Page 301 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class in contemporary societies. In
Karl Marx’s perspective, social class has a two-class system whereas Max Weber argued that
social class has three dimensions of stratification : class, status and party. In this chapter, I will
explain and analyse why Weber carried out this theory that these three dimensions are distinct
entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class. A “class” is any group of persons
occupying the same class status. Unlike Marx’s two-class system, Weber divided “class” into four
categories : propertied upper class, propertyless intelligentsia (white-collar workers), the petty
bourgeoisie, and the manual working class. A propertied class is placed at the top because they
own economic power, social status and political influence. A propertyless intelligentsia is a
professional class.
For Karl Marx, the stratification of social classes was the most significant source of societal conflict.
Max Weber’s definition of social class differs most notably from Marx’s conception of the term in
the sense that for Weber, social class and political class cannot simply be lumped together as a
single entity.
Weber viewed and defined social and political realms separately in an attempt to put emphasis on
the unique dynamic that power possesses in its own right, apart from economic interests. Moreover,
he wanted to highlight the irrational features of power by making it clear that the rational interests
of a class are not sufficient to explain the dynamics of society, particularly when comparing one
society to another.
Weber’s conception of what he calls “life chances” is a critical component of his understanding of
social class. In Weber’s view, an individual’s class position is a direct determinant of how his life
will turn out. The chances of a better life are, of course, higher for those in a higher social class and
vice versa. The conception is evidence of Weber’s view of the relationship between materialism
and idealism. Social action, he believed, can be evoked by either or both as its driving force.
Marx is far more focused on the economic aspects of social stratification; most particularly, divisions
of labour. In “Alienation and Social Classes” he wrote “Human alienation, and above all the
relation of man to himself, is first realized and expressed in the relationship between each man
and other men. Thus in the relationship of alienated labour every man regards other men according
to the standards and relationships in which he finds himself placed as a worker”.
Weber, while in agreement with Marx about the oppressive nature of social stratification, also
believed that material possessions and a person’s overall standard of living constitute the primary
cause of class conflict. So whereas for Marx, the notion of alienation and oppression were seen as
the chief aspects of social unrest, for Weber this unrest existed as a result of the power obtained
from property ownership and other material possessions. Simply put, it was the ‘haves’ as opposed
to the ‘have nots’ that had the most promising “life chances”. The ‘have nots’ were therefore
destined to stay poor while the ‘haves’ were destined to become more wealthy and more powerful.
Marx of course agreed with this perspective as well, however unlike Weber, he was unable to
separate social class from economic class. So for Marx, feelings of alienation were just as influential
on a person’s social classification as were material possessions. For Weber, these entities did not
necessarily have to co-exist; one could exist without the other. This is the primary point of divergence
between Marx and Weber’s conceptions of social class and social stratification.
Sociologists like T.B. Bottomore and Anthony Giddens talk of the four major classes in the modern
world :
1. Upper class
2. Middle class
3. Working class, and
4. Peasantry.

296 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY