Nisbeth on obsolescence of social class.

When it comes to the discussion of the reality of social class, it is not unanimous – two camps are fairly salient in their views. The debate began in late 50s-early 60s with Nisbeth’s article and the timing of it is not random, since it coincided with the start of the post-industrial revolution when the primary and secondary economic sectors (working with raw resources and manufacturing) began decline and the tertiary sector (service jobs) became to expand.

Similar to the industrial revolution, new times called for new measures. As opposed to requirements of physical durability, ability to perform simple divided tasks and basic understanding of heavy machinery brought in by the industrial revolution, the key to success in the era of technology required a completely different skill set. It included an ability to work with information, process data, communicate orally and in writing as well as to understand abstract ideas to create tangible, material things on their basis. Due to these new demands, the need for college education has risen, thus, opening new opportunities for the American population. In Nisbeth’s words, “national democracy, economic and social pluralism, ethical individualism, and an ever-widening educational front joined to create new patterns of social power and status and to make class obsolete in constantly widening sectors of Western society.” For example, among other interesting developments were the separation between occupations and professions, where the former became connected more to manual work (e.g., auto mechanics, massage therapist, driver), while the latter – to work requiring large amount of abstract knowledge (e.g., computer programmer, lawyer, doctor).

So, with colleges opening their doors to a broader population, women and minority included, the original idea was that such development will prompt more visible social mobility and to some degree will help people overcome certain social circumstances related to their social standing. Thus, when you read Nisbeth, it is a must to make an adjustment for the date of his publication. Considering the social condition of that time, it makes perfect sense when he writes:

“To be sure, quickening social mobility is not inconsistent with the existence of social class, and income differentials among the three sectors do not in themselves negate the possibility of strong class lines. But with a few occupations such as domestic service excepted, it is all too obvious that the majority of jobs falling within the tertiary sector in modern times are not easily subsumed under any class system.”

The lines between the classes are visible when each stratum has their own occupation (ranging from more physically demanding to more intellectually demanding) as well as the associated incomes. Nisbeth argues that with the majority of the population being engaged in the same economic sector, the actual class lines become blurry at best. He claims that “irrespective of high individual mobility in this sector, the job structure itself is too fluctuant, too mobile, to allow classes to form. Finally there is the fact, important to any analysis of class, that the dispersion of productive forces among the three sectors has become more important to the character of our society than the distribution of property.” So, in a way, his argument resembles Weber’s idea of the class complexity where class becomes a function of intertwining property ownership, power and prestige. The more weight is give to the nature of contemporary occupations (less physical labor, more working with people and ideas), the less the idea of class-based society becomes possible. It is important to note that Nisbeth does not argue that elimination of social class eliminates social inequality or evens the playing field for all, he merely states that with the fluidity of the new order of work the existing approach to understanding social stratification (i.e., the class system) no longer applies.