Summary – Weber – Class, Status, Party
The article presents Weber’s argument regarding social stratification in contrast to Marx’s. In his discussion of his theory of social stratification, he outlines three ways in which society is divided: by class (economically), status (socially) and by party (ideologically). He argues that the individual identity is not determined by the class identity, and that status and party identities often cross class divisions. The article begins by detailing the human desire for social power and how, through class, certain forms of power are achieved.
He contends that the pursuit of social power is essentially an attempt to acquire social honour. Weber also mentions that power does not always lead to social honour and uses the notion of the American Boss as an example. However, he acknowledges that those who are considered honourable by society often gain social power or have a greater chance to do so. Aware that money or capital also has a large role in the distribution of power, Weber discusses how economic status relates to class.
To determine class he used the following three principles: “when (1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labour markets”(p. 104). Simply put, a person’s class is determined by what choices that person or community has in order to sustain comfortable means of living and property is the basic category that Weber believes defines class situation.
Class is created through the economic situation of different portions of society, but for Weber, it is an abstraction and can perform no actions of its own; this is where status and party groups come into play. With property being the simplest yet most profitable form of all goods, Weber goes onto detail what he calls, “the market situation. ” The market-situation is primarily the class relationship between “rentiers” and those who offer a service or good and must rent a piece of property-or people with no property. p. 105) The property owners are often of the upper class and have control of their life situation. In contrast those who own no property are primarily of the lower-middle classes and have little control over their life situation since they must follow certain societal rules put in place by the ruling class (those with the most property/greatest economic status). Weber claims that economic interest is at the forefront of class status as well as social power.
Weber goes onto note that in past time periods, mainly the Middle Ages, economic interest was monopolized causing the gap between the rich and poor to be vast (p. 106). The organization of people around specific situations, or class struggles, in fact strengthens class structures, mainly because they reinforce the boundaries. However, he feels that this does not make a class a community since the assumption that people in similar class situations must share similar ideals and beliefs is over-simplifying a complex situation.
While class groups do not constitute communities, according to Weber, status groups normally are communities (108). Status is defined as the likelihood that life chances are determined by social honour, or, prestige. Status groups are linked by a common lifestyle, and the shared aspects of social life held to high importance to that status group. Wealth is not necessarily the primary cause of status, though it is generally associated with it. Some forms of property ownership are connected with prestige, others are not. Old money” typically confers greater status than “new money. ” Rentiers usually hold greater status than entrepreneurs, because their wealth is less visibly connected to labour. Wealth is a key determinant of the lifestyle differences which status depends on. Social restrictions, such as marriage patterns, residence, and so forth, follow from differences in wealth reflected in prestige. Status distinctions are usually not ethnic. When carried to their fullest extent, as a caste system, perceived ethnicity is sometimes involved.
In the case of caste, social distinctions are reinforced by legal and ritual restrictions. Caste usually develops into a functional system, by virtue of occupational differences. While status groups are communities, unlike classes, parties are a much broader form of communities as their limitations are not based solely on economic or ethnic standing. Instead the way to gain access to a party is to share similar ideals. However, a person’s party of choice is often determined by their lifestyle or status and their class situation.
Weber’s theory of parties explains them as any group committed to using power to achieve a specific goal, and they exist to pursue power (114). A person’s class situation will undoubtedly determine their social status and since social status shapes most people’s ideals and convictions the transition from status to an affiliation to a certain party is the nature progression. And it is that natural progression, which comes to shape and structure the society as a whole, often cementing the class, status, party formula.
