Theories of Stratification

UNIT 4 WEBERIAN THEORY

Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4..2 Weber on Stratification
4.2.1 Classes and Life Chances
4.2.2 Status
4.2.3 Power
4.3 Similarities and Differences between Marx and Weber
4.4 Let Us Sum Up
4.5 Keywords
4.6 Further Readings
4.7 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall discuss the view of the founding father of sociology, namely,
Max Weber. He has made tremendous contributions for sociological thought.
We will of course concentrate on only one aspect of their contribution - social
stratification. After reading this unit you will understand:
how classes emerge in society:
the basis of class formation;
role of classes in social stratification; and
Similarities and differences between Marx and Weber on Classes.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Marx Weber (1864-1920) was another outstanding thinker. Like Marx he
recognized the economic aspects of stratification but he differed with Marx on
several of his basic propositions. While Marx focussed his attention on the toiling
classes and looked at social development from their point of view, Weber stressed
on the role of the propertied classes in social development. Thus Weber is often
referred as the Bourgeois Marx. In this unit we shall discuss separately the views
of Marx and Weber on stratification and then compare them. We will then discuss
the significance in analysing class in understanding stratification systems.

4.2 WEBER ON STRATIFICATION

Marx Weber as mentioned in the beginning is regarded as one of the founding
fathers of Sociology. He is also the originator of the most powerful alternative to
the Marxist theory of society. We shall discuss his views on class and other
forms of social stratification in this section.

Like Marx, Weber also believed that class was a basic form of stratification in
society. He defined the term ‘class’ according to the Marxist criterion, namely,
in relation to ownership of property. Property and lack of property, according to
42
him, were the basic categories of all class situations. He went on the distinguish Weberian Theory
between to types of property-ownership and non-ownership of goods and services.
Those who owned property offered goods while those not owning had only their
labour power or skills to offer. Thus a factory owner can offer goods which were
produced in the factory. His workers, on the other hand, can offer only their
labour power in exchange of wages.

4..2.1 Class and Life – Chances

Another aspect of class that Weber stressed on was ‘life-chances’. This term
related to the opportunities an individual got during the various stages of his or
her life. An individual born in a worker’s family receives a particular type of
education, which in turn equips him or her for specific jobs. The education will
not be as expensive or as intense as the education of a child in an upper class
family. The employment opportunities for both are different. Their different family
backgrounds also make them part of different classes. The same pattern can be
seen in social interaction and marriage. A person from a working class background
will interact mostly with other members of his or her class whereas a person
from the upper-middle class will have acquaintances mainly from his class. Thus
Weber found that life-chances was an important aspect of class formation.

Box 4.01

While discussing life-chances Weber’s emphasis was on the group or

the community and not on the individual. He insisted that while
determining class, we have to look at the life-chances of the collective
and not of individuals within the collective. This is a very important
aspect of class as a collective. It is possible that the life-chances of an
individual may be different. For example the child of a-worker may be
able to surpass his or her class barrier. He/ she may get a better education
and get employment that is different from the opportunities available
for his/her peers.

The son of an industrialist may become a worker because of his abilities or other
circumstances. But these, Weber pointed out, were exceptions and not the rule.
He pointed out that what was more important was the fact that the life-chances
or members of a class were similar. This is what gave permanence to that class as
the next generation too joined the same class. Therefore the definition of life-
chances, according to Weber, is sharing of economic and cultural goods which
are available differently for different groups.

The life-chances of an individual were largely determined by the market situation.

The son of a worker became a worker because this was the best occupation
available to him given his background. The market situation becomes more
important for the propertyless as they have to depend mainly on the production
of services as they posses only their skills. They cannot market anything else for
their existence. The property owners on the other hand can depend on the income
they get from their productive property.

Hence for Weber class had two basic aspects. Firstly it was an objective category.
It was determined by the control or lack of control over productive property of
the members. Secondly, all members of a particular had similar life-chances,
which in turn distinguished these members from others. The life-chances of
43
Theories of Stratification individuals depended on the their market situation in the case of those not owning
productive property and on the ownership of productivity for those owning these.

Based on his definition, Weber identified four classes in capitalist society. These
were: (a) Upper class that comprised those owning or controlling productive
private property. This class was similar to the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) in
Marx’s analysis, (b) White-collar workers. This class included all those who
were engaged in mental labour -managers, administrators, professionals, etc. (c)
Petty bourgeoisie. These were the self-employed and they included shopkeepers,
doctors lawyers, etc. (d) Manual workers. These people sold their physical labour
in exchange for wages. The working class was included in this class. Weber thus
divided society into four classes as opposed to Marx’s two-class model. Hence
though Weber found the basis of class formation was similar to that of Marx he
differed with Marx on the types of classes in society.

4.2.2 Status
Like Marx, Weber also distinguished between class and class-consciousness. As
discussed above, for Marx, class-conscious was an important aspect of class. A
class could articulate its interests if it was conscious of its existence as a special
group. Weber too talked of class-consciousness but he did not think it as necessary
for the existence of a class. Instead he looked for an alternative to class-
consciousness and he found it in status. Weber noted that whereas an individual’s
class situation need not lead to his becoming class conscious, he was always
conscious of his status.

Activity 1
Discuss with other students in the study centre what is meant by status.
Do their conceptions fit in with Weber’s view on status? Note down
your findings.

According to Weber, classes were formed on the basis of economic relations.

Status groups, he noted, were normally ‘communities’. He defined status a position
in society determined by social estimation of ‘honour’. There were links between
class mid status but in many cases they were in opposition to each other. Class
was associated with production of goods and services or in acquisition of the
same. Status was determined by consumption. Thus status was associated with a
life style where there were restrictions on social intercourse. Weber noted that
the most rigid and well-defined status boundaries could be found in India’s caste
system. A Brahman may belong to the working class because it was the means of
his livelihood, however he would always consider himself superior to a person
from a lower caste even though the class situation of both may be the same. At
the same time that Brahman worker may have greater interaction with other
Brahmans belonging to classes higher than his. In our society we can see that
inter-caste marriage is not tolerated even when both families are from the same
class but they occupy different statuses in the caste hierarchy.

There in a stratified society, Weber found that property differences generated

classes whereas prestige differences generated status grouping. There were the
two main bases of . social stratification.

44
4.2.3 Power Weberian Theory

The third organizing principle of social stratification is power, Unlike status and
wealth which can be clearly linked with group characteristics of rankmg hi
societies, the principle of power is a relatively diffused attribute because it is not
exclusive in character. It is always possible that a group with higher status in
society or that which enjoys greater wealth, also exercises more power in society.
Nevertheless, one could make a distinction between say, principle of privileges
where as the latter tends to be based on the group’s ability to use coercive means
for other group’s conformity with actions, values and beliefs determined by it.
The concept of power as Max Weber has discussed in his treatment of social
stratification rests on the fact that it endows the persons or groups which have
power to impose their will on other groups by legitimate use of coercive method.
In this sense, state offers us a good example of an institution which has maximum
power. It has sovereign authority to impose its will on citizens of the society.
When legitimacy of exercise of power, is widely accepted by groups, in other
words, when it is institutionalized in society, power becomes authority. Authority
as a concept could be defined as legitimate power. Power as a principle also
enters into the notion of social stratification when its functions or its social
ramifications begin to be influenced by the political processes in society, and
when state begins to take more active or direct role in influencing the principles
of social stratification. A relevant example of this could be found in the policy of
positive discrimination or reservation of jobs, political offices and entry into
educational institutions in our country by the state in favour of castes and tribes
now declared as ‘scheduled’ or as ‘other backward classes’. Max Weber, in his
treatment of power as an element in the formation of social stratification has
rightly emphasised the significance of politics, political parties and their role in
optimizing their access to power.

Activity 2

Discuss ‘status’ ‘wealth’ and ‘power’ with other students in the study
centre. In which way are they related to one another? Put your findings
down in your notebook.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Describe Weber’s views on Classes and Life chances. Use about five lines
for your answer.
2) Outline some of the similarities and differences between Weber and Marx
so far as their views on social stratification is concerned. Use about ten lines
for your answer.

4.3 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN MARX AND WEBER
From the above discussions we can see that there are some similarities between
the two thinkers on stratification. There are major differences as well. For Marx
the basis of stratification was class. The formation of class was objective in the
sense that a class was not formed because a group of people got together and
decided that they form a class. Its formation was because of the production
relations that existed in a society. Therefore a person’s position in the class
45
Theories of Stratification structure was based on his position in the production relations. If he happened to
own or control capital and he employed others, he was a capitalist. Those who
did not own or control property belonged to the opposing class of worker.

Opposition of classes was an important aspect of Marx’s analysis. It was through

this opposition that social and economic change took place. The capitalists invent
new ways to counteract workers. This could be new technology resulting in better
production techniques or new laws preventing workers from becoming more
powerful. The workers too in their struggle become more united. They tend to
drop their internal differences when they realise that their main opponent is another
class. This leads to greater unity among them. Thus for Marx, class and class-
consciousness do not mean mere categories in society. They are fundamental for
social development.

At one level, Weber accepts Marx’s view on class. However he does so not to
support Marx but to show how his analysis has weaknesses. He stresses that
society cannot be divided into only two main classes. There are more classes
that emerge due to the market situation and the type of work done. He therefore
finds that there are four main classes in society. This in effect confuses the class
relations. Thus Weber feels that neither class nor class-consciousness can explain
stratification completely. He thus lays greater stress on status, whereas Marx
lays stress on class-consciousness. Weber tries to show that class-consciousness
in not an important aspect of social stratification. For him status groups are the
basis. He finds that classes are static whereas status stretches across classes.

While comparing the two we must keep in mind that Weber was an opponent on
Marx’s views. He tried to provide alternatives to Marx. In this sense the two
cannot be compared because Weber’s work was not complimentary to that of
Marx (just as Davis’ approach to stratification was complementary to that of
Parsons as we shall show in the next unit). It was primarily developed to oppose
Marx. Thus despite some similarities, their works are basically different.

4.4 LET US SUM UP

In the above unit we have discussed the view of the founder of sociology, Max
Weber, on social stratification. He has view that has shaped and influenced human
development.

Marx Weber stressed on the formation of classes. The basis of the class was
similar to what Marx said but he also stressed that there were four classes instead
of two. Weber’s differences with Marx did not end there. He tried to show the
inadequacy of class analysis as the main means of explaining social stratification.
He asserted that stains was more important than class. His contention was that
people were not as class-conscious as they were status conscious. Hence he felt
that status was a better measure of social stratification, even though class was an
objective category.

4.5 KEY WORDS

Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of people who are
distinguished from each other due to their ownership or
control over the means of production or lack of the same.
46
Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of people who Weberian Theory
are distinguished from each other due to their
ownership or control over the means of production or
lack of the same. According to Weber, classes are
groups of people who are’ distinguished from each
other through their ownership or control of production
and who share similar life chances.
Class-consciousness : A class that is conscious of its distinguished position
in the social hierarchy.
Status : Effective claim to social esteem. Weber tried to show
that status cuts across class barriers.

4.6 FURTHER READINGS

T.B. Bottomore and M. Rubel (eds.), Karl Marx: Selected Writing in Sociology
and Social Philosphy, Penguin Books, 1963.

H.H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Marx Weber: Essays in Sociology,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948.

4.7 SPECIMEN ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Weber defined class in relation to private property, but he distinguished
between ownership of goods and ownership of skills. The factory owner
could offer goods but his workers offer labour power in exchange of wages.
Further life chances for Weber meant the opportunities an individual got
during various stages of his life. Education and family background affect
life chances. The emphasis however has to be on the group and these can
improve or deteriorate the position. Finally life chances of a class were similar
to which there were some exceptions.
2) There are both similarities and differences between Marx and Weber
regarding their views on social stratification. Thus opposition of classes based
on ownership of means of production was basic to Marx’s thought. The
class and class consciousness are basic to social development for Weber.
Society con not be divided into only two classes, and he finds four classes in
society Weber lays greater stress on status whereas Marx emphasizes class
consciousness. Thus despite the similarities that both scholars emphasized
the importance of the class, their views were not really similar.

47