Weber's Theory of Social Class

Prof. Timothy Shortell, Department of Sociology, Brooklyn College, CUNY

Class, Status & Party

Marx saw class divisions as the most important source of social conflict. Weber's
analysis of class is similar to Marx's, but he discusses class in the context of
social stratification more generally. Class is one dimension of the social structure.
Social status, or "social honor," is another. Both are significant contributors of
social difference.

Weber's treatment of class and status indicates the manner in which the material
basis of society is related to the ideological. Social conflict can result from one or
the other, or both. Social action is motivated by both, though in some cases
more one than the other. By bringing in status, Weber provides a more flexible
view of the details of social differences, and their implications for the lived
experience of social actors.

In order to fully understand Weber's perspective on stratification, we need to be

familiar with a few general concepts: (i) power; (ii) domination; and, (iii)
communal and societal action.

I. Power, Domination, Communal & Societal Action

A. Power
Weber defines power as the ability of a actor (or actors) to realize his or her will
in a social action, even against the will of other actors. Power relates to the
ability to command resources in a particular domain. Economic power, then, is
the ability to control material resources: to direct production, to monopolize
accumulation, to dictate consumption.

Societal power includes economic power, social power, legal or political power,
and so forth. Although the control of these domains of resources usually go
together, they represent different mechanisms of power, and are conceptually
distinct.

B. Domination
Domination is the exercise of authority. Possession of power in a sphere results in
dominance. Weber articulated three ideal types of domination: charisma,
tradition and rational-legal.

Charismatic domination rests on the character of the leader. Through inspiration,

coercion, communication and leadership, a particular individual may succeed in
occupying a central role in the planning and co-ordination of social action.
Charisma, Weber believed, emerges in times of social crisis. People lose
confidence in existing forms of authority, and the charismatic leader takes
advantage of the crisis. Because it is a personalized form of authority, it tends to
be unstable. It does not normally survive the death of the original leader, and it
often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. For charismatic authority to
be sustained, it must be routinized.

Traditional authority is based on the belief in the legitimacy of well-established

forms of power. Tradition implies an inherent, natural, or metaphysical quality in
the state of affairs that makes it resistant to challenges by reason. Tradition often
functions in a society with rigid forms of social hierarchy, because of the role of
social inheritance and custom.

Traditional authority is based on loyalty to the leadership. Power is exercised by

commands issued from the leader or leadership group. Officials are obedient to
that person or group, and the lines of authority are often unstated and vague.
Traditional authority tends not to distinguish between public and private affairs.
The task specialization, in terms of the exercise of power, is minimal.

Rational-legal authority is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy
of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is
routinized through bureaucracy. It tends to remain independent of particular
individuals, because authority resides in the office, or the organizational position
of the role.

In the bureaucracy, rational-legal power is exercised on the basis of knowledge

and experience, not on personality or custom. Authority functions by means of
obedience to the rules rather than persons. Bureaucracy tends to separate the
personal and public spheres. Task specialization is extensive within the
bureaucracy.

C. Communal & Societal Action

A communal action is oriented on the basis of a shared belief of affiliation. In
other words, actors believe that they somehow belong together in some way.
Their action stems from, and is co-ordinated by this sentiment. In contrast,
societal action is oriented to a rational adjustment of interests. The motivation is
not a sense of shared purpose, but rather, a recognition of shared interests.

II. Class

Weber identified three aspects of class: (i) a specific causal component of actors
life chances (ii) which rests exclusively on economic interests and wealth, and
(iii) is represented under conditions of labor and commodity markets. The
possession of material resources, accumulated by advantage in the marketplace,
results in distinctive qualities in terms of the standard of living.1

The possession of property defines the main class difference, according to

Weber. The owners of property have a definite advantage, and in some cases a
monopoly on, action in the market of commodities and, especially, labor. They
have privileged access to the sources of wealth creation, by virtue of ownership
and control of the markets. Weber identified a subdivision among property
owners based on the means of their wealth creation. Entrepreneurs use wealth in
commercial ventures. Rentiers profit by interest on their property, through
investments or rent of land.2 Both forms of ownership yield advantages resulting
from the ability to convert property to money.

The property-less class is defined by the kinds of services individual workers

provide in the labor market. Workers are classified as skilled, semi-skilled and
unskilled. These distinctions are based on the value of different kinds of labor.
Different wages result in different qualities in terms of the standard of living.3

Weber did not believe that class interests necessarily led to uniformity in social
action. Neither communal nor societal action is the inexorable result of class
interest. Weber challenges, here, the Marxian notion of the primarily material
basis of social action. He is not denying it outright, but rather, introducing an
element of unpredictability. Weber did not believe that proletarian revolutionary
action would arise as a certain result of structural contradiction.

Communal or societal action may develop from a common class situation in

certain conditions. Weber believed that the general cultural conditions played a
large role in this determination. Intellectuals occupy a key position in this regard.
Weber argued that the extent of the contrasts between the property owners and
the property-less workers must become transparent to the workers in order for
collective action around the issue of class to occur. Intellectuals function either to
call attention to and explain these contrasts, or, to obscure them.

For communal or societal action to take place, the workers must not only
recognize the differences in wealth and opportunity, but these differences must
be seen as the result of the distribution of property and economic power. If the
differences are believed to be a natural characteristic of society, as a given fact,
then only occasional and irrational action is possible.

Very often, collective action centers on the labor market. Workers seek higher
wages, and see this as the goal of their struggle. Most class antagonism, Weber
noted, is directed at managers, rather than at ownersstockholders and bankers
because they appear to be have the power to set the price of labor power.

III. Status

While class groups do not constitute communities, according to Weber, status

groups normally are communities. Status is defined as the likelihood that life
chances are determined by social honor, or, prestige. Status groups are linked by
a common style of life, and the attendant social restrictions.

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 labor.

Wealth is a key determinant of the lifestyle differences upon which status

depends. Weber notes that "material monopolies are the most effective motives
for the exclusiveness of a status group." 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.

The dignity of high status groups is always worldly. It involves their distinctive life
style, as manifest in patterns of association and consumption. Low status groups,
on the other hand, project their sense of worth on salvation hopes. Their due,
they believe, is guaranteed in the life to come. It is common for low status
groups to believe that they enjoy a special relationship with their god or gods.

Status divisions tend to codified on the basis of the stable distribution of

economic power. When economic stratification is relatively invariant, status
differences tend to increase.

IV. Party

Class and status interests interact in the realm of the legal order, the arena of
politics. Political power is, obviously, often based on class and status interests.
Parties are the organizations of power. Their purpose is the struggle for
domination. Parties commonly operate in the political/legal domain, but as an
ideal type, parties are not restricted to this field.

Although parties are based on class and status, they are usually organized across
these distinctions. That is, it is rare for parties to be based solely on class or
status interests, such that a party of entrepreneurial class interest would be in
competition with one based on high status. Since economic power binds class
status together in some way, it is no surprise that parties reflect these complex
patterns of interest.

Parties represent a high degree of rationality in social action. Parties require

planning; their motives are strategic. Irrational types of social action are not
completely excluded, however. Tradition and affect are a part of the operation of
parties.

Notes

1 This view is not far from Marx, though it is stated very differently. Marx
certainly discussed the implications of class in terms of the material conditions of
existence. He also saw possession of property as definitive, though he identified
the market with capitalist class relations, and not earlier forms.

2 The distinction is between active and idle wealth.

3 Marx did not think the differences in the kind of labor were important, though
he acknowledged that skilled labor had greater value, and thus higher wages,
than unskilled labor. Weber believed that the differences in wages resulted in
significant material conditions, and therefore, different patterns of social action.
Weber's suggests that antagonisms among the property-less groups can be
based on rational motives, and not false consciousness.