Michael
Jan 19th 2010, 09:46 PM
Social Class Systems
It is often said that modern western democratic society is a classless society. I've always found this to be an aspirational statement of a desired goal rather than a reasonable statement of fact. As far as I can see, every society on the planet seems to be totally dominated by social class systems.
That being said, one thing that does seem to be very different in our modern era is that social mobility seems to be much more common now (both up and down) than in older feudal dominated class systems (pre-modern). In older social class systems, social mobility was almost always strictly limited in practice. On the surface, I'd say that social mobility has been a major factor in reducing the general amount of class-conflict in our western societies. Of course, material plenty has also played a big role in producing 'relatively' peaceful social class relations in our most modern era (post WWI). I suppose it is relevant to point out that pre-20th century labor strikes almost always resulted in bloodshed, or that civil riots and (very bloody) peasant revolts were quite common throughout all of known history. By those standards, contemporary class conflict in the west is quite modest and peaceful.
Another aspect of modern social class that appears to be very different now than in pre-modern times is the relative changes in the relative sizes of each social class. These proportions used to be quite 'fixed' and unchanging, but apparently not any more. That is to say, the size of one social class can increase (or decrease) in size relative to that of the other classes. The middle class can apparently grow very large (50%) or it can shrink very small relative to the whole (10-15%).
So the question here is, what do you think about social class? Do you agree that modern society is rife with social class (and just doesn't like to admit it)? Or do you think that modern society is in fact less class-based than ever before?
Alternatively, why do you think social class systems have been so successful in perpetuating themselves?
* * *
One additional issue here is the definition of the various social classes as that is always an area of confusion.
The system that I use to define social class is very simple and very old. Upper class are those who inherit their wealth. Middle class are those who use education and technical skills to earn their modest wealth. Working class is pretty much everyone else.
I really don't like the common American system of trying to redefine social class as 'economic class' and then using a simple income scale to define the classes. I consider this absurd because many working class families happen to have very impressive middle-class type incomes (big union auto/postal worker for example) and are thus assumed to be 'middle class' yet retain in every way all the typical attitudes and characteristics of working class people. The same can be said at the higher income end of the scale - many 'upper-class' people born to their wealth and status may have only a modest 'middle class' level income. This is why all opinion surveys always ask about income level and educational status - this is critically important information for analysis.
Anyway, it will be interesting if anyone has any comment on this, or is familiar with a social class system that is more complex than the one mostly found in contemporary western societies.
It is often said that modern western democratic society is a classless society. I've always found this to be an aspirational statement of a desired goal rather than a reasonable statement of fact. As far as I can see, every society on the planet seems to be totally dominated by social class systems.
That being said, one thing that does seem to be very different in our modern era is that social mobility seems to be much more common now (both up and down) than in older feudal dominated class systems (pre-modern). In older social class systems, social mobility was almost always strictly limited in practice. On the surface, I'd say that social mobility has been a major factor in reducing the general amount of class-conflict in our western societies. Of course, material plenty has also played a big role in producing 'relatively' peaceful social class relations in our most modern era (post WWI). I suppose it is relevant to point out that pre-20th century labor strikes almost always resulted in bloodshed, or that civil riots and (very bloody) peasant revolts were quite common throughout all of known history. By those standards, contemporary class conflict in the west is quite modest and peaceful.
Another aspect of modern social class that appears to be very different now than in pre-modern times is the relative changes in the relative sizes of each social class. These proportions used to be quite 'fixed' and unchanging, but apparently not any more. That is to say, the size of one social class can increase (or decrease) in size relative to that of the other classes. The middle class can apparently grow very large (50%) or it can shrink very small relative to the whole (10-15%).
So the question here is, what do you think about social class? Do you agree that modern society is rife with social class (and just doesn't like to admit it)? Or do you think that modern society is in fact less class-based than ever before?
Alternatively, why do you think social class systems have been so successful in perpetuating themselves?
* * *
One additional issue here is the definition of the various social classes as that is always an area of confusion.
The system that I use to define social class is very simple and very old. Upper class are those who inherit their wealth. Middle class are those who use education and technical skills to earn their modest wealth. Working class is pretty much everyone else.
I really don't like the common American system of trying to redefine social class as 'economic class' and then using a simple income scale to define the classes. I consider this absurd because many working class families happen to have very impressive middle-class type incomes (big union auto/postal worker for example) and are thus assumed to be 'middle class' yet retain in every way all the typical attitudes and characteristics of working class people. The same can be said at the higher income end of the scale - many 'upper-class' people born to their wealth and status may have only a modest 'middle class' level income. This is why all opinion surveys always ask about income level and educational status - this is critically important information for analysis.
Anyway, it will be interesting if anyone has any comment on this, or is familiar with a social class system that is more complex than the one mostly found in contemporary western societies.