Class Matters Ch.9 Critique

While reading “When the Joneses Wear Jeans,” the idea of lowering the cost of entry-level luxury cars to lure in young buyers was problematic to me. Automobiles like “Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi…plan to introduce models that will sell for about $25,000” (141). Although consumers will have the opportunity to purchase an economical luxury auto, individuals producing these automobiles will ultimately suffer these changes since class mobility will be difficult to carry out. Therefore, it is convenient and affordable for consumers, but not for producers. Neoliberalism has pushed auto industries to close and move locations in search of cheaper labor and high quality as well as pushing for a non-unionized work force. What this means for auto workers is they will have to conform on earning less money which then makes it much more difficult for mobility. As we read in chapter 1, Americans still have the idea of class mobility, but in this instance, auto workers are faced with continual barriers

With the market constantly changing, I believe the idea that “now, people may buy the cheapest brand for consumer goods but still want Starbucks coffee and an iPod” (142) is key for understanding status. For example, consumers might find it worthy to spend more money on vacations and autos, but consider worthy to save on clothes, food and electronics by shopping at Wal-Mart. Thus, economic difficulties may push consumers to save money in some areas but spend more in other areas. In this instance, it is difficult to consider an individual’s status by shopping at Wal-Mart, yet, spending large amounts of money on other goods. This also relates, to the blur of classes, in which people spend on material goods but might not be from a high class.

A question I had about this chapter is whether magazines and TV shows are now responsible for pressuring “81 percent of Americans…to buy high priced goods” (137) or are other sectors more likely accountable for pressuring Americans? And if so, what are they?

A bit of Bay Area Cultural Capital for you all. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq0ZDnshYkU

Reading Response for Weber and Bourdieu, 5/31

Max Weber, "Distribution of Power: Class, Status, Party"

In this reading, Weber talks about the ways he deems society to be stratified: though classes, status positions and parties, which was all "phenomena of the distribution of power within a community" [927]. He also explains what he means by "power": "In general, we understand by ‘power’ the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the same action." [926] In classes, statuses and parties, a different sort of power is emphasised. Weber's definition of class differs from Marx in that even though he also agrees that to some extent it is determined by who owns the factors of production, for Weber, the type of property owned matters just as much. Furthermore, Weber does not define property to be solely material goods like Marx, in fact, it extends to services and skills of a person: "Those who have no property but who offer services are differentiated just as much according to their kinds of services as according to the way in which they make use of these services..." [928]. Thus, Weber's definition of class is more diverse than Marx's in this sense.

Additionally, linking back to our discussions in class, Weber's definition of class is more relational than gradational, because he considers doctors, lawyers, janitors and teachers to be of different classes, based on their economic standing and position. To Weber, differentiating classes is purely an economic endeavour, guided by market forces of production. It has nothing to do with ideology nor with social capital. In discussing the existence of a "class consciousness", Weber states that "For however different life chances may be, this fact in itself, according to all experience, by no means gives birth to "class action (social action by the members of a class)" [929]. Thus, we can tell that Weber does not necessarily consider class to constitute a sense of community/having "groupism", unlike Marx who suggests that this is possible once the workers are in close proximity ideologically and/or physically. He also emphasises that the consequences of this class hierarchy must be explicitly shown for the people to realise that the contrast of life chances in different classes is a result of differences in property distribution or the inherent economic order, and not of some other means. In sum, for "class consciousness" to be established, an association between the current situation and the economic mechanisms of the society must be made.

Weber defines status groups as groups that are formed on the basis of status honour. This means that members of the same status group can be from different classes, as long as they share the same identifying characteristics or values that can be formal (Miss Universe, Baseball Hall of Fame) or informal (inclusion in a clique, being in the "cool gang" in high school). Status is an expression of social relationships and thus is not based on economic property per se. However, he does acknowledge that having a certain amount of economic wealth and property does help your social honour and thus your status: "After all, given equality of status honor, property per se represents an addition even if it is not overtly acknowledged to be such" [936]. In short, status groups delineate people who have a certain lifestyle and unlike classes which are defined by economic standing and production, status groups are defined by status honour and consumption [937]. Weber feels that groups and communities are formed this way, unlike in classes where there is no non-economic association.

Finally, parties are formed to achieve a specific aim in a rational manner [938]. Hierarchy within parties (especially political parties) is common, where it is conducted according to Weber's pure type of rational-legal domination. He also says that "the sociological structure of parties differs in a basic way according to the kind of social action which they struggle to influence; that means, they differ according to whether or not the community is stratified by status or by classes" [939]. In short, since parties are oriented toward the amassing of social power, they take advantage of the dominant form of social organisation (status or class) and thus control it. As can be seen, the operation of parties is very much rational.

Pierre Bourdieu, "The Forms of Capital"

In this article, Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms of capital: social, cultural and economic capital. He defines social capital as "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" [8], meaning that social capital is formed through exchanges between people, and thus can be reinforced and renewed through the same, "durable" network of people and communication.

For Bourdieu, cultural capital exists in three states: the embodied state (capital that is collected through one's environment and occurs and is accumulated over a long period of time), the objectified state (physical objects that are owned by people who thus possess this type of capital - sculpture, books and so on; these can be sold for profit or "consumed" through appreciation [6]) and the institutionalised state (recognition through educational qualifications - degrees, titles - of the cultural capital gained). By classifying people into these different categories, we can analyse social inequality more critically and in dimensions other than the common ones of wage, occupation and so on. We then understand that education and job titles are indicators of social inequality not because of their inherent characteristics but because of the social significance associated with these qualifications, and that these significances arise from the amount of cultural, social and economic capital needed to attain the qualifications.

Finally, economic capital is the base for cultural and social capital; it can be "converted" [11] into the two other kinds of capital because it can be exchanged and used to obtain the kind of power that is dominant in that particular field (money for education to obtain a Ph.D., which is recognised as most powerful in the academic field, or money/inheritance that places one in a good family in the upper class and thus helping one develop influence in the corporate world, for example). However, Bourdieu argues that substantial labour costs are involved in "transforming" economic capital into something else, and thus only certain groups of people are able to obtain enough of cultural/social capital in order to wield it effectively in society at large.

---

P.S. Sorry but for the Weber reading I used different page numbers - I don't have the Gerth and MIlls version; mine was taken directly from "Economy and Society".

Class, Status, Party

A social group can be defined as a “common fate” that can be determined economically, socially, or politically. Class would be economical order, status would be social order, and party would be political. Weber has a multidimensional conception of class while Marx only has one (property vs. lack of property). Marx says that there are those who have the means of production, and those who don’t. It is the position on the labor market that causes people to be divided into classes. However, Weber says we can think of the different kinds of property, such as financial property, industrial property, or land. For example, people owning houses vs. people who rent. Weber also states that the types of services people can offer to the labor market will further differentiate them. He talks about class situation to think about class as an intersection of positions on different markets. Thus, class arises out of the realm of production. “Classes are not communities, they merely represent possible, and frequent, bases for communal action…class refers to any group of people that is found in the same class situation” (182).

Society is also organized by status groups, which are similar lifestyles and values. Status arises out of the realm of consumption. Status is about measures of ranking that are in the mind, how people look at one another. It is a subjective social ranking. These ranking can be very explicitly separated from one another in society. There are rituals that can mark boundaries of one’s social status, such as clothing or marrying within the same group. Status groups are communities that are better bound than classes because the individuals will embrace the differences and act on the basis of their groups. Manners can also distinguish people from different status groups.

Another way to connect is through organization. A form of political action by formulating a common goal is known as a party. “Parties are therefore only possible within communities that are societalized, that is, which have some rational order and staff of persons available who are ready to enforce it” (194). Parties are very strictly organized in an authoritative fashion because they are constantly struggling towards domination.

Weber and Bourdieu for Tuesday

Hi All,

For Tuesday, in Weber's "Class, Status, Party" - look for definitions of class and status, and think about how those contrast with Marx's definition and descriptions of class and class action/class struggle.

For Bourdieu's "Forms of Capital" look for definitions of the three kinds of capital. 

As I said, Wacquant's piece is meant primarily as in introduction to/primer for  the Bourdieu we'll be reading on Wednesday.

- Daniel

Study groups/help from your peers.

Hi All,

Thank your for a great first week of class and for making use of this blog in just the ways I hoped you would.  There is one other way I am comfortable with you using this blog - if you'd like to meet up with your colleagues/classmates to discuss further, have study groups, review each other's writing, etc, or if you need help with some specific Cal issue that I can't help you with, please post here.

If you're interested in starting a study group now or soon, you can comment on/reply to this post and work it out with each other.  If anyone can explain where & how to print things out for visiting students without printers, that would also be helpful.

- Daniel

Leviathan

Here's a political cartoon that I believe came out of the 1920 or 1930s. Ingrid Seyer Ochi (former faculty of the GSE program at Cal) first shared this picture with my Education 40AC class (Inequality in Education) and I thought it was fascinating. what do you all think?

The Communist Manifesto

Here is just a brief overview of some of the main points from the Karl Marx reading on The Communist Manifesto.

The relations of production have become obstacles of development of the material forces of production. “The Communist Manifesto” discusses the rising of the bourgeoisie as an event that took place during the time of Marx. It states that, “The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois” (Marx, 474). This quote describes the bourgeoisie and characterizes it to be of great power. Marx also divides class into two main portions: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. In short, property owners, and not. Marx believes that all individuals will eventually separate and become part of either class. It also states that, “Modern bourgeois society with the relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether worlds whom he has called up by his spells” (Marx, 478). The fact that the bourgeoisie was rising and having so much authority connects with the conflict because feudal relations began since the property wasn’t compatible with the productive forces that were already there causing them to become fetters.

Marx also discusses the division of labor and how “Owning to the extensive use of machinery to the division of labor, the work of the proletariats has lost all individuals character, and consequently, all charm for the workman” (479). He explains that the proletariat is consumed by the machines and become slaves to the bourgeoisie class, being exploited. The worker becomes alienated from himself and other aspects because he is working and producing products that will realistically never be within his reach. “…As the repulsiveness of the work increases, wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil increases, whether by prolongation of working hours, by increase of the work extracted in a given time or by increased speed, etc” (Marx, 479). It is unfair that the laborer must work extremely long days and have their wages lowered. It is their skill that they have to offer onto the labor market; their specialized task is what will gain them income. But as technology develops, the laborer becomes replaced with machines because they can perform the task more efficiently. As jobs become scarce, many laborers will begin to compete for positions as well.

Reading Response for Marx and Engels, 5/26

Reading response to The German Ideology (Karl Marx) and The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels).

Marx's approach to history is a materialist one. He asserts that in analysing our society, we need to start with examining the material conditions of life - how man works to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. These material conditions are made possible by man's nature, which is to labour and work, and in so doing he enters into relationships (namely, wage relations) with other people.

In The German Ideology, Marx explains his theory of historical materialism as a series of successive modes of production which resolve into one another through dialectical forces. This means that historical development isn't linear; it proceeds through moments of agreement and moments of contradiction (namely, class conflicts). Thus, it is the conflict between the owners of the factors of production (the ruling class or bourgeoisie) and those who do not own the factors of production (the working class or the proletariat) that creates a revolution and drives the progress of history.

Marx defines the abovementioned "factors of production" as the "material, instrument and product of labour" [151]. This includes raw minerals like wood, coal and water (the materials), technology and machines (the instruments), and the skills and knowledge of the workers, which determines their use of the materials and instruments. All these together result in the production of material goods. He also talks about the "relations of production" or the "definite social and political relations" that an individual must enter into once they are productively active [154]. He uses the feudal system as an example - the lords and serfs engage in an interdependent relationship with each other; in order to stay on the land, the serfs must grow, harvest and present the crops to the lord. The lords get the harvest; the serfs get a place to stay. In this same example, the factors of production are chiefly the land (private property ownership) and the labour of the serfs. These relations and factors of production together comprise the feudal mode of production. The modes of production will change as the relations and factors of production change and as time progresses (from tribal to feudal, from feudal to capitalist, from capitalist to communist and then socialist, as Marx suggests later).

He also stresses that this system acts upon the individual coercively and is "independent of their will". The behaviour of the people is influenced by their material aims because, once again, the nature of man is to labour and work, and this labour is a factor that produces and realises these material aims.

In The Manifesto of the Community Party, Marx and Engels elaborate on the relationship between the "two great hostile camps" of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat [474]. The emergence of this system of organising society has negated the previously described reciprocal relationship in the feudal era between lords and serfs - instead, this relationship is an exploitative one in the self-interests of the bourgeoisie. What differentiates the two groups of people is the ownership of factors of production; the bourgeoisie own them while the proletariat do not. All the proletariat own are their own labour power, and they sell this based on their "exchange value" in return for a wage provided by the bourgeoisie, which is their means of subsistence [475].

The capitalist era of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is defined by the constant change initiated by the bourgeoisie, unlike previous more "static" eras. The authors then talk about the crisis of overproduction, where the "need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe", colonising new areas and expanding its scope of exploitation [476]. This means that it forces more people to adopt the bourgeois mode of production, "creating a world after its own image". The consequences of this are the agglomeration of populations and thus the creation of a class consciousness.

This means that instead of the workers being a class in itself (defined by their relationship to the factors of production), they become a "class for itself", aware of their social position and how they are being exploited. They are enlightened and conscious of their common fate and become tied together by a common purpose and sentiment, purely because they are being brought together by the bourgeois through their conquests. As this class consciousness develops, it becomes a tool through which the proletariat can stage a revolution, uniting all people of their class to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This movement is "self-conscious" and "independent" in the own interests of the working-class majority, and it is this that creates new modes of production and through this that social structure can be changed. For Marx and Engels, capitalism is doomed socially and economically; the revolution will change the relations of production, and a falling rate of profit will make capitalism economically infeasible.

Education Inequality in Brazil

Although we won't be discussing international inequalities, I wanted to share this video on educational inequality in Brazil. Here, two high school students discuss the lack of resources and inequality between favelas and the rest of Brazil.

http://www.5min.com/Video/Living-with-the-Social-Inequality-in-Brazil-516902340

A Critique on Davis and Moore

*Note: this post was created and intended for last night, but had to be delayed til today because of technical difficulties. As you will notice, there are similarities in what is in the post below and what was presented today in lecture.

Kingsley Davis’s and Wilbert Moore’s “Some Principles of Stratification” asserts inequality as a functional necessity to societies. They claim that we reward positions proportionally to how we deem the position as important to society and scarce (due to inherent ability or extensive training/sacrifices needed.) Ultimately, because we want our most valuable positions to be filled by the most qualified persons, we distribute rewards unequally, creating social stratification.

Although the ideas purported by Davis and Moore neatly provide an answer to why there is social inequality, there are many holes in their arguments, which are pointed out by sociologist Melvin Tumin’s “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis” – a reading I became familiar with from another sociology course. First, Tumin refutes Davis’s and Moore’s idea that certain positions are functionally more important than others by raising the question that we have no way of determining which positions are more important. In fact, positions that we may deem valuable in the U.S. may not be so in another nation. Second, Davis and Moor claim that “Only a limited number of individuals in any society have the talents that can be trained into the skills appropriate to these positions,” to which Tumin argues that there are structural stratification systems that make it appear that only a limited number of individuals can obtain these skills. Scarcity is not because of “inherent ability,” as proposed by Davis and Moore, but rather because of other factors (i.e. lack of money to go to medical school) or the fact that power elite groups limit opportunities for people who are not in their group (i.e. a young teacher can’t find a job because tenured teachers already fill the vacancies.) Third, the fact that we reward positions based on perceived sacrifices seems faulty to Tumin. He claims that sacrifices are more subjective and that going to medical school, for example, may not be perceived as a sacrifice to everyone. Lastly, Tumin points out that Davis and Moore’s arguments void any possibility that one may pursue a position, not because of the monetary rewards, but because of other personal factors such as feelings of self-motivation or duty.

In all, Tumin criticizes Davis and Moore for their assumption that everyone has equal opportunity and motivations – and appropriate critique considering the fact that Tumin as a Marxist. Furthermore, Davis’s and Moore’s work is critiqued as a work of sociology, itself, because they create explanations based upon universals (everyone in competition with everyone). Yet, in order for sociology to explain causes, it needs variation. Finally, it is interesting to note that Tumin’s critique is later critiqued by Davis and Moore, themselves. If interested, find “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis: Reply,” American Sociological Review 18:4 (Aug., 1953), pp. 394-397.

test post

test post

Infographic on income inequality

Here's an infographic I found that contains over 20 frightening statistics about the US including: income growth and inequality, effective tax rates, and defense expenditures. Link

Class and inequality

Hi everyone, I wanted to share one of my favorite clips of the Colbert Report. It addresses inequality and class. Enjoy.

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:375911

$140,000/year housekeeper

As I mentioned in class, here's the link to the article about the woman who makes $140k a year cleaning up after UPenn students.  It's got it all: race, class, gender, education, status... You might also want to take a look at the pictures. 

One thing I'd love to see folks do on this blog is link to articles that illustrate concepts we talk or read about in class.  Here's a perfect example of the challenges of categorizing individuals into class groupings; there are of course relatively few people who do such low-status work for such a large income, but cases like these are common enough to warrant consideration in thinking about how you want to define and operationalize class.  Should Kia Grasty be understood as being in the same class as others who earn in the upper portions of the income distribution?  Or should she be thought of as being in the same class as others who clean up after other people for a living?  or should we somehow combine those measures? 

test post

This is a course on social inequality.  In this course, we will seek to understand the effects and reproduction of social inequality in the United States.  We will try to answer questions such as: What is Inequality? How does it matter? How does it work? How do parents’ social class and other aspects of their life situations impact their kids’? How do government policies matter?  We will focus largely but not exclusively on economic inequality and racial inequality, keeping in mind the wide variety of intersecting forms of inequality that shape individual life experiences.