Is Class Still Relevant in a Modern Society?

Is Class Still Relevant in a Modern Society? The question of whether ‘class is still a relevant concept in the understanding of social divisions in contemporary Britain has two components to be analysed, firstly is class still and do social divisions exist in Britain? The results of this research indicate yes to both questions, that although class and the nature of its existence have changed since Marx, Weber and Durkheim’s eras, it is very difficult to get past the important and definite existence of class and social divisions within Britain today. Neo-Marxists, neo-Weberians as well as functionalists and other theorists analysing it from a post-modern, post industrialisation perspective support this opinion. Class itself is a concept that has been traditionally hard to define and continues to be so. As Bradley states in Fractured Identities (1996, p. 45), ‘class is everywhere and nowhere’. Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups in societies or cultures. It has a shifting identity with few definite physical signs or markers to monitor. Part of the difficulty to define it categorically is that it involves many terms and viewpoints: class awareness; class consciousness; class imagery; class interest; class position; contradictory class location; false consciousness; middle class; petite bourgeoisie; proletariat; status; stratification; underclass; working class, the list is extensive. As Bilton et al (1987, p. 36) states: ‘Structures where economic relationships are primarily called class societies, and in these cases we refer to the different unequal groups as classes. There is considerable despite over the precise definition of this term, but we shall use class to refer to a group sharing a similar position in a structure of objective material inequalities, produced by a particular system of economic relations characteristic of a particular mode of production.’ (Bilton T, et al 1987, p. 36; Bradley 1996, pp. 45-6). Analysing class has historically formed a set of debates, emanating from the initial positions taken by theorists such as Marx and Weber, this debate has continued with neo-Marxists and neo-Weberians. In Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates, Rosemary Crompton (1998) suggests there is now a movement that involves a split between those who study class structure and mobility using statistical research and those who focus on class formation and consciousness by using historical or ethnographical approaches. This conflict has resulted in a stalemate of sorts where some sociologists have lost interest in the importance of social class. While anthropologists, historians and sociologists identify class as a social structure emerging from pre-history, the idea of social class entered the English dictionary approximately in the 1770s. It is valuable for this reason that any changes that may have been made since its induction should be evaluated. (Bradley 1996, pp. 45-6; Taylor, 1999, pp. 97-8). Marx saw class categories as relating to the ownership of property, and production relationship. He founded a revolutionary concept in social order – communism, in a communist state there would be no stratification. The two groups were the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production, and the proletariat the workers. He believed this relationship was based upon exploitation and conflict. Marx predicted a revolution in which the proletariat would defeat the bourgeoisie and share ownership of the factories equally between themselves. Although this did not occur in Britain, it did in Russia, in 1917. The proletariat revolted and all means of production fell into public ownership, forming a socialist state. This was close to Marxs ideological dream of communism. However, ownership despite being equal still existed and there was divisions still existed, some people had better, more highly respected, jobs than others. There was still inequality and competition. (Albrow, 1999, pp 155-9; Bilton T, et al 1987, pp 27-8). Weber was influenced by Marxs work but disagreed with his theory, he thought it was too deterministic. Being a structuralist, he believed people were shaped by the society in which they lived and capable of social action. He also disagreed with Marxs theory on stratification. Marx based his view of class structure on ownership of the means of production whilst Weber believed it was dependant on life chances. Life chances depended on wealth and skills; the upper class had the most advantageous life chances, and the poor (e.g. the unemployed, elderly and homeless), the least; economic situation, market situation, status and political party could determine class. Whist Marx split society into two distinct classes; Weber saw that social structure was more complex. The four main strata he identified were the upper class, the middle class, the working class and the poor/underclass. However, within these groups, were other, more subtle divisions, which depended on a number of variables incl uding differences in income, opportunities for upwards mobility, security of employment, language, life-style and social estimation of others. However, Weber perceived class as somewhat different, he believed that class consciousness was essentially conditional –that consciousness could occur depending upon circumstances. He acknowledged, as Marx believed, that classes and social groups were likely to experience conflict in attempts to gain status honour or class movement. (Taylor, 1999, pp. 99). Neo-Marxists come in many varying forms, but they share a common acknowledgement of the importance of gender/sex divisions. Nevertheless, it was still placed less important than class divisions under a capitalist society. Consequently, they thought the primary basis of exploitation in society was class, not gender. This implies that capitalists have more power over workers than men have over women, not an uncontroversial view. Issues of race and ethnicity were also viewed as less important than class. Functionalists take the view that social stratification is both essential to the running of society and inevitable. They believe that all social phenomena exist because they have a positive function to fulfil. Durkheim, a functionalist, described society as a living organism in which different organs with specific functions such as education, work, and government are inter-related. According to Bilton et al (1987), ‘the education system is a vehicle for developing the human resour ces of an industrial nation.’ (Bilton T, et al 1987, p. 308; Swingewood 2000, pp 137-140). In Class and Stratification, Crompton challenges the claim that class is dead and is in fact very much alive. In the vein of this belief, Goldthorpe and Wright critically examine ‘post-modern’ theories of ‘post-class’ societies, as well as the most recent contributions of quantitative sociological approaches. It is argued that despite their theoretical differences, the work of these two authors has been undergoing a process of convergence in recent years. Crompton analyses how the death of class is the contemporary increase in the event of social and material inequality. Definitional difficulties of class are only one aspect of the decision by many sociologists to question its relevance. Cromption explores social inequalities including gender and the feminisation of the middle classes, the significance of recent changes in work and employment, consumption and citizenship. (Bradley 1996, pp. 59-62; Crompton 1998, pp. 113-5) In most modern industrial societies, including Britain, the system of social stratification is fluid through generations or perhaps in their own lifetime, people can move up or down the social scale. A number of modern thinkers have tried to define what makes a particular ‘social class’. Is it accent, surroundings, occupation, income, wealth? If we simply spoke only about class as it was first defined and existed since Marx/Weber times we would not taking into account societal changes such as the increase in unemployment, health care crises, resulting in a concept of society that has always existed yet, become more prevent and occupied: the underclass. It seems that any social divisions that may exist stem from the pretext of social class and its restraints and the difficulty to move from one class to another is problematic. (Bilton T, et al 1987, 308). Thatcher’s Conservative Party did not believe in the concept of society, rather than society had no existence outside of individuals. Her party’s main aim was to reduce the role of the state in the economy, through various means such as the privatisation of British Rail, council houses and the introduction of poll tax in 1989. She advocated strong welfare reforms and created an adult Employment Training system that included full-time work done for the dole plus small top-up, based upon the a US workfare model, called the ‘Social Fund’ system. It placed one-off welfare payments for emergency needs under a local budgetary limit, and where possible changed them into loans, and rules for assessing jobseeking effort by the week, were breaches of social consensus unprecedented since the 1920s. All very strong and harsh steps only seeming to increase the already obvious class inequalities and difficulties in British society. By 1990, opposition to Thatchers polici es on local government taxation, her Governments perceived mishandling of the economy -especially the high interest rates which were undermining her core voting base within the home-owning, entrepreneurial and business sectors, as well as other factors finally made her and her party seem increasingly politically vulnerable. Her rein was over, yet her affect on British society remains strong and well-felt by general society. So it seems given all the variants and backgrounds that we have discussed that class divisions still exist and thus are still very relevant. The old saying the rich gets richer and the poor get poorer certainly was true of Thatcher’s era (Taylor, 1999, pp. 111-3; Albrow, 1999, pp 56-7; Margaret Thatcher: 2006). The Rowntree Report in 1995 exposed that unemployment rates in Britain were rising high and more rapidly than in any other industrial country – a very worrying finding, that unemployment, insecurity and deprivation were still very much prevalent in the working classes. Examining the existence of the underclass leads us to the question of whether it is a convenient label, and a powerful rhetorical label, as Marxists argue, or is it a post-industrial phenomenon? Considering that we are analysing British society post-industrialisation, this is an interesting question to ponder. Some theorists believe that it is a term that victimises and blames people and keeps them in their socio-economic spot without the opportunity or resources to move. (Fincher, R Saunders, P, 2001, p. 21; Bradley 1996, p 46; Taylor, 1999, pp. 113-5). To answer our original question of whether class can still be used as applicable concept in the understanding of social divisions in contemporary Britain, the answer is most definitely yes, but it has changed from the days of Marx and Weber and initial sociological conceptualisation. It seems that to analyse this process highlights the parts of society that may be disadvantaged through their social class or class immobility. Awareness is an important part of the process of changing and at the very least, compassion and societal responsibility. Bibliography Albrow, M, 1999, Sociology: The Basics. Roultedge, London Bilton T, Bennett, K, Jones, P, Stanworth, M, Sheard, K Webster, A 1987. Introductory Sociology. Macmillan Education Ltd, Hampshire. Bradley, H, 1996. Fractured Identities. Changing Patterns of Inequality. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Crompton, R, 1998. Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Erikson, K, 1997, Sociological Visions, Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc, USA. Fincher, R Saunders, P, 2001, Creating Unequal Futures? Rethinking Poverty, Inequality and Disadvantage. Allen and Unwin, Australia. Giddens, A 1993. Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Taylor, S, 1999, Sociology: Issues and Debates, Macmillan, Great Britain. Swingewood, A 2000. A Short History of Sociological Thought, 3rd Ed, St Martin’s Press, New York. Psychological/Sociological Paradigms, retrieved 7th April 2006, from:Â  http://webpages.marshall.edu/~carter12/eda705a5.htm. Wikipedia, April 2006, Margreat Thatcher, retrieved 11th April 2006, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Acid Rain in Europe :: Papers

Acid Rain in Europe Introduction ============ The atmosphere is like a film of gases, which makes the planet habitable. If this layer was not present there would be no life on earth. It is a fact that the health of plants, animals and humans depends upon a very important factor 'pollution'. Although, all kinds of poisonous waste is continuing to be put into the atmosphere. These poisonous gases are being produced when fossil fuels are burnt, as a result of this acid rain forms which further more results in numerous problems damaging forests, lakes, rivers, land, plants and animals. The main culprits of burning fossil fuels are MEDC's, which insist on maintaining their high standards of living. What is acid rain? Rain is naturally acidic but the term 'acid rain' is usually referred to as rain, which has been made more acidic than it should be due to the atmosphere absorbing the gasses emitted from the burning of fossil fuels. The gases are oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. Nitrogen oxide is usually given Nox as there are many of them, sulphur oxide SO2 and water H2O When these mix together they form acids such as sulphurous acid (H2SO3). Acid rain can be deposited in three ways: * Wet deposition - The deposition of pollutants in rain and snow mainly affects upland areas. * Dry deposition - The deposition of gases and particles directly onto terrestrial surfaces. * Cloud deposition - The capture of cloud droplets that contain concentrated pollutants. We can measure how acidic the rain actually is by the pH scale, 7 is neutral, below that is acidic above that is alkaline. A 'log scale' can be used for example pH 6 is ten times more acidic than pH 7, so pH 5 is one hundred times more acidic than pH7. Case study: An investigation to show how acid rain is affecting Europe. What are the causes of acid rain? Acid rain was first found in Scandinavia in the late 1950's and at

Describing Friend’s Character

I have a friend, his name is Dima. I know him about five years. He amazed me by his intelligence and brainy. He knows the answer on any question. Even if he doesn’t know the correct answer, he’ll find the way to explain it. I appreciate his optimism and indifference at the same time. When something bad has happened, he is always determined. He says that next time he would be more sense and had learned a lot from that situation. And next day he behaves as if nothing has happened. Moreover he looks indifferently at some situations that help him not to work up.Dima has got a unique humor; I can’t stop smiling when he begins joking. He is unconventional. He looks differently at the world. I can’t even imagine what is going on in his head. Also Dima is broad-minded, he is keen on travelling. He visits different places four times a year, moreover he adore snowboarding, that’s why the main part of his trips includes mountains. Dima is easy-going, he can ea sily find common ground. Nevertheless each person has negative sides of his character. Sometimes Dima is brusque and impolite. His straightforwardness spurns people.If he doesn’t gain person, he will deal shortly with him. I don’t think that it’s bad behavior, but sometimes it goes over the line. However he is frank and open-hearted. He enjoys having heart-to-heart talk with family and friends. In spite of his imperturbability he is vulnerable deep in his mind. But he won’t show it, because he thinks that it points out man’s weakness. In conclusion I would like to add that I’m proud that I have such friend. Dima is goal-seeking and ambitious. He knows what he wants and secures his object in any case.

Rhetorical Analysis I Have A Dream Speech - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 767 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2019/08/16 Category History Essay Level High school Topics: I Have a Dream Essay Martin Luther King Essay Did you like this example? Rhetorical Analysis I Have A Dream Speech   On August 28th, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave out a speech to the people that was called I Have A Dream. Kings speech was one to remember during the Civil Rights Movement. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Rhetorical Analysis I Have A Dream Speech  " essay for you Create order The speech has gone down as one of the most significant in history and is a great example for many other orators and politicians today. Kings speech is still recognized as a form of change to this day. One of his great skills was the ability to create a great bond with his audience. He had a dream to change the way the world looks at each other, he started off his speech with I am happy to join with you today, thus is Kings way of greeting his audience and beginning to make a connection. King balances the rhetorical appeals by showing his knowledge in his emotion, his timing towards wanting a change for our nation, and his logic of how life could be better.   Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of his word, you would never see him say he was going to do something and not follow through. King changed the way that the world looks at each other today, thanks to him racism has been downgraded majorly. The video of his speech starts off with a song that repeats the words We shall overcome (Martin Luther King Jr.). This video starting off with this song already put a thought of emotion for hope and belief in your mind. King wanted to make a change that Abraham Lincoln tried to change when he was president. He makes a connection with the nation by understanding their lives that he has heard, and making sure that he tries his best to follow through with all demands that his people request of him. All of this has an emotion that hits to home for certain types of races. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of kind words and faith, never looked down on people that have looked down on him. Kings timing throughout the whole speech is one that most people would call perfect. He states in his speech 5 score years ago a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the emancipation proclamation (Martin Luther King Jr). Giving his speech exactly 5 years after the legend Abraham Lincoln gave his speech to try and stop slavery shows you that it takes time for change, but change will happen with hope and time. King saw that he needed to make a change for his nation, during this time he saw that people needed to change the way their mind sets where. He says The negro still is not free, one hundred years later life of the negro is still sadly This shows some emotion of sadness, but it also shows you how during that time how people felt just because they were discriminated by others with hatred. During this time there was a lot of depression that broke souls and familys around the world. Martin Luther King Jr. logic about the Civil Rights Movement is a way that many people have thought of before, but never took it a upon themselves to make a change. King talks in his speech about slavery he states Black men as well as white men would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of hippieness. It is obvious that today has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens (Martin Luther King Jr.). In this part of his speech he is stating that we were promised to be treated fair and equal as one, and that still years later we as the people have to fight to be treated the same as others, and we have to fight to be treated as equal.   Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of his word when it came to making the people around him happy. He finished off creating a change that Abraham Lincoln tried to do many years ago. He showed people that its okay to feel for another race, and that you can get things done with a little bit of time and effort, and lastly that no matter what Martin Luther King Jr. will stay known for what he has finished and started for the world and many people down the line of history will always remember the man the truly finished and ended slavery for everyone. The I Have A Dream speech was one of his speeches that made a memory on the earth and will be cherished for a life time.