Class and identity in social theory

¶ … Identity

Class has been an enduring social concept used to explain the nature of inequalities within different societies. While there is disagreement within the different sociological paradigms as to the construction of class, modern social theorizing elucidated a clear link between class and individual identity. This link once considered to be ossified and concrete has come under heavy scrutiny from post-modern theorist. The extent of the critique has been to the point of suggesting that class is dead, and thus the class identity link is now defunct. This essay posits that, while class is an inadequate and limited conceptualization, it is still a useful theoretical tool for social explanation. The discussion will commence with a definition and description of the salient elements of class theory. This will be followed by a presentation of the arguments that suggest class is dead. Ultimately however it will be demonstrated that class still provides an empirically useful association with identity.

Social theory suggests that all societies experience different types of stratification or division between the individuals within the society. The societies that experienced the lowest levels of stratification are egalitarian societies. In egalitarian societies inequality between the members of society is very limited. Most early societies are considered to be egalitarian; these societies are hunter gather societies. The main reason these societies are egalitarian is that the limited size and resource base of the societies preclude individuals from accumulating wealth.

Other types of stratified societies are the master-slave societies. In master slave societies some individuals are held against their will in unequal relationships. These inequalities are reinforced through social structures, norms and values within the society. In master slave societies identities were developed based on the position individuals held in that society. The slaves were almost always poor and engaged in heavy manual labor. The masters occupied positions of higher status and were involved in tasks that were considered more cognitive. Within these societies there were extreme inequalities between the slaves and the masters. There was virtually no social mobility.

The feudal system created inequalities less diverse than the master-slave systems. Within feudal systems society was separated into two main groups those who worked on the land. These persons were termed serfs or peasants. The second group was the lords. Lords essentially lived off the work of the peasantry, and they were owners of the land the peasants lived on. The feudal system creates the construction of identity because accompanying the position of any individual within society would be a set of expectations and behaviors that defined who that individual is. Within the feudal system the peasants depended on the lord for protection and were mandated to hand some of their produce over to the lord in return for military protection.

Another system of stratification worthy of mention is the caste system. The caste system is a highly rigid system of stratification. The social positions of individuals are received by ascription and remain immovable. Within a caste system the social position is identified mainly by inherited characteristics such as race and sex. Individuals are unable to marry outside of their caste. While the relationship between the castes does not mirror the slave-master or the feudal system, within the caste system positions are not interchangeable. An example of a country with a caste system is India. The Indian caste system is driven by religious ideology and is highly entrenched within the society.

The final system of stratification and the focus of this essay is the class system. A class system is considered to be an open stratification system. Within a class system the positions individual have within society are constructed by achieved characteristics rather than ascribed characteristics. This element of the class system implies that moving between different positions within a class system is possible. This change can occur if the individual changes their combination of achieved characteristics. Attaining more education or personal skill may change the social position of the individual. However within a class system there is inequality. The inequality is a function of the economic development of the society. Thus societies with greater economic surpluses may have wider divisions between the different classes.

Class formation is an important consideration. For classical Marxists "class" is defined in terms of the relationship an individual has to the means of production. Thus the classes are essentially determined based on who owns the means of production. In a capitalist society the dominant class is the group of individuals who control the land, capital and entrepreneurial skill. Individuals who only control their labour are placed in another class. The original Marxist conception of class is reformulated in many ways, some theorist identify several classes.

As a response to the Marxist formulation Weber suggested that class is a more nuanced conception and includes other variables. For Weber class is constructed based on status which is ordered in a hierarchy. Theorists who employ a Weberian construction of class often produce a complex arrangement of variables called socio-economic status (SES). Building on this conception, Scott (1997) divides the capitalist classes into, entrepreneurs, persons who make management their career and capitalists involved in finance. This division presents class as a function of the work individuals are engaged in and their relationship to capital markets.

Macionis & Plummer (2008) identify three dimension of class in the contemporary society. Income is the first major dimension of class. Thus individuals are differentiated based on their income levels. Persons with higher incomes are accorded higher position within the social structure. The overarching umbrella concept for income is wealth. Wealth is a measure of the total assets that an individual may possess. Wealth provides the rich with a lot of power and influence. This influence is often used to change government's laws and policies in favor of the rich. In the United States a major consideration is the role of money within the political process. The final element of class is prestige. Different occupations receive different levels of value. Occupations such as doctors, engineers and university professors receive a lot of social prestige. If these are the elements of class, then the intersection of these elements is an important node in the production of identity.

The classes themselves do not always find agreement among sociologists. The main class divisions are the upper class, middle class and lower class. In many industrialized societies the upper class comprises about 5% of the population. In the United States the immediate challenge for the country is the view that the wealthy who comprise the majority of upper class, have become too powerful and rich (Winters, & Page 2009)This disaffection has led to the development of the 99% movement and "Occupy Wall Street." The middle class represents the group between the upper class and the lower class. The growing challenge world-wide is the dwindling middle class. The decline of the middle class is a topic of heated debate. The final major class is the lower class. The lower class comprises of individuals who are engaged in heavy manual labor and generally blue collar jobs. While these general divisions can receive greater subdivisions and elaboration the description above is adequate for the purposes of this essay. It demonstrates that there are different classes based on the three dimension suggested before.

Those dimensions are not the only characteristics that separate the classes. Classes are also divided according to outcome. Childhood mortality varies based on the class of the parents. Children of the lower class are more likely to die in the first year of life than children where the parents are professionals (Sassaman 2005). Another consideration is that working class and lower class persons have a higher risk of long-term illness than persons of the upper classes. Additionally, when they become ill the lower classes and the poor are more likely to die from common treatable illnesses. Sen (2005) examining national data determined that required expenditure on health care may create a situation where health care becomes a luxury item, affordable to the wealthy.

Several other key indicators suggest that class is an important tool to understand social phenomenon. Using data from the Scottish education system Burnhill, Garner & Mc pherson (1990) determined that parental education and class were significant determinants of whether an individual would attend university. Even a measure such as crime rates varies based on the wealth of the community. The lowest crime rates are found in wealth suburban areas, whereas in poorer neighborhoods the crime rate is many times higher (Hipp 2011). What these empirical results suggest is that class remains important to the comprehension of critical social phenomena.

There is however a powerful argument that suggests that class is no longer useful as a locator of identity. Social identity can be described as "our understanding of who we are and who other people are, and reciprocally, other people's understanding of themselves and others" (Macionis, & Plummer 890). Traditionally identity was considered to be linked to the class of the individual. So that you understood and saw yourself as a member of a class, and you understood others through their location and status positions within society. This construction gave credence to the concept of class consciousness. Class consciousness is really class identity; it is the way entire groups of people conceive themselves as belonging to a whole. This understanding permeates the corpus and unites the initiated into a common group think. This group or class view is reinforced through the economic determinants that are at the foundation of the group's position. These determinants reinforce inequalities and class identities.

The challenge to class as a locus of identity formation; results from the assertion that contemporary society is too layered and complex for class identity to be relevant. The discussion centers not on the existence of inequalities but the explanation of those inequalities. In the postmodern context the inequalities that exist are not anchored in an a priori formulation of class structure. This formulation considers the development of a classless society. This is not to be interpreted as a blurring of the economic divisions for these are materially evident. Classless society suggests that class is no longer a viable explanatory medium for the elucidation of social phenomenon. The questions therefore that are asked by sociologists who hold this position largely ignore the role of class and incorporate other variables into the debate.

Many of the postmodern formulations of identity decry the omission of critical areas of human identity formation from the class argument (Cerulo, 1997). Notably the issue of gender becomes important to the postmodern debate. Gender as an organizing concept is essentially absent from modern class theory but remains important for understanding contemporary society (MacPherson 1978). The issue of how women conceive of themselves and the social construction of femininity and masculinity are important constructs to engage the debate of identity. These concepts move the debate beyond the boundaries of class and into another arena. In this arena class is not as useful in explaining personal understandings of the self.