injustice and inperfections its still the best avalible system. Its true some cap socities have displayed appaling levels of brutality (i.e Nazi germany) but western liberal democracies have a strong track record in terms of material progress, political freedom and civil liberties. in that case workers might be perfectly sensible rather than falcly concious in siding with capetalism. 

Two clas model- Waber beleived the two class model over simplified the differences between workers. Under marx's model both teacher and students would be proletariate this seems to ignore the fundametal differences between workers based on status, power and market situation. 

Economic determanism- Marx attached too much importance on economic factors. he treated the economy as a "base" as primary in the sense that it shapes the "superstructure" and culture in society. This implies dom ideology of a socity are little more than ideologies that maintain the economic position of capetalists. ie religeous ideas such as "blessed are the poor" reconciles people to the massive inequality of capetalism. However critics argue culture isn't a direct product of economic forces. Cultural conflicts (ie gender, nationalism) have their own reality and can't be reduced to economic issues. 

• Marxists argue society has polarised. The wc are less powerful, increasingly alienated, deskilled and less likely to resist their own oppression. Those at the top of the social strata have become richer, more powerful and more exclusive. 
• The Sutton Trust: Showed through elite theory that the rich use elite schools and universities to create social networks which are used to get elite jobs (e.g banking, politics) and hence reproduce the power imbalences generation by generation. 
• Wilkinson and Pickett: explain that polarisation and inequality is bad for everyone as it increases social alienation, they show that levels of mental illness, alcholism rise in countries with high inequality. 
• Savage: argues the collective confidence of the wc is being undermind in contemporary society. At one time they saw themselves as being strong and indipendent, in contrast to the servile dependent people who worked in "the office". he argues theres been a cultural shift and now the wc are no longer in powerful trade unions and the jobs they hold now are less "heroic" when compared to the collective craft pride of the old shipbuilders and steel workers. Manual labour has lost status and is often regarded as more suitable for young men rather than mature "adults"

• Westergaard: is concerned that while differences between classes are bigger the identification people have with thier own social class has weakened. He calls this the difference between calss in itself and class for itself. class in itself- a group of people who share a class position but don't recognise similarities. Class for itself- a group who act as an cohesive group and recognise common aims and are class concious. 
• He blames economic and social policies such as the way politicians have stopped saying "social class" to describe the population instead focussing on "social exclusion" whilst theres little difference between the terms it creates a culture where people are reluctant to talk about class or identify themselves as a part of a group.
• he beleives class is still a useful concept as you'reclass effects every part of you're life chances and that class concousness could yet be revived.
• He believed class in its self is still very important by that there's little evidence that "clsses are for themselves" 
• However post mods argue class has reduced in importance identity is now based on individual choices.

Braverman: argued white collar workers are being de skilled to such an extent they could be considered 'proletarian' (wc). He called this process proletariatanisation, their skills were being eroded by automation, computrisation and the fragmentation or work tasks into simpler routines. This had an implication on their pay, status and power. Moreover this deskilling is a deliberate management strategy as capetalist employers want to cut costs and maximise their profits by replacing workers with machines, where this isn't possible they tried to control workers by reducing autonomy and discression, one effecive way of doing this was to break down their work into simple and repetative tasks. 

However reaserch evidence suggests that deskilling is patchy rather than universal, Gallie et all: surveyed large national sample of workers who had been effected by new technologies and managerial strategies yet only a small minority reported their jobs had been de skilled, almost two thirds felt they had been upskilled (to a modest extent) while a large minority reported no significant change. 

Weber beleived that insted of simply looking at the relationship between the means of production one should consider the distinction between class, status and party, he treated these as seperate but related sources of power which have direct effects on peoples life chances. 

Class (market position):

Like marx Waber treated social class as basically an economic matter, he agreed that ownsership (or non ownership) of productive property is an important basis for class formation but he moved away from Marx's two class model instead choosing to define class in terms of position in the economic market place. The market consists of a great many positions which vary according to the source and amount of income and differences in occupational skillls and educational qualifications. I.e a printer has higher skills and income than a labourer and so its over simplifying to call them both wc. Webers aproach allows for a considerable number of finely graded occupational classes each based on market position. The people within each class share broadly similar life chances. 

Status: refers to the degree of prestigue attached to social groups in society. Different status groups compete with eachother for a greater share of social esteem. moreover the members of a status group tend to share common values and lifestyles and form a community. They use 'status symbols' to anounce common membership (i.e skin heads wear docs and shave their heads). Status therefor has more to do with social evaluation based on consumption styles so they aren't quite the same thing as social classes. On the other hand they aren't always sharply seperated. I.e the class position of a group may enhance its social status. Also each status group adopts strategies to increase its material resources and improve life chances.

Party:When Waber talks about party he is refering to the exercise of power by pressure groups, political parties, trade unions and other organised interest groups. Parties can use their power to increase their economic wealth but Waber doesn't acccept that economic wealth automatically confers power. I.e trade union leaders may have higher levels of power than a rich employer. Weber suggests power in modern society is increasingly concentrated in large beaurocrats rather than in the ownership of the means of production. 

Weber therefor concluded that there were 4 social classes. 

• 1 manual workers (the wc)
• 2 the petty bourgoisie (self employed, managers)
• 3 white collar workers and technitians (lower mc)
• 4 those privledged through education or property 

Barren and Norris: argue the labour market is divided into two sectors the primary sector consisting of secure, well aid jobs with good prospects for promotion magoirty mc white men and the secondary sector characterised by poor pay, insecurity and no ladder of promotion which is over represented by minorities, women youth and elderly. Its very difficult to move from the primary to the secondary secor. 

• Marxists: they overcomplicate the issue by de emphasising the differences between the proletariate. its more important to see the similarities as only when they unit will they be successful in revolution.
• Webers criticised for playing into the hands of the bourgoisie by making the issue more difficult for the proletariate to understand. Many people share similar levels of class, status and party anyway since they are so linked.
• Therefor the distinctions between them are unneccicary. Marxists argue that class is most likely to determine the levels people have of status and party in most cases. 
• Some argue that Weberian theory lacks the analysis neccessary to make it useful it fails to explain why certain groups have high/ low levels of class, status,party.
• Its tautological

• Weberian theory is more interested in how social classes have gragmented and splintered into many groups. Using Market position, status and party of individuals Weberians see increasing differences between groups. Their particularaly interested in how the growth of the mc has led to fragmention, a process of the mc splintering into different groups and strata meaning the mc may be too large and diverse to be seen as one unified distinct group.
•  
• if their correct then the mc have fragmented iand become many rather than one group. The ONS class systm is based on Waberian notions of status as well as economic position and divides those in no manual work into several cattegories ONS class 1 and 2 have expanded significantly in the post war period as a result of transformations in the occupational and economic structure. These are people in managerical and proffesional occupations. 
• Roberts- describes the tree main values of proffesional and managerial groups. They see themselves as having a service relationship with their employers, one that is quite unlike the 'contract' relationship of manual workers. The service class expect to be trusted with autonomy and responsibility and their salary is seen as a rewards for their loyalty and dedication and are willing to put in extra unpaid hours if neccicary.  Seond they hav a strong sense of carear and expect to improve their salary by keeping their qualifications ad expertise up to date. Third they beleive in a form of maritocracy where the greatest rewards should go to the mot highly qualified and energetic individuals. inequality isn't a bad word intheir world veiw.

• Further down the ONS scale ar ethe self eployed and small employers who have markedly different values to the proffessionals and managers. They have work centred lifestyles and are the extreem champions of individualism (people should stand on their own two feet).
• theres a considerable debate over the class position of white collar workers Roberts: Shows this in the case of female office workers, many of these women have modest pay, low autonomy and poor carear prospects and so are hardly part of the same class as the managers and proffesionals. He argues the female dominated ranks of routine office workers have never really developed a distinctive class identity, lifestyle or politics. This is partly because may of them live in "cross class" households where their partner is drawn from another class. However their much better off in terms of pay- status- job security and pleasent working conditions than their female counterparts in factories and shops.
•  
• The WC is represented by classes 5,6 and 7 in the ONS scheme. This class has shrunk from 755 of the total pop in 1901 to 43% at the end of the 20th centurary. As the wc have become smaller so too there have been important chances in the lifestyle and values of the wc. 

Many socs beleive the wc have been divided into two distinct groups traditional wc and new wc

Young and Willmot taditional wc- men heavy industrial work women full time housewives, strong sense of class us and them trade unions, labour prarty close knit communities long connections to their locality large circle of friends.

Goldthorpe and Lockwood New wc- instrumental attitude to work motivated by pay not pride, women work to , decline in manual jobs, labour party membership fallen, divisions emerge, less solidarity, some much richer than other, communities fragmented, privitisation of familyu due to increasing need for geographical mobility to find jobs. 

• one theory put forward to explain changes to the class structure suggested that certain types of the wc seemed to be catching up and even surpas some mc groups this was called embourgosiement. The process by which members of the wc seemed to be becoming "bougoisie" and adopting mc lifestyles and living standards.
• However Goldthorpe tested embourgeoisiement theory in Luton and found little evidence that the well paid workers were seperate from the rest of the wc in any fundamentle way- they still had values, status and market position which seperates them from the mc. 

Neo Weberian Hutton (1995) - 40/30/30 top 40% of working pop privledged 30% insecure or marganalised and bottom 30% disadvantaged. He beleives these divisions are causing masive problems as large numbers have been condemed to conditions of permanent stress or inactivity. 

• definitions of class. Marx argue 2 class model and say waberians identify too many trivial market based classes and this mearly distracts attention away from basic split between caps and workers.
• Veiw of history. -Marx saw history as a long march towards communism but waber was sceptical of this and regarded stratification as more or les permanent souce of conflict in every society. 
• Matching dimensions- marxists see class,status and power as "matched". Waber accepts that they often overlap but insists they are sometimes less closely linked than marx suggests.
• Westerguard- criticises weberians for allowing the basis of class conflicts to be diluted by subtle differences of status and party and insists his findings in luton showed a clasic marxist level of allienation and falce class concousness. The only bond the afluent workers ahd with their work was the financial reward and took an instrumental attitude towards it. Because they were alienated from the end product and their fellow workers thus failing to realise their class position. 
• Middle class- webers market theory aproach is bettwer equipt to deal with the existence of the middle class marx find them hard to compute. 

• Functionalsits veiw socity as a body. There are seperate but interdependent parts that have a specialised role in the overall wellbeing. Therefor the many task of sociologists is to discover the particular functions performed by each social institution. In the case of stratification functionalists seek to reveal the contributions it makes to the survival and maintanence of society- leading them to very different conclusions to conflict theorists who regard stratification as a source of conflict and tension. Functionalists veiw stratification as something which is benefictal and positive. 
• believe inequality is systematically generated by the way society is structured and organised. Morevoer a certain level of inequality is neccacary or desirable for it to be meritocratic. Capetalism in britian is based upon  meritocratic system which priorotises competition and profit rather than need. 

• Beleive stratification is a permanent and universal feature of human society and conclude that this is because it is functionally neccacary.
• It is inevitable because every society faces the task of "placing people"- allocating roles. Role alocation means ensuring the most important positions are filled by suitable people.
• Society also needs to motivate people to perform their duties in a responsible and conciencious manner in order to acheive this  societies offer higher rewards e.g income and status to the most important jobs.
• These jobs are identified though functional importance and scarcety of personel 
• in order to tempt those capaple people to undergo training they leave large financial rewards and high social status at the end of the training period. 

• how easy is it to detirmine the functional importance of a job?- isn't a dustman just as important to our health as a doctor
• assumes there is a value concensus on the pattern of rewards how does this explain the widespred resentment of unequal distrobution of income and wealth- inequality is a continuing source of conflict in most modern societies. 
• regards power as a social resource which is distrobused throughout society in such a way that it works for the common good and overlook the way powe is used as a wepon by some to further their material interests. 
• Some of the highest rewars go to wealthy people who don't really perform any "function" at all but simply live off the interest payments on their wealth. 
• Offer a dismal veiw of human nature which suggests that people will perform tasks only for monetry or status reward overlooking other motives such as a sense of joy in their work.
• neglect the negative effects of stratification and assume its functional for all but some benefit more than others and some suffer greatly from stratification. 
• Saunders- argues their correct in saying stratification is based on unequal material reward is not inevetiable but captetalist societies have higher levels of liberty than communists who are forced to use police states to keep their citizens in line. 

Argue we are living in a state of late modernity mening people are moving away from the notion theres one solution or an ideal that will fit everyone. this state of societies development is very different from previous ones.

Explanations from the modern period cannot be transfered to society today and new explanations must be sought. Post modernity refers to dissolusionment with science and rejects ideologies that claim to solve problems or speak for everyone- post mod theorists embrace change and diversity beleiving new and diverse expreriences characterise the post mod world. 

• Lyotard beleives that grand naratives are now usesless since we live our lives as individuals and therefore post mods focus on the deconstruction of groups (instead of veiwing people in terms of their common interests and therefore in groups). Llyotards beleives computor technology has become the principle force of production (vs marxists who are interested in the production of goods). he beleives theres no such thing as an objective truth but a myraid of ideas which exist for the purpose of being sold, ideas which arent saleable and not given status. He aruges this is an imprisonment from the past where ideologises were used to opress people i.e stalin and the ussr. 
• He's criticisted by marixists for failing to see the negative points in capetalism and rejecting all encompassing theories but then offering his own. He also offers limited empirical evidence to back uo his theory nor is he able to explain why postmodernism has come about. 

• Also writes from a post mod perspective but beleives that contemporary society is divided by inequalities and these inqualities are based on consumption rather than occupation or relation to the means of productions. He sees people who are unable to join the consumption culture of shopping as outcasts by the rest of society, the poor are criminalised and ghettoised because they can't compete in a world of consumption so they are seen as deviant and undesirable - if you don't wear the right labels you don't fit in- consumption becomes key to identity. 

Criticisms.

• fials to produce empirical evidece or explain how postmodernism came about
• Philo- how can postmods claim theres no truth? Does a starving child or a homeless person, a soldier in a war or **** victim have no grasp on reality? is their experience only lived through the way in which its reported by the media? He agrees indiduals have diverse experiences but still sees massive inequalities which can only be explained using political framework that seeks to reduce social problems so the extent phil beleives we are still looking for solutions and there are better vewesions of the truth than others.

• Post mods argue clas inequalities still exist but class analysis no longer provides convincing explanations of social attitudes and behaviour. It asserts that this type of analysis no longer works as a tool for social reaserch since class is no longer a historical force e.g the class war has ended. 
• Pakulski and Walters- argue class diverts attention away from more important area's such as identity, race and gender. In their opinion post mod societies are no longer class societies since production and the marketplace are now of minor significance so class is dead. Inequality and conflict still exists but they no longer run along class lines- people are slotted into british society depending on their status rather than class. In this status conventional society the important things are cultural symbols, consumer lifestyles, values commitments and ascribed statuses. peoplrd identities are predominatly linked to styles of consumption rather than class and property. Old class identities have crumbled away in the face of post mod social trends and nowadays its lifestyles individualism nd consumption which form the basis of peoples identities.

• Post mods argue clas inequalities still exist but class analysis no longer provides convincing explanations of social attitudes and behaviour. It asserts that this type of analysis no longer works as a tool for social reaserch since class is no longer a historical force e.g the class war has ended. 
• Pakulski and Walters- argue class diverts attention away from more important area's such as identity, race and gender. In their opinion post mod societies are no longer class societies since production and the marketplace are now of minor significance so class is dead. Inequality and conflict still exists but they no longer run along class lines- people are slotted into british society depending on their status rather than class. In this status conventional society the important things are cultural symbols, consumer lifestyles, values commitments and ascribed statuses. peoplrd identities are predominatly linked to styles of consumption rather than class and property. Old class identities have crumbled away in the face of post mod social trends and nowadays its lifestyles individualism nd consumption which form the basis of peoples identities.

Individualism

• Class identities used to be so strong because of their collective nature giving people a sens eof loyalty to defend their class interestes however some socs say class colectivism has weakened in the age of late modernity
• Beck and Beck Gernshine- trend towards individualism and detraditionalisation. Class traditions no longer apeal in an age where people are increasinly inclined to exercise personal choice and take their own decisions. Class, gender and religeon have colapsed and theres no longer clear boundries of how you should live you're life. Acording to Beck and Beck gernshine people must now create their own lives and veiw themselves as individuals rather than members of a social class.

Consumption
people may once have constructed their identities around work and production but nowadays their identities orten seem attached to the worlds of leisure and consumption concequently identities may no longer be based on how people earn their money but how they spend it. In late modern society consumer lifestyles are diverse and flexible and based on individual tastes andd choices. people are usually aware their making statement choices though their consumption habbits, signaling their identities through what they wear, eat,drink listen or collect. 

Furlong and cartmel- accept that contemporry britian resembles a post mod society in many respects. Young people are growing up in a world quite different from the one experienced by previous generations in the past their lives were shaped by social class but now they are free whith making all their own individual decisions rather than being forced into any one path. 

Westergaard- rejects idea social class is no longer important, accepts that peoples class conciousness may have declined but their class position has in fact hardened. by this he means that increased polarisation has led to the class differences between people strengthening instead of loosening and observes new divisions are always related to class in some eay i.e many disadvanatages faced by women from ethnic minoritories are essentially class matters i.e income, wealth and power. 

Marshall- only empirical evidence can say whether class has weakened. Postmods rely on data free theories. He carried out a large survey and found 60% of his sample thought of themselves as belonging to a social class and 90% could if pushed suggesting cass awareness hasn't disapeared. he aruges class is the most powerful source of social identity others may have grown in importance but not displaced class identities from their central position. However he asked a lot of class questions in his survey which may have influenced the results.

Devine- acepts many have different identities but contends that recent reaserch shows the veiw that class identities still exert the strongest influence on things like political attitudes, voting patterns and veiws on inequality. After veiwing the avalible reaserch findings she concludes overal the evidence suggests that class is the modt common and salient social identity in britian and other social identitiessuch as gneder and race havent undermined an affliction to class.

Savage et al-

Weak class identities. Studied clas sidentities of 178 peole living in the manchester area few of their sample thought britian was a classless society most were well aware of the strong influence of class in wider society i.e politics, economy and media however mnay hesitated when asked to identify themselves as a class most saw themselves as out of class or just ordinary. Savage described a paradox where class was an important structural cause in peoples lives however class identities are weak. He clonclues britian isn't a class concious society.

hes unconvinced by post mod idea class is interlivent arguing its masively impotant as even though people arent class concious class has a huge effect on their lives. he classses theres an abundance of evidence to show patterns of economic and sical inequlity are marked in britian and it makes good sense to see them in terms of class.