Ерофеева Дарья, 423 группа

Class and Stratification (r. Crompton.)

In this chapter, our discussion will focus on empirical accounts of class structures', and the research programmes associated with this approach. The division of the population into unequally rewarded categories is commonly described as a ‘class structure’. In contemporary societies this usually means a focus on the structure of employment. It is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, class schemes which simply describe the broad contours of occupational inequality and, on the other, ‘theoretically’ derived class schemes which purport to incorporate, at the empirical level, the actualities of class relations - that is, the processes whereby these inequalities emerge.

There is a wide variety of employment-based class schemes, constructed for a variety of different purposes. However, all class schemes are social constructs, or rather, the constructs of social scientists. Therefore different class schemes, when applied to the same occupational structure, can produce rather different ‘class maps’. In these parts, different class schemes will initially be discussed in relation to two broad analytical categories: descriptive classifications (geodemographics) and ‘theoretical’ occupational class schemes, often constructed with explicit reference to the theoretical approaches of Marx and Weber.

Over the last decade, in a sociological reality for research and discussion in the field of ‘class analysis’ was generated two major comparative research programmes. These were the CASMIN (Comparative Analysis o f Social Mobility in Industrial Societies: Goldthorpe), which developed a neo-Weberian occupational scheme, and the Comparative Project on Class Structure and Class Consciousness (Wright: more usually known as the Comparative Class Project), which developed an explicitly Marxist scheme.

Occupations

In 20-21 century ‘occupation’ has become, for the majority of the population, probably the most powerful single indicator of levels of material reward, social standing, and ‘life chances’ in general in modern societies. It has become commonplace for social researchers of all kinds to divide up the occupational structure into aggregates corresponding to different levels of social and material inequalities, which are commonly known as ‘social classes’. According to Reid ‘social class is a grouping of people into categories on the basis of occupation’.

However, there are some problems with using this parameter:

1. Not all members of the community work (children, the elderly, students, housewives, etc.) Solution: estimation of household income, occupational position of head of the family, the last place of work, working parents.

2. In addition to the profession, there are other differentiating factors: gender, race, ethnicity, determining the specific division of labor in society. Solution: consider the work as one of the dimensions.

3. Occupational title does not give any indication of capital or wealth holdings (such as property relations).

4. Professional affiliation makes it impossible to study class relations (not always clear on what basis is built hierarchy of professions). Solution: to take into account the elements of status, prestige, lifestyle, opportunities for social mobility.

The investigation and analysis of occupational hierarchies - particularly subjective rankings - has been closely associated with models of society which have stressed the importance of the social solidarity and functional interdependence associated with the division of labour in complex societies, whereas the development of theoretical class analysis and ‘relational’ class schemes has had more of an emphasis on cleavage and conflict.

In Davis and Moore’s (1945) functional theory of stratification, the structure of social inequality was seen as a mechanism through which the most appropriate and best qualified persons were allocated to the functionally most important positions in society, and, as a consequence, the question of individual ‘status attainment’ has been a key topic in stratification research in the United States.

In contrast, analysis of Goldthorpe and Wright has been grounded in Marx’s and Weber’s theoretical arguments. ‘Conflict’ theories of stratification considered the division of labour and the development of ‘classes’ to be likely to be a non-resolvable source of conflict and tension in society.