Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Class and Inequality (5. Weberian Theory of Class (To Max Weber,…

- - - - Problems with this approach
        It is very difficult to test this theory and to find supporting evidence. It is difficult to find a sample to test as not all unemployed or poor people will be members of the underclass. It is also difficult to measure cultural values. Does the sociologist research what people say they think or what they do? Other sociologists have found evidence against the cultural underclass. Dean and Taylor-Goobey, in their survey of 85 social security claimants found that they were keen to work and shared mainstream values. They received welfare benefits but this was because of their situation, not their dependency.
        Westergaard agrees with this view and argues that crime is an effect of poverty not a cause. He also points out that the some of the so called cultural features of the underclass, such as single parenthood are to be found in all social classes. Others argue that the poorest groups in society may develop distinct values to cope with their poverty, but these are not the original cause of their poverty, although it may make it more difficult to break out of their poverty.
        The Structural Argument
        Supporters of this view argue that the causes of the underclass lie in the structural inequalities of society. Opportunities and resources are distributed unequally in Britain and the underclass fall victim of this lack of opportunity and fairness for all. Field argues that the underclass in Britain was a direct result of Thatcherite market policies and the economic problems of the 1980s.
        Structure and Culture
        Some sociologists attempt a combination of structural and cultural approaches. Dahrendorf argues that structural factors such as the economic recession and large-scale unemployment have created an underclass, but after a while, the members of the underclass begin to develop their own cultural characteristics. The longer they remain in the underclass, the more they become entrenched in these cultural values and the more difficult it then becomes to move out. They become used to dependency and powerlessness and lose motivation to improve their living standards.
        
        DOES AN UNDERCLASS ACTUALLY EXIST?
        Marxists do not agree with the idea of an underclass. They are critical of the idea of a split between the underclass and the rest of the working class. Westergaard suggests that in a capitalist society, the working class as a whole suffer problems and exploitation. Those at the bottom face more severe problems, but they share a common exploitation with the rest of the working class. This argument depends upon the existence of a reasonably stable group at the bottom of society. Drever et al argue that the group at the bottom are not stable as people move in and out of poverty. Between 1991 and 1997, 50% of the bottom fifth of the population moved out of this category.
        It is unlikely that the groups who are said to make up the underclass share a common culture because they are not a homogeneous group. Groups such as different ethnic minority groups, young, old people, single parents will not have a common experience of poverty. Although those at the very bottom of society may be in extreme poverty, they are not totally excluded from citizenship, as they are still entitled to health care, education and welfare benefits.
        SOCIAL MOBILITY.
        Mobility is the term describing the movement across class boundaries - whether up or down.
        Intergenerational mobility - difference in class between parents and children.
        Intragenerational mobility - career shifts within a person’s life-time. Why is mobility important to understand/study? It matters to the individual - “getting on”. Understanding the patterns of mobility gives a fuller picture of class. It extent is a test of the fairness of a society.
        It has implications for class consciousness in that it may loosen class cohesiveness.
        Is Britain a meritocracy?
        A meritocracy is when a person’s position in the hierarchy is determined by individual merit.
        Social changes - improving mobility.
        Occupational - more room at the top.
        Industrial - shift from manual to white-collar jobs.
        Education - more opportunities for all.
        Measuring Social Mobility…
        This is always problematic to study but a basic approach is to compare occupations with parents or previous jobs. In the Oxford Mobility Study (1972) Goldthorpe allocated men into seven categories and then grouped these into three main classes, service (N.B. not the same as ruling elite), intermediate and working.
        Findings:
        His findings challenge conventional view:
        Closure theory - Guarding of privilege by service class - Goldthorpe found only a minority had been born into the class it is therefore not true.
        Buffer zone thesis – this is the concept that occupations cluster around manual/non-manual zone preventing long range mobility. Goldthorpe found long range mobility did occur (28.5% currently in class 1 had been born in classes 6 and 7)
        Counterbalancing thesis - this argues since the war intergenerational mobility has increased, but intragenerational has declined. Goldthorpe found this was not the case with his study.
        Absolute mobility - total mobility in a society, i.e. all those who have been socially mobile. Goldthorpe found this to have increased.
        Relative mobility - comparable rates for different groups to move. 1:2:4 rule. Goldthorpe found little change here:
        “No significant reduction in class inequalities has in fact been achieved.”(Goldthorpe, 1980, p.252)
        In Goldthorpe’s 1987 second edition (based on data from British Election Survey of 1983) he concluded that the mobility of the working classes had become polarised. The chances of mobility had improved, but the chances of unemployment had also increased.