Weber and social class

Personally, I believe that he thought about a variety of nuances that allow for some variability within the contemporary class system, while still maintaining the understandable and measurable boundary. Perhaps, his view is not only the most complex, but also the most value-neutral among all the glum social class thinkers.

So, Weber’s main idea is that social class is not based solely on the economic division. Although, property-ownership is by far the most visible and necessary criterion applied to placing an individual on the social ladder, it is not the only criterion. Along with personal wealth, Weber suggests other elements that influence one’s social position: status honor and power. The three are interconnected, yet, the relationships between the three are not always linear.

Let’s start with power. “Economically conditioned power is not, of course, identical with “power” as such. On the contrary, the emergence of economic power may be the consequence of power existing on other grounds. Man does not strive for power only in order to enrich himself economically. Power, including economic power, may be valued for its own sake.” Wise man! So, in other words, not everything is measured in money. Such, in contemporary America, a policeman has quite a bit of legitimate power, yet, he/she has long ways to go to enter the upper class. Same goes for a broad variety of professions.

Now, status honor, the prestige of one’s position - admiration, desire to emulate, respect associated with it, to Weber could be the basis of economic power. The “naked money power”, on the other hand, is rarely or never a basis for social honor. For example, the extreme case scenario of rags to riches when an impoverished family wins a lottery: the presence of an immense wealth does not guarantee that person any social acceptance among the upper class, nor does it generate any social honor, such as respect for one’s achievement. Do not confuse with jealousy. So, yet again, not everything is measured in money. Wise, wise man!

Now, an interesting contradiction to Marx who held the idea of class consciousness as the basis for all good and evil as it helps maintain status quo for the rich and it will lead the proletari to freedom. Weber does not see consciousness as a mandatory characteristic. “Classes are not groups”, he says, “They merely represent possible and frequent bases for social action”. Social action to him is focused on people’s participation in the economic market – making a living, pursuing their interests, contributing to the economy.

Class struggle – a very Marxian idea – is based on the degree of one’s ability to participate in the market. Hence, it occurs between the classes, not between members of the same class. Another meaningful idea here is the idea of life chances. To a large degree, individual social standing is conditioned by their “life chances” – the opportunities given to them by their very birth: what family they are born into. So, a child born to a middle class family residing in a suburb has a straighter shot into getting a decent education in the local school and flowing into college than a child born into a family of a working poor residing in the inner city.

Weber, M. [1914; 1923]. (1964). The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York. A Free Press Paperback.

Get some more texts here.