Responses to Marx: Weber and Elite Theorists

Sara HavilandLindsay HirschfeldNatalie Spring

Marx

MARXISM- Classes labeled based on their ownership

Who? Owners of?

Bourgeoisie Capital

Proletariat Labor

Petite Bourgeoisie Mind/Mid

Marx, continued

Marx believed several things: The Proletariat sells their labor to the

Bourgeoisie and in the process become alienated from labor, product, species being, and society.

The majority of the middle class (Petit Bourgeoisie) will eventually fall into the ranks of the Proletariat.

Revolution must & will occur in order for any massive societal change in status.

So if Marx isn’t right…

Maybe Weberian thought?

Max Weber

Trained as an economist, interested in the increasing rationalization of capitalist society

Critique of Marx’s notions of ownership based classes

Stratification based on power. Power matters more than a job’s function or the

state of ownership of the means of production. Classes, status groups, and parties are

“phenomena of the distribution of power within the community” (Grusky, 132)

Weber: Class

Class is defined by economic market opportunity

Constituted when: a number of people with a common causal

aspect in their life chances, this aspect is economic in nature related to

acquisition of goods and prospect of income, and this component is within the scope of the

commodity or labor markets Class conflict exists between two or more

classes involved in antagonisms conditioned by the market situation

Weber: Status

Status groups, unlike classes, are communities

Defined by the life chances given a certain amount of positive or negative prestige and honor

Shown through one’s style of life. Castes evolve when status stratification

creates closed groups, which are guaranteed by laws, conventions, and rituals. Often underscored by “ethnic” differences.

Status, continued

“As to the general effect of the status order, only one consequence can be stated…: the hindrance of the free development of the market occurs first for those goods which status groups directly withheld from free exchange by monopolization” (Grusky, 140).

Stratification based on patterns of consumption, rather than acquisition (which stratifies class).

Weber: Party

Parties are groups interested in advancing certain causes

Concerned with culling and exerting power

Require communities with rational order and an available staff of persons

Shaped differently based on whether society is stratified on class or status

Class, Status, and Party

Class = any group of people in the same class situation, i.e. economically-defined life chances or market opportunity

Status = stratified levels of prestige and honor within the social order

Party = interest groups which are associated with the realm of power and power relations

Weber: Social Closure Mechanisms provide ways to close off

opportunities to other classes, status groups, or individuals

Most market relationships are open Relationships are closed for several

reasons: To maintain quality Protect certain groups against a shrinking

number of advantages in relation to consumption

Attenuation of opportunities for acquisition necessitates social closure to maintain, or enhance, position

Credentialism is one method of social closure

Weberian Approach, Restated

Parkin challenges Marxian class conflict models, stating that the distinction between laborer and capitalist does not reveal exploitation in the modern economy, but rather shows mere differentiation

Believes Weber’s idea of class definition by market opportunities, life-chances, and symbolic rewards is more accurate

Class conflict can be understood as the relation of each class to modes of social closure Two types of social closure are exclusion and

usurpation Property is a form of social closure

Classes tend to reproduce themselves

Parkin’s Social Classes

Collectivist exclusion

Individualist exclusion

Communal groups

Social classes

Segmental status groups

Elite Theorists

An adolescent period in the life course of Weberian Thought.

A class that rules and one that is ruled

Gaetano Mosca  "The Ruling Class”

Main point? There are two classes of people, the Rulers and the

Ruled.

Ruling Class-a. Fewb. Perform all political functions,c. Collects and enjoys power.

Ruled Classa. Numerous b. Controlled by legal means c. Give power to Rulers (no choice)

Mosca, continued

The ruling class uses legal means (which they control) to codify their power

While the ruled might one day revolt, there is always a minority that will emerge to rule after a ruler is deposed.

Mosca views the Ruling Class in legal terms now and presents varying ways people may ascend to the ruling class. (war, birth, religious elders, land, etc)

C. Wright Mills “The Power Elite”Main Point?

“Those political, economic, and military circles which as an intricate set of overlapping cliques share decisions…in so far as national events are decided, the power elite are those who decide them.”

In America, since there was not a feudal period the bourgeoisie were able to monopolize prestige, power, and wealth. However, they also tend to deny that they hold power, and instead insist they are a scattered bunch of individuals. Regardless, the power elite influence the ways society views religion, education, and the family.

Mills, continued

Levels o’ Power (within the elite) Power Elite Professional Politicians Celebrities (but without power)

“History is merely one thing after another; history is meaningless in that it is not the realization of any determinate plot.”

Michael Useem “The Inner Circle”

Main Point? Power Elite is passé’. The inner circle really runs

America and Britain.

The Inner Circle Top business leaders (CEO’s who while running their

own major corporations, also sit on numerous corporate boards. They are the ones who define what happens in politics in accordance for what is good for the members of their inner networks.

The Inner circle works to support business. They socially are at the top, however business will always trump familial obligations or loyalties. While not unified in thought, they are the most prepared to act on behalf on their interests.

Elite/Ruling Class Theorists, continued

Pareto Three major assumptions about social

strat.: “individuals are physically, morally, and intellectually different…the social classes are not entirely distinct, even in countries where a caste system prevails…in modern civilized countries circulation among the various classes is exceedingly rapid” ([1935] in Heller’s Structured Social Inequality, p. 34)

Pareto, continued

Elite are those who are the best at what they do – can be divided into governing (directly and indirectly affect government) and non-governing elite

Special cases – some are governing elites though not entirely qualified, and different groups move in and out of elite status (circulation of the elites).

Elites can circulate due to supply and demand considerations

Elite class can be eroded as members of the lower class join it, or due to the shortcomings of its members

Pareto, continued

Elite class always changing – usually in a slow manner but occasionally in a revolutionary manner

Lower class may become superior in important ways

Elite class may not maintain the force to squelch uprisings

Elite class may not have the talents to rule, may be too decadent

How is this different from the Marxist perspective?

Are Social Classes Real?

D. Grusky and J. Sørensen

Problem: po-mo and SI theorists feel class is somewhat irrelevant – life chances, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals are not so strictly tied to class

Response: there is too much focus on social classes as big entities – we should look at micro-classes which are more sensitive to site of production and individual outcomes

Micro-class is occupation based – occs have “social closure, class cultures, rent extraction, collective action, class awareness, and subjective identification” (Weeden and Grusky 2003)

Lukewarm Reception:

We recognize, however, that our proposed alternative diverges so far from the canon that it may be as difficult for defenders of the faith to embrace as the postmodernist critique. Indeed, Goldthorpe (2002, p. 214) characterizes our approach as a “remedy…worse than the disorder diagnosed” (p. 214), while Portes (2000, p. 250) notes, “supporters of Marxist theories may justifiably respond that, with friends like these, who needs enemies?” (p. 250).

-Weeden and Grusky 2003

A. Sørensen

What do we mean by class and status? What is the relative importance of each? What does power have to do with any of this, according to Weber?

Sørensen wants to distinguish between positions in social structure and the individuals in those positions

Rent-generating assets – rent is payment in addition to the one needed to employ the assets; “individuals not obtaining the rent are worse off than they would have been without the rent payment to those owning the assets in fixed supply”

Questions for DiscussionHaving considered the strengths and weaknesses of the Marxist and Weberian concepts of class, reflect on the alternative Grusky/ J. Sørensen perspective and the A. Sørensen perspective.

Are these two perspectives really about class in the Marxist or Weberian sense? Are the levels of analysis useful, theoretically and/or practically (i.e. for research)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both?

Which of these two perspectives is more plausible? Should we just go back to Weber, Marx, or waiting for something better?