Social class is a ranking or grouping of individuals according to position in the economic scheme of things. Class in this sense can be based on income, source of income (wealth, salary or wages), and occupation. In the terms of Karl Marx, class refers to how a group of people relate to the production of goods and services in the society.
The idea of social class is widely used and misused. In the media you will find reference to the middle class very common. However, upon closer inspection you will inevitably find these sources are actually discussing income groups and not social class per se. Economically based class actually refers to the overall position of a group of people. This placement takes into account what kind of work a person does, the kind of income that he or she has and how the person relates to the means of producing goods and services in the society.
For example if a person works primarily with the hands at some form of skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled work, one is in the working class (regardless of income). If the work a person does depends more upon the use of the mind or clerical skills, then the person doing that work is considered to be middle class (again independent of income). People who do not have a regular, steady occupation or one that is 'recognized' as legitimate are seen to be part of the lower class or possibly an underclass. Finally, if a person does no productive work but instead commands others to work or relies upon an inheritance or income from investments, than the person is considered upper class. These classifications will be expanded upon later.
This is the social dimension of inequality. Grouping or position is based upon social value and ranking. Status is determined here by "who you are." For example, if your ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, you may have higher social status than someone who entered through the Ellis Island immigration terminal in New York City.
This type of grouping may also relates to the 'pedigree' of your parents. If you are listed in the 'social register' or are a Philadelphia 'mainline' family, you have very high social status. Another way that a family may gain status is to be among the pioneers who settled a particular area. For example, in Oregon families who can trace their ancestry to those who came overland on the Oregon Trail have high status in that state.
Grouping or ranking on this dimension relates to the amount of clout one has in getting things done in the community. You do not have to have either wealth or status. Union leaders often have a great deal of power, but very little in the way of either wealth or status. George Meany (an early head of the AFL / CIO) had a great deal of power.
Power can come from a variety of sources, it can be in the force of personality (Martin Luther King), it can come from organizational membership (Meany, Walter Ruether, John L. Lewis, all early labor leaders), or from location in the political system (Wellington Webb, Norm Early, Federico Pena, Hank Brown, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and so on).
The degree to which people are aware of social class and their position in it. (See the family names exercise as an example of class awareness / identification) Americans are more aware of class today than they were in the immediate past.
However, many will argue that there are no strict class limits here as exist in Europe or in Asian countries (for example, many economists do so, saying that classes do not exist in the United States, some politicians also believe this to be the case). This confusion may flow from our belief that anyone can work hard and eventually enter the highest social level. Closer examination shows that this is true only to limited degree, that there are indeed boundaries between classes, and people from lower level more often than not cannot overcome them.
Awareness simply means that you know classes exist and have some vague idea of what class you belong to. Consciousness on the other hand is much more definitive. If one has class consciousness one is not only aware of class membership, but of the corporate interest of that class vis-a-vis other classes and the society as a whole. Thus if you are a member of the working class and have class consciousness, you know that it is in your interests to support certain political parties, to work for the union and its interests. You know that there are times when the government is acting contrary to your interests in pursuing a war, formulating a domestic policy in support of developers, etc. Similarly, if you are member of the upper class you are quite conscious of that and how the actions of the government can and will affect your status and position. You will work to control the government so that the laws favor you with tax breaks, little or no regulation of your business and so forth.
Differing time periods and historic conditions have given rise to several different kinds and types of systems of stratification. The feudal period of Europe and Asia (especially Japan) gave rise to an estate system of stratification. Religious traditions in India, South Africa and America have given rise to a caste system of stratification. Finally, modern capitalist (free market or centrally planned, i.e., socialist) have given rise to a class system of stratification. Let's briefly examine each of these in turn.
The central characteristic of the estate system of stratification is that it is based in land and in loyalty to an entity that controls, distributes the land -- usually the monarchy. In this kind of system of inequality there are three estates: the landed gentry/nobility, the serfs or peasantry, and the clergy.
Each of these broad categories stood in very clear relationship to one another. The landed gentry/nobility made the decisions and ran things. They controlled the land and how it was to be used. The serfs or peasantry worked the land, providing goods and services for the gentry and for the clergy as well as for themselves. The clergy provided for the spiritual needs of the countryside. The landed gentry/nobility stood at the top of the order, sharing to some degree position with the clergy. The peasants or serfs were at the bottom.
Within each of these broad categories there were rankings as well. For example in the clergy there were distinctions between the country parish priests and the upper hierarchy of the church. Parish priests were often recruited from the peasantry, the upper hierarchy from the gentry and nobility. Similar distinctions in rank were apparent in the gentry nobility -- note the differences in titles used in England for example. Among the serf/peasantry there were distinctions between yeomen, relatively well-to-do small land holders who worked their own land and the general run of the mill serf that lived essentially at the beck and call of the lord of the manor.
Systems of this type characterized much of Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire and was pretty well developed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. The system began to collapse in European societies with the French Revolution and never became established in America after the American Revolution (with the possible exception of the American South).
Virtually all of Eastern Asia (China and Japan) developed a similar type of social structure that lasted until strong European contact in the middle of the 19th Century. Japan's system had many similarities to that of England, with some interesting parallels in their historical changes after European contact. Among them is an emphasis upon merit as a means of getting ahead with a particular estate.
The principal distinction between a cast and estate system has to do with the part played by religion in the separation of groups. Both caste and estate systems were based in agriculture and the ownership of property. However, the caste system made distinctions among groups of people in terms of their standing sanctioned by religion. In India there were three broad castes and the untouchables. The categories of people were rooted in religious belief and the boundaries between the castes sanctioned by religion. These boundaries meant that castes were largely self-contained groups, people were exclusively members of a particular caste at birth with no possibility of moving out of their caste of birth. Caste determined who they could marry, where they could live, what kind of work they could do and so on. If there was any mobility (i.e., change in social standing within the society) it occurred to the entire caste, not to some individuals.
A key feature of the caste system is the control the dominate caste had over the others. These groups were in charge and had exclusive control of the society and how things were done within the society. India is the chief example of caste society and where the system was first described. However, given the definitions above (religiously sanctioned, permanent group membership) two other societies come very close to having caste systems -- the American South up through the end of WWII and the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and South Africa up to the election of Nelson Mandella as President a few years ago. Care must be taken with these interpretations since the American South also had many characteristics of the feudal system -- manor houses, plantations and a parallel structure with the clergy and 'peasants' -- the so-called rednecks and share croppers of the South.
Class systems seem to be more a product of the industrial revolution. Classes arise from the industrial productive system. Marx is in fact one of the first to describe such a system, but does not go a long way toward defining what the classes are except to note there are two principal classes: owners and workers. In the class system, people are set apart by what they do for a living and how they do it. Thus we find managers, professionals (doctors, lawyers, clergy) placed together in a similar class. People who earn their living by using their hands are defined as working class -- carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers, loggers, mechanics, assembly line workers and so on. Between these two groups (managers and workers) is a large group of lower white collar workers -- clerks, sales people, teachers, draftsmen, computer technicians and so on. At the very bottom of the class system are those with no skills and no steady employment or employment outside the 'legitimate' economic system -- day laborers, drug dealers, prostitutes, petty thieves and other criminals. This group also often is seen to include the mentally disabled and mentally ill since they lack the necessary skills or ability for long term, continuous employment. Finally, there is the upper class, the individuals at the very top who control the means of production in the society and who make the rules.
The class system tends to be somewhat more open than either the estate or caste system. People can move up (or down) with some degree of ease. However, as Stark points out in the text, even this is often severely limited in some class societies. For example in the United States, successful mobility is often dependent upon successful completion of an education. Access to the education structure as we shall see is often a product of one's class position. If you were born to a minority family in a central city neighborhood (north City Park in Denver for example), your chances of completing high school are limited and if you are able to do so your opportunity for higher education is even more limited. Certainly you will be unlikely to attend a selective college or University like Harvard. If your family lives in Cherry Hills Village, there are no obstacles to your success with the possible exception of outright stupidity or idiocy (in the technical sense). A mediocre performance in high school will mean a good chance to enter a good college or university and then to move on to an appropriate career in industry or politics.
These are very general systems of stratification or inequality that have existed in particular historical, social contexts. Castes and estates are found in early agrarian societies with some elements carrying over to contemporary industrial societies in some parts of the world. Class systems are a product of the industrial societies. Class systems often retain some of the characteristics of their predecessors (the existence of a nobility in modern England, for example). Attempts to interpret these systems have given rise to a number of different understandings of social stratification and inequality. These are presented in the next section.
Copyright © 1996, 1997 by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver.
This page last revised: January 12, 1999. Please contact Richard H. Anderson (randerso@carbon.cudenver.edu) if you experience any problems or have comments about these pages.