working class

Currently, there’re many people feeling confused about the definition of social class. It’s widely accepted that social class is defined as the hierarchical divisions of a capitalist society, in which wealth, income and occupation form the defining characteristics of each group. In the U.K., working, middle and upper class were the classic formulation of social class. However, in fact, the situation of working class seems to change all the time as there are tradition and new working class and there are many people interested in it. Therefore, this essay is going to critically evaluate the concept of working class in modern Britain. As a functionalist, Parsons considered social stratification as inevitable because it’s originated from shared value which is an indispensable part in societies and as functional as it can be used to integrate various social groups. Additionally, power and prestige differential is crucial for integration of division of labour. The inequalities actually benefits society as collective goals based on shared value can be achieved. Parsons also believe in meritocracy which is based on a situation where high positions are appropriated on ‘merits’ such as skill meaning prestige can be achieved if someone exemplify common values.

Weber defined a class as a group of people sharing similar position in the market economy and receiving similar economic rewards and argued that a person’s class situation is basically their market situation where people sharing a similar class situation also share similar life chances. For Weber, status is also important but things like ‘property’ are not always recognized as status qualification. Therefore, people in same class situation would be not necessary in the same status group. Importantly, the existence of different status group within a class can weaken class solidarity and potential for consciousness.

Marx predicted that working class would be increasingly homogenous, with strong identity and middle class would be depressed into working class. For the depression, Marx argued that the competitive nature in capitalism society suggests that only the strongest businesses can survive meaning the middle class (petty bourgeois) like the boss of small businesses which is between bourgeois and proletariat cannot survive and sink into proletariat.

Similar to Marx, the theory of proletarianization implied that routine white-collar workers like clerks became proletariat as they share similarities like being without means of production and not important for capitalists. Additionally, Westergard estimated that earning of clerks in 1971 similar with average manual wage is much less than in 1913. Braverman (1974) also supported the theory of proletarianization because when the clerical workforce became bigger, work was reorganized making workers just a production line for mental work which is big contrast against situation in 1870 where they are similar with craft workers and had wide responsibilities. Additionally, because of compulsory education, many people can take the job making the bargaining power of clerk worse and thus they would sink into proletariat gradually.

Contrary to Marx’s prediction, there were some sociologists between 1950 and 1960 arguing that embourgeoisement took place whereby more and more manual workers were becoming middle class. It was thought that the theory of economic determinism could explain this development. At that time, the advanced industrialism needed a highly advanced and skilled workforce which would lead to higher pay and status occupations. Jessie Bernard argued that wealth of working-class has relation with the needs of an industrial economy for a mass market of consumer goods and when new technology increase productivity, workers are paid higher and economic change resulted in a growing middle class. Therefore, the supporters of embourgeoisement argued that the middle-range income result in middle-class lifestyle as the rich workers moved to newer and suburban areas where they are indistinguishable from their white-collar neighbors.

However, some argued that embourgeoisement was a hypothesis. Therefore, in the 1960s, Goldthorpe et al. researched to find whether embourgeoisement occurred. Importantly, they chose Luton, a place with favourable setting for the test and argued that if the rich workers were becoming middle class they should be similar with white-collar workers over attitude towards work, interaction patterns, social perspectives and political views.

Over the attitude to work, affluent workers defined works instrumental terms meaning work was just a way of earning to improve living rather than a ‘good career’. By contrast, white-collar workers did not work purely for money. Instead, they wanted and experienced a higher level of job satisfaction. Additionally, they made friends at work. Thus, it was concluded that huge difference between affluent and white-collar still existed over the field of work. It was also found that similar with traditional working class norms, the affluent workers drew their friends from predominantly working-class neighbours. Furthermore, they showed no desire to mix with members of middle class. In contrast, white-collar workers mixed more with friends made at work. However, lower middle class and affluent workers lead a privatized and home-centred existence shown by the facts that the social relationship of affluent workers were highly limited to home and time was spent mainly spent on TV. In spite of the similarity of privatized and family-centred life with lower middle class, Goldthorpe still argued that the affluent workers had not adopted middle-class patterns of sociability. (G/L)

Unlike traditional workers simply accepting life in own towns, affluent workers went to Luton to find a better living showing they have purposive rather than fatalistic attitude. However, instrumental collectivism for achieving goals was not typical for middle class and their goals mainly focused on material benefit rather than advancement in the prestige hierarchy. The fact that very few affluent workers saw society in terms of power model which is based on the idea of ‘us and them’ feature of traditional workers and prestige model which is typical of the middle class shows the their emphasis on materialism. Although different from traditional workers, social perspective of affluent workers was also different from middle-class and showed no signs of development. Moreover, for material benefit, it was found 80% affluent workers voted for Labour party in 1959 election rather than Conservative party who get support from typical middle-class workers. Concluded from these 4 aspects, Goldthorpe argued that not many manual workers are developing into middle-class. (G/L)

Marx also predicted that the wide use of machine would make the working class become increasing homogenous because the use of machine remove the skills used to be required in the production. Therefore, the difference between skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers would gradually disappear. Additionally, because of factors like education and law made by ruling class, false class consciousness that the situation is natural order of the things can happen within working class. However, in long run, contradiction against capitalism would happen and that would lead to a class conscious which involves a full awareness of the awareness of exploitation and their common interest.

Basing his own idea on classic study of working class, Lockwood described the subculture of one group as the ‘proletarian traditionalist’ living in close-knit working-class communities and is employed in industries such as mining, docking and shipbuilding which usually concentrate workers together in communities dominated by one occupational group. Because the communities are rather isolated from wider society, a strong sense of belonging and solidarity was created and workers are loyal to their workmates. Additionally, friendship extended into leisure activities shown by the fact they spent much time together in pubs and because of restricted mobility, sense of belonging was strengthened. Unlike middle class, they do not pursue individual achievement by trying to gain promotion at work. In fact, they identify strongly with the pursuit of collective goals which can be shown their loyalty to the trade union. In addition to strong identity, similarities can also be found within the proletarian traditionalist. For example, they usually spend time together in pubs and working men’s pub with workmates and attitude of many proletarian traditionalist to life tend to be fatalistic which means life has to be accepted as it comes and little can be done to change it. Therefore, future planning is limited which shows an emphasis on immediate gratification.

However, Goldthorpe’s test found that the workers in Luton were quite different from traditional working class and therefore formed a new working class characterized by privatization and instrumental collectivism which contradicted marx’s prediction that working class would become increasing homogenous and have strong identity. The reflection of instrumental collectivism was the fact that affluent workers joined with their work-mate for self-interest like improving wages which is different from solidaristic collectivism where proletarian traditionalist are loyal to union and care each other. Additionally, through the adaption of traditional working –class norms to a new situation, Lockwood thought that the privatized instrumentalist illustrated by affluent workers would be replacing proletarian traditionalist as the dominant group in working class.

Additionally, according to Roberts (2001), although most manual workers regard themselves as working class, there was little sign of working class consciousness. It was argued that working class was disorganized and cause lost of class consciousness. Working class lost the ability to work together and develop knowledge of common interest. Additionally, working class became disempowered by losing control over its key organizations. Examples of disempowerment and disorganization include the facts that trade union membership has decline, labour party is not the party of working class anymore and close-knit working class community where working class solidarity developed have been broken up by decline of heavy industry and urban redevelopment.

As the arguments of those sociologists and the research done by Goldthorpe over the topic of class have been long ago, Pakulski and Waters, as postmodernists, argued that it is now unfashionable to consider class as important and people no longer feel they belong to class groupings where members of supposed classes include a wide variety of different people. Currently, in capitalist societies wealth has become progressively more equally distributed. With wider distribution of wealth people are now able to consume in excess of what they need to survive. Therefore, it is argued that people now judge others in terms of what they consume and class is dead.

In conclusion, many famous sociologists like Parsons, Weber and Marx did study on class. Additionally, Marx has three main predictions over the working class. After Marx’s prediction, there are a number of studies being done relevant to his prediction among which embourgeoisement ,