Is Class An Outdated Concept?

While discussions of class have become increasingly pass in recent decades, I contend that it is impossible to understand current inequalities and wealth disparities, especially within developed nations, without understanding the complex, class-based stratification that exists. Class is a sociological term usually used to describe unequally rewarded groups (Crompton, 1999, p. 97) and to define social stratification based on socio-economic standing. A number of different criteria can be used to assign class; wealth, income, profession, power and social-status, or some combination of these, are employed and the resultant categories used to investigate inequalities in education, health, the legal system, job prospects, working conditions, childrearing and more. In this paper I will discuss class mainly in terms of comparisons within and between developed nations1. I will argue that it is only the language and consciousness of class that has been relegated, perhaps by concerted effort, to the political and social dustbin and that, far from being an outdated concept, a class-based system still contributes to both the level of modern inequality and its ongoing acceptance. From a Marxist viewpoint the concept of class is paramount to discussion of all social interactions and the distribution of wealth and resources. According to Marx and Engels everything about the arrangement of wealth and resources in society is an inevitable result of economic and social laws and The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle (1848, p. 1) of oppressing and oppressed classes (1848, p. 8). This idea, that class conflict, arising from oppression of the 'have-nots' by the 'haves', is the driving force of history is often referred to as 'historical materialism' (Wright, 2005, p. 4). Marx saw class categories as relating to the ownership of property, and production relationships but also argued that 'classes' were not mere social categories, but also transforming social forces (Crompton, 1999, p. 97). For Marx 'classes' were identified by their access to the means of production, and by their relationship to other classes (Crompton, 1999, p. 98). Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx and Engels, 1848, p. 241). Conflict between the 'bourgeoisie', who own the means of production, and the 'proletariat', who can sell only their own labour, would bring about the most radical rupture with traditional ideas... raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy to the end that In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in
1 The modern inequalities that exist between developed and developing nations are so severe that comparisons are exceedingly difficult and the body of literature is inadequate on class consciousness and solidarity between nations where the wages and conditions of people doing identical jobs are so dramatically different.

which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (Marx and Engels, 1848, p. 258). The long history of Marxist class analysis gets much of its distinctive thrust from its link to a radical egalitarian normative agenda..., an agenda based around the idea that Human flourishing would be broadly enhanced by a radically egalitarian distribution of the material conditions of life. (Wright, 2005, p.5). Weber was critical of the Marxist, exclusively materialist view and argued that influential ideas and social movements can also be sources of important historical changes (Crompton, 1999, p. 99). He viewed social interactions and class differently, believing that society can be measured primarily in terms of meaningful social action of people and believed that collectives, be they class based or otherwise, don't in themselves determine behaviour (Swingewood, 1999, p. 55). For Weber the most important question... is how class situations and possibilities of action defined by them, can be or are experienced by members of the classes (Weiss, 1986). According to Weber capitalism was not simply the inevitable product of objective economic laws but was also the result of a pattern of motivation engendered by Protestant culture (Swingewood, 1999, p. 56). Unlike Marx, Weber saw classes as characteristic only of capitalist societies (Crompton, 1999, p. 99). Weber also argued that although 'classes' were defined largely in material terms, societal ideas about 'better' and 'worse', 'higher' and 'lower', were also significant factors in social stratification (Crompton, 1999, p. 99). Unlike Marx, Weber saw the development of class consciousness as essentially contingent that is, consciousness might or might not develop depending on circumstances (Crompton, 1999, p. 99), a view that could be said to be confirmed by the decades long decline of the rhetoric of class. Class consciousness has been in decline almost everywhere as a result of factors including the rise of neo-liberal 'trickle-down' economics, the socio-political process of individualisation, and a decisive move towards 'identity politics'. These three processes are sometimes all attributed to the meteoric rise of neo-liberalism as an overarching political ideology. From the 1970's, under the economic tutelage of thinkers like Freidrich Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, the world shifted gears quite dramatically away from Keynesian economic management and towards a new kind of economic liberalism, known today as neo-liberalism. This idea was sold to populations on both sides of the Atlantic2 and its popularity exploded. Due in large part to the successful promulgation of this doctrine, perceptions of wealth disparities changed: the wealthy were simply ahead of the curve and, while you should strive to emulate their lifestyle, envy was inappropriate because personal financial success was accessible to all and, on top of that, the wealthy were increasingly seen as integral drivers of the economy. This new economic focus proved incompatible with class consciousness because, to quote a sociological
2 In the UK by Margaret Thatcher and in the US by Ronald Reagan.

quip: economics is all about how people make choices. Sociology is all about why they don't have any choices to make (Becker et al., 1960, p. 233). Alongside this new economic model, neo-liberalism has driven a new social and political shift towards individualisation. According to Ulrich Beck, citizens of modern developed nations now tend to make themselves the center of their own planning and conduct of life and traditional collectives are falling apart as Increasingly, everyone has to choose between different options, including as to which group or subculture one wants to be identified with (Beck, 1992, p. 89). Beck argues that the way we, in the wealthy 'West', live dissolves the traditional parameters of industrial society: class culture and consciousness, gender and family roles causing class consciousness to recede mysteriously into the background despite the fact that the seperation of hierarchy of income and the fundamental conditions of wage labor have remained the same (Beck, 1992, p. 88). All traditional ties are weakened because they contradict the individual mobility required by the labour market. (Beck, 1992, p. 89). In this environment we increasingly confront the phenomenon of a capitalism without classes, but with individualised social inequality and all the related social and political problems (Beck, 1992, p. 89). This individualisation of inequality occurs because the neo-liberal doctrine creates an environment where people are unable, or unwilling, to develop a 'class consciousness' because, instead of thinking of themselves as belonging to a class, people get involved in 'identity politics' and begin to refer to their race, ethnic group, or geographic location (Mantsios, 2001, p. 168). These social and economic changes have also bred structural changes as the 'industrial revolution' transmogrified into a technological and communication/information revolution and a diversification of career options at all but the lowest class levels. This increasingly meant that the obvious link between labour and its exploitation was obscured. Marx's 'proletariat' was involved in less 'labour'; selling instead their time, their creativity, their knowledge etc. in a new marketplace where traditional 'blue-collar' workers declined in numbers and a new thinking emerged among the least well-to-do. Workers are more likely to identify with their employer, industry, or occupational group than with other workers, or with the working class. (Mantsios, 2001, p. 168) and it is a prerequisite for a working class movement that the worker... is class conscious, or aware of belonging to the working class (Wievorka, 2005, p. 4) A 2005 study by Norton and Ariely (2011) found respondents dramatically underestimated current inequality: estimating that the wealthiest quintile held about 59% of the wealth when the actual number is closer to 84%. Gregory Mantsios said People in the United States don't like to talk about

class... We don't talk about class privileges, or class oppression, or the class nature of society (2001, p. 168). He claimed that There are few among the poor who speak of themselves as lower class... Neither are those at the other end of the economic spectrum likely to use the word 'class' with one wealthy, 'upper-class' participant responding, I hate to use the word 'class'. We are responsible, fortunate people, old families, the people who have something (Mantsios, 2001, p. 168). Is this reluctance to discuss class a result of benign individualisation and 'identity politics' or is it simply an exacerbation of what Marx called 'false consciousness' and Bauman portrayed as an insidious corollary of the hegemonic grip of neo-liberalism, individualism and consumerism on political and media discourse (Atkinson, 2010)? Marx himself said This organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset by the competition between workers themselves (Marx and Engels, 1848, p. 6) but he failed to foresee the neo-liberal revolution (over a century and a half in the future from the publication of 'The Communist Manifesto') or to properly understand the obstacles to class solidarity represented by competition among workers, especially when combined with the individualisation and identity politics that has flourished under the modern neo-liberal paradigm. Increasingly, though, confronting data suggesting neo-liberalism is associated with greater poverty and income inequalities, and greater health inequalities within nations (Coburn, 2004, p. 41) is 'threatening' to reignite class solidarity. Despite the mantra of the trickle-down effect, the 'rising tide' which 'lifts all boats', most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth (Norton, 2011, p. 9) and that the top 11% of the population hold more wealth than the remaining 89% (Sargis, 2011, p. 2)3. In the US, despite being among the richest nations on Earth (C.I.A., 2011), it is claimed that 16% of the population lives in poverty (Sargis, 2011, p. 2). It is said that there are two justices in America. There is one justice for the rich and powerful... and another justice for the poor who are the victims of unequal justice, just as America is divided, with the shrinking of the middle-class, into rich and poor (Sargis, 2011, p. 3). An extensive and growing literature shows that the intergenerational transmission of physical and human capital strongly affects lifetime wealth and income (see, among others, Becker, 1979, Behrman, 1976, Modigliani, 1988, Gale, 1994, Nardi, 2004, Mulder, 2009) and while merit, defined
3 A series of studies studies show that figures are similar even on a global scale, with the top 10% owning 85% of world wealth : See BOURGUIGNON, F. 2002. Inequality among world citizens: 1820-1992. The American economic review, 727, MILANOVIC, B. 2002. True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculation based on household surveys alone. Economic journal, 112, 51, MILANOVI, B. 2007. Worlds Apart., DAVIES, J. B. 2009. The global pattern of household wealth. Journal of international development, 21, 1111.

in terms of ability and effort, does play a part in determining individuals' class destinations, the effect of class origins remains strong. (Breen, 1999, p. 1). The idea that, despite huge socio-economic, technological and political changes, class inequalities have remained remarkably stable, is known as the 'stability thesis' (Ringen, 2006, p. 476). There are many ways, other than simply the wealth divide, in which class inequality can be tracked, including health disparities, education and interactions with the legal system, among other things. Some examples of tracking these inequalities from a class basis as follows: health and access to health (see, among others, Vager, 1989, Lundberg, 1991, Smith et al., 1998, Muntaner, 2002, Galea, 2002, Wagstaff, 2004, Coburn, 2004), education (see, among others, Boudon, 1976, Gamoran, 1989, 2001, Blanden, 2004, Reay, 2006, Alon, 2009), and the law (see, among others, Chambliss and Seidman, 1971, Burke, 1975, Chiricos, 1975, Croyle, 1983, Sampson, 1993, D'Alessio, 1993, Seron, 1996, Pettit, 2004, Comack, 2004). The reality of rising inequalities is beginning to become apparent to the general public and this is arguably leading to a re-emergence of class conciousness, albeit in new forms. Norton and Ariely (2011) found that some 92% of Americans prefer the wealth distribution of Sweden, where the wealthiest quintile owns only 36% of wealth, to that of the US where they own 84%. This result is highly significant in the US where neo-liberal, rabid opposition to wealth re-distribution, taxation and the welfare state, has been most aggressive. This burgeoning reinvigoration of class consciousness is multifactored. After decades of neoliberalism, producing increased inequality and wage stagnation for the majority of the population, many are beginning to 'smell a rat' in the trickle-down story. Then came the global financial crisis which, in its destruction of wealth and assets, showed the harsh face of a neo-liberal market to previously staunch supporters: the comparatively wealthy (on a global scale) middle classes from the 'West'. Neo-liberalism has been exposed as, not only an idealogical tool for abusing the developing world for the benefit of the developed, but a tool with which a tiny, extremely wealthy elite can exploit EVERYBODY for their benefit alone. Obama famously said in a speech in 2011: for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people... Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that werent... the breathtaking greed of a few... plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which were still fighting to recover (Obama, 2011).

Another sign of the re-emergence of class consciousness can be seen in the 'Occupy' movement. Despite a seemingly never-ending stream of detractors who claim that the message and the goals of the Occupy Wall Street Movement are not clear, there is nothing unclear about the observation of a fundamental tension between the one percent and ninety-nine percent (Rieger, 2012, p. 33). The rhetoric of the Occupy movement, focusing on the '99%' slogan highlights the point which makes class such a potent political force, the majority standing of those who are 'oppressed'. As Marx said All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority (Marx and Engels, 1848, p. 7). While Collective approval of power legitimates that power (Calhoun et al., 2007, p. 101), collective disapproval of power engenders opposition (Calhoun et al., 2007, p. 102). The world is an inequitable place, not just between the 'developed' and the 'developing' nations but also within nations, that much is clear to everyone and becoming clearer every day. What is perhaps less clear is why for decades, while inequality has grown and class divisions in terms of wealth and opportunity have become increasingly striking, class consciousness has been on decline, or entirely absent. Events in recent years have shown signs that a re-emergence and reinvigoration of the concept of class may be in the process of building. For those who have an academic understanding of inequality and class this prospect is exciting because in a social context of growing inequalities there is a need to reinvigorate class analysis, not bury it (Reay, 2006).

Bibliography ALON, S. 2009. The evolution of class inequality in higher education. American sociological review, 74, 731. ATKINSON, W. 2010. Class, Individualisation and Perceived (Dis)advantages: Not Either/Or but Both/And? Sociological Research Online, 15, 7. BECK, U. 1992. The Individualisation of Social Inequality: Life Forms and the Demise of Tradition. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Los Angeles: Sage. BECKER, G. S. 1979. An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of political economy, 1153. BECKER, G. S., DUESENBERRY, J. S. & OKUN, B. 1960. An Economic Analysis of Fertility. In: BUREAU, U.-N. (ed.) Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. UMI. BEHRMAN, J. 1976. Intergenerational transmission of income and wealth. The American economic review, 66, 436. BLANDEN, J. 2004. Educational inequality and the expansion of UK higher education. Scottish journal of political economy, 51, 230. BOUDON, R. 1976. Comment on Hauser's review of Education, opportunity, and social inequality. American journal of sociology, 81, 1175. BOURGUIGNON, F. 2002. Inequality among world citizens: 1820-1992. The American economic review, 727. BREEN, R. 1999. Class inequality and meritocracy: a critique of Saunders and an alternative analysis1. The British journal of sociology, 50, 1. BURKE, P. J. 1975. Factors affecting postarrest dispositions: A model for analysis. Social Problems, 313. C.I.A. 2011. Country Comparison: GDP - Per Capita (PPP). Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html [Accessed 05/04/2012]. CALHOUN, C., GERTEIS, J., MOODY, J., PFAFF, S. & VIRK, I. 2007. Contemporary Sociological Theory, John Wiley & Sons. CHAMBLISS, W. J. & SEIDMAN, R. B. 1971. Law, order, and power, Reading, Mass.,, AddisonWesley Pub. Co. CHIRICOS, T. G. 1975. Socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing: An empirical assessment of a conflict proposition. American sociological review, 753. COBURN, D. 2004. Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: class, neo-liberalism, and health inequalities. Social science & medicine, 58, 41. COMACK, E. 2004. The power to criminalize: Violence, inequality and the law. CROMPTON, R. 1999. Class and Stratification. In: TAYLOR, S. (ed.) Sociology: Issues and Debates. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. CROYLE, J. L. 1983. Measuring and explaining disparities in felony sentences: Courtroom work group factors and race, sex, and socioeconomic influences on sentence severity. Political behavior, 5, 135. D'ALESSIO, S. J. 1993. Socioeconomic status and the sentencing of the traditional offender. Journal of criminal justice, 21, 61. DAVIES, J. B. 2009. The global pattern of household wealth. Journal of international development, 21, 1111. GALE, W. G. 1994. Intergenerational transfers and the accumulation of wealth. The journal of economic perspectives, 8, 145. GALEA, S. 2002. Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. Public health reports, 117, S135.

GAMORAN, A. 1989. Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American journal of sociology, 1146. GAMORAN, A. 2001. American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of education, 135. LUNDBERG, O. 1991. Causal explanations for class inequality in healthan empirical analysis. Social science & medicine, 32, 385. MANTSIOS, G. 2001. Class in America: Myths and Realities (2000). In: ROTHENBERG, P. S. (ed.) Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. 5th Edition ed. New York: Worth Publishers. MARX, K. & ENGELS, F. 1848. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Available: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html [Accessed 20/02/11]. MILANOVIC, B. 2002. True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculation based on household surveys alone. Economic journal, 112, 51. MILANOVI, B. 2007. Worlds Apart. MODIGLIANI, F. 1988. The role of intergenerational transfers and life cycle saving in the accumulation of wealth. The journal of economic perspectives, 2, 15. MULDER, M. B. 2009. Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies. Science, 326, 682. MUNTANER, C. 2002. Economic inequality, working-class power, social capital, and cause-specific mortality in wealthy countries. International journal of health services, 32, 629. NARDI, M. 2004. Wealth inequality and intergenerational links. The review of economic studies, 71, 743. NORTON, M. I. 2011. Building a better AmericaOne wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on psychological science, 6, 9. OBAMA, B. 2011. Remarks on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president economyosawatomie-kansas) [Accessed 06/04/12]. PETTIT, B. 2004. Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration. American sociological review, 69, 151. REAY, D. 2006. The zombie stalking English schools: social class and educational inequality. British journal of educational studies, 54, 288. RIEGER, J. 2012. Occupy Wall Street and Everything Else: Lessons for the Study and Praxis of Religion. Peace Studies Journal, 5, 33-45. RINGEN, S. 2006. The Truth about Class Inequality. Czech Sociological Review, 42, 475-491. SAMPSON, R. J. 1993. Structural variations in juvenile court processing: Inequality, the underclass, and social control. Law & Society Review, 285. SARGIS, J. 2011. Occupy Wall Streetrevolt to reform. The international journal of inclusive democracy, 7. SERON, C. 1996. Law and inequality: Race, gender... and, of course, class. Annual review of sociology, 187. SMITH, G. D., HART, C., HOLE, D., MACKINNON, P., GILLIS, C., WATT, G., BLANE, D. & HAWTHORNE, V. 1998. Education and occupational social class: which is the more important indicator of mortality risk? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 52, 153. SWINGEWOOD, A. 1999. Sociological Theory. In: TAYLOR, S. (ed.) Sociology: Issues and Debates. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. VAGER, D. 1989. Health inequalities in Britain and Sweden. Lancet, 334, 35. WAGSTAFF, A. 2004. Overall versus socioeconomic health inequality: a measurement framework and two empirical illustrations. Health economics, 13, 297. WEISS, J. 1986. Weber and the Marxist world, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul plc. WIEVORKA, M. 2005. After New Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 4, 1-19. WRIGHT, E. O. 2005. Foundations of Neo-Marxist Class Analysis. In: WRIGHT, E. O. (ed.) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.