8.3 Explanations of Stratification and Class
Sociologists have developed a variety of perspectives to explain stratification, class, and inequality. Some of those perspectives are critical of class-based inequalities, such as Marxism and feminism. Other perspectives, such as functionalism, come close to justifying class inequality by intellectually legitimizing the unequal distribution of resources.
Class Matters: Marx and Neo-Marxists
Since the writings of Karl Marx, sociologists have explored the relationship between social class, stratification, and work. As a quick recap of Chapter 2, Marx argued there were two social classes in capitalism: the workers (proletariat) who had to sell their labor to live, and the owners (bourgeoisie) who profited from the labor of the workers. A key difference between the classes was who owned and controlled the means of production, such as the factories and machines.
Others have expanded on Marx’s work to incorporate a wider range of factors in defining class. A neo-Marxist is someone who extends Marxist theorizing, often incorporating insights from other theoretical traditions. German-British sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (1959) argued that Marx failed to predict numerous developments in capitalism. Specifically, he pointed to how a lot of companies were not owned and run by an individual or a family. Instead, the owners of the companies were the people who owned stock in the companies. From his perspective, this separated ownership and control.
According to Dahrendorf (1959), this separation of ownership and control allowed a new group to emerge that replaced the capitalist-owner in the workplace: managers. He also pointed to the increased differences between workers. Rather than being a unified group, workers could be divided into three groups: 1) highly skilled workers such as engineers and white-collar employees, 2) semi-skilled workers, and 3) unskilled workers. By introducing these distinctions, he argued that Marx’s categories of “owner” and “worker” were too homogeneous and unified.
Beyond challenging Marx’s conceptualization of class, Dahrendorf focused on how one’s social class position was intertwined with authority in the workplace. Authority is legitimate power. He argued that different positions in society had different amounts of authority and that authority resided in positions rather than the people occupying the positions. Authority, he asserted, always implies superordination and subordination. In the context of work, if one is in a superordinate position, those in the subordinate position are supposed to do what you say. If you are in a subordinate position and do not follow the orders, you could get a warning or a written reprimand for insubordination.
American sociologist Erik Olin Wright (1997, 2001) explained class differently. He argued that there were up to six different classes based on the relationship of the workers to the means of production, their skills and knowledge, and their au