Conclusion,

For CRS 8 November 2010 Summarized by Kate. In this Chapter, Wright fulfills his duty as editor of the volume by trying to superimpose some common theme on all the chapters. He tries to tie them all together around six central questions that all have ‘class’ as their answer. He argues that because the authors address different questions, their views are not necessarily antagonistic, but can be seen as complementary. Q1: //How are people// objectively located //in distributions of material inequality?// Class is conceptualized as material, gradational (like rungs on a ladder), and objectively classifiable. Q2: //What explains how people, individually and collectively, locate themselves and others within a structure of inequality?// Class is conceptualized more subjectively, according to social contexts, and this subjective understanding is then later applied to the system of economic stratification. This model is used by: a) Elliot Weiniger – says that symbolic classifications impact people’s life chances. b) David Grusky – the ‘real’ groups that have an impact on peoples’ life chances are correspond to occupational categories more than to the ‘Big Classes’ as understood by Marx and Weber. c) Jan Pakulski – In the 20th century the previous distinctions between people drawn around economic and factors of production distinctions became fuzzy, so class no longer determines people’s understanding of themselves with regard to inequality. Q3: //What// explains //inequalities in life chances and material standards of living?// This question requires specifying causal models rather than mere description (as in Q1 and 2). The focus on inequality, leads one to conceptualize class as relational rather than gradational. It also gets at the question of equal opportunity: liberal societies are generally OK with actual inequalities, so long as everybody had equal opportunities in getting there. But Marx, Weber and Bourdieu don’t buy this liberal explanation – they claim that ‘what you have determines what you get’. The relative differences in their understandings is summarized in the following table. Q4: //What cleavages in society systematically generate overt antagonisms and conflicts?// How do the inequalities identified in Q3 translate into conflict? a) Weber sees class as a //potential// basis for conflict. b) Marx sees conflict as //intrinsic// to class relations. And the source of exploitation is labor’s efforts being appropriated by capital. c) Aage Sorenson sees conflict as //intrinsic// to class relations. And the source of exploitation is the extraction of economic rents. Q5: //How should we characterize and explain the variations across history in the social organization of inequalities?// This requires identifying a macro-level mechanism to explain variation over time. a) Marx says the determinant of change over time is the way in which economic surplus is produced and expropriated. b) Weber says the difference over the course of history is in the relative salience of different forms of inequality – most notably class versus status. c) Jan Pakulsi and David Grusky ‘the central issue is the variation in the class-ness of social inequality across time //within// the history of capitalist development’ [sorry, I couldn’t tell you what that actually means]. Q6: //What sorts of transformations are needed to eliminate economic oppression and exploitation within capitalist societies?// This is more controversial and requires a normative judgment about inequality. It’s very important for Marx.
 * Erik Olin Wright (2005), Conclusion. In Erik Olin Wright, ed. //Approaches to Class Analysis//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.**