Foundations+of+a+Post-Class+Analysis

Ela Rossmiller //Context:// Class theory has lost salience in an era where critics point to the influence in other factors such as race, gender, citizenship, occupation, politics, etc., in structuring social inequality. Improvements to class theory make it nearly indistinguishable from competing theories of social inequality drawing on Weber and Durkheim. Rather than updating class theory, this article synthesizes various theories of social inequality to create a more comprehensive, but less deterministic, theory of social ordering and change. Main Point: 1. “Classic Foundation of social (non-class) analysis” (3-9) a. Alexis de Tocqueville: Stressed that equality was integral to democracy. Such equality is manifested by “the democracy of manners,” social mobility, equality of status among occupations, mass education and dissemination of public information, and gender equality. Wealth inequalities exist, but do not drive social interactions. He predicts segregation and conflict will remain in race relations, and continued, but classless, inequality between workers and businessmen. b. Emile Durkheim: Social interactions lead to social differentiation, which then can lead to social inequality or even harmonious complementarity. Inequalities can be bad (arbitrary) or acceptable (functional/derived from collective values). He predicts the increased multiplication of groups, which ultimately results in the fragmentation of classes, among other groups. Individualism and “value polymorphy” are yet another factor drivign social hierarchy. c. Grusky: Suggests we examine social groupings by occupation. d. Weber: Says class, status, and party are all important factors in group formation. The state creates social inequalities. Generative factors of social inequality are the market and property and communal and authoritarian relations. Divisions can occur not only among class lines, but also among other lines (racial, ethnic, regional, religious, etc.) 2. “ Complex structures of inequality” (9-12) a. There are many factors besides class that structure social inequality. b. Educational credentials and knowledge have an impact on social mobility and groupings. c. Citizenship is an equalizer when extended to larger groups of people, but when it is witheld, it creates a hierarchy of the “haves” and “have nots.” d. Gender and race relations may structure inequality. 3. “Stratification and social formation” (12 – 16) a. Because there are so many factors to social grouping (“hybridisation”), class is becoming a less salient factor in society. Many factors generate social stratification with varying degrees of differentiation and complexity. b. Occupational status groupings do not, for example, approximate class. c. Communities (entailing shared identities and solidarity) and groups can generate social stratification (e.g. in-groups vs. out-groups) d. Important social actors (such as leaders of movements, lobbies, political groups, activists, etc.) can cultivate sociopolitical cleavages. 4. “Configurations of inequality – a typology” (17-19) Figure 1 summarizes this section. **Figure 1. Configurations of inequality – a typology ** **Social formation ** High/Strong Low/Weak **Generative structures ** Single/dominant “gene- dominant stratification dominant inequality rator”& low complexity (e.g., “class society”) Multiple/hybridised “gene- complex/hybrid complex “classless” rators”& high complexity stratification inequality 5. “Modern trends – a short history of class” (19-21) a. During industrializationn and immediately afterwards, class formation was cultivated by political leaders and activists. Classes were clear-cut: manual working class (usually in factories) and industrial bourgeoisie. b. It later fragmented and broke down, giving way to occupational and trade union groups, competing with social citizenship and nationalism, and ceding to other kinds of groupings. Welfare states institutionalized classist ideologies and so perpetuated them, but these gave way as welfare states underwent reforms in the 1970s. c. Post-modern period: this is a time of de-stratification where grouping based primarily on class break down. This is due to the decline of corporatist governance, globalization, greater social differentiation, and individualism. 6. “Towards complex (classless) inequalities” (21-23) a. The postmodern period is marked by complex (classless) social inequalities. Increased dfferentiation obscures class groupings. Some drivers of differentiation in our times are symbolic consumption and individualism. Stratification is impeded by liberal citizenship and mass democratisation.
 * Jan Pakulski. 2005. “Foundations of a Post-Class Analysis,” in Erik Ohlin Wright, ed. //Approaches to Class Analysis.// Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6.**