Topic 5 - webenerian theories of inequality? Flashcards
Introduction?
Weber shared Marx’s concern with social inequality but argued that it was more complex than just economic relationships. He criticized Marxism for oversimplifying the issue and emphasized the importance of social power in how society is organized. Weber believed power comes from controlling desirable social resources like wealth, respect, knowledge, and property. He added dimensions of status and party to his analysis of inequality, suggesting that these factors also play a significant role in social stratification.
Weber + power?
Weber defined power as the ability to impose one’s will on others, regardless of their views. He argued that society is hierarchical, with some people having more power to dominate or resist. Class power involves unequal access to wealth, like a business owner controlling employees. Status refers to respect and social superiority, such as a religious leader having influence despite not being wealthy. Party refers to political power, not limited to government, but the ability to influence others, like leaders of pressure groups (e.g., Greenpeace) influencing government policy.
Weber + pluralism?
Weber can be seen as a pluralist, as he believed power is distributed across various groups in society, with some holding more power than others. These groups may possess different types of power. Unlike Marx, who saw society as divided into two classes, Weber identified four classes with internal divisions. He argued that society is held together by tradition and habit, rather than through deliberate social control.
Marx + weber?
Marx viewed society as polarized between the very rich and poor, with the economy as the key driver of inequality. Weber, in contrast, believed in increasing social fragmentation and identified multiple social classes, with power determined by class, party, and status. Marx saw inequality as structural, while Weber saw it as cultural. Marx’s ideas have inspired various political theories, while Weber has influenced sociology and research methods. Unlike Marx, who believed social class shapes people’s lives deterministically, Weber argued that individuals could shape their lives and move up the class system through education and effort.
Weberian Theory?
Weberian theory classifies society into different social groups. The property class, similar to Marx’s bourgeoisie, holds money, status, and political power. The professional class has some money, status, and political influence. The petty bourgeoisie, or small businesses, have less status, money, and power but hold importance within their communities. The working class has little to no status or political power, though some workers with specialized skills can command higher wealth. Weber sees society as fragmented, with groups competing for various social resources, power, and wealth.
Neo-weberianism?
Neo-Weberianism is based on Weber’s ideas, which are complex and difficult to apply to social analysis of inequality. While Weber’s theories have significantly influenced research methods, class, and capitalism, fewer sociologists have applied his theories compared to neo-Marxists, who have actively worked to address gaps in Marxist analysis.
Goldthorpe?
In the late 1970s, Goldthorpe used Weber’s ideas to measure social class, incorporating variables like employment relationships, work conditions, and life chances, rather than focusing solely on income and job nature. He identified 11 social classes, though modern classifications typically use 7. Feminists argue his classification overlooks women’s earning potential and education in the labor market, making the system more complex than Goldthorpe acknowledged. Barron and Norris (1976) introduced the dual labor market concept, dividing jobs into primary (high-status, secure, career-focused) and secondary (low-status, low-power) markets. They noted that women and ethnic minorities are often relegated to secondary jobs. Giddens (2012) furthered this idea, emphasizing that the middle class benefits from education and social qualifications, while the working class faces job insecurity. Rex and Tomilson (1979) applied Weberian ideas to race relations, arguing that ethnic minorities experience both low class and status, compounded by racism, leading to the development of a black underclass in British cities.
Introduction?
Weber shared Marx’s concern with social inequality but argued that it was more complex than just economic relationships. He criticized Marxism for oversimplifying the issue and emphasized the importance of social power in how society is organized. Weber believed power comes from controlling desirable social resources like wealth, respect, knowledge, and property. He added dimensions of status and party to his analysis of inequality, suggesting that these factors also play a significant role in social stratification.
Weber and power?
Weber defined power as the ability to impose one’s will on others, regardless of their views. He argued that society is hierarchical, with some people having more power to dominate or resist. Class power involves unequal access to wealth, like a business owner controlling employees. Status refers to respect and social superiority, such as a religious leader having influence despite not being wealthy. Party refers to political power, not limited to government, but the ability to influence others, like leaders of pressure groups (e.g., Greenpeace) influencing government policy.
Weber and pluralism?
Weber can be seen as a pluralist, as he believed power is distributed across various groups in society, with some holding more power than others. These groups may possess different types of power. Unlike Marx, who saw society as divided into two classes, Weber identified four classes with internal divisions. He argued that society is held together by tradition and habit, rather than through deliberate social control.
Marx and Weber?
Marx viewed society as polarized between the very rich and poor, with the economy as the key driver of inequality. Weber, in contrast, believed in increasing social fragmentation and identified multiple social classes, with power determined by class, party, and status. Marx saw inequality as structural, while Weber saw it as cultural. Marx’s ideas have inspired various political theories, while Weber has influenced sociology and research methods. Unlike Marx, who believed social class shapes people’s lives deterministically, Weber argued that individuals could shape their lives and move up the class system through education and effort
Weberian Theory?
Weberian theory classifies society into different social groups. The property class, similar to Marx’s bourgeoisie, holds money, status, and political power. The professional class has some money, status, and political influence. The petty bourgeoisie, or small businesses, have less status, money, and power but hold importance within their communities. The working class has little to no status or political power, though some workers with specialized skills can command higher wealth. Weber sees society as fragmented, with groups competing for various social resources, power, and wealth.
Neo-weberianism?
Neo-Weberianism is based on Weber’s ideas, which are complex and difficult to apply to social analysis of inequality. While Weber’s theories have significantly influenced research methods, class, and capitalism, fewer sociologists have applied his theories compared to neo-Marxists, who have actively worked to address gaps in Marxist analysis.
Goldthorpe?
In the late 1970s, Goldthorpe used Weber’s ideas to measure social class, incorporating variables like employment relationships, work conditions, and life chances, rather than focusing solely on income and job nature. He identified 11 social classes, though modern classifications typically use 7. Feminists argue his classification overlooks women’s earning potential and education in the labor market, making the system more complex than Goldthorpe acknowledged. Barron and Norris (1976) introduced the dual labor market concept, dividing jobs into primary (high-status, secure, career-focused) and secondary (low-status, low-power) markets. They noted that women and ethnic minorities are often relegated to secondary jobs. Giddens (2012) furthered this idea, emphasizing that the middle class benefits from education and social qualifications, while the working class faces job insecurity. Rex and Tomilson (1979) applied Weberian ideas to race relations, arguing that ethnic minorities experience both low class and status, compounded by racism, leading to the development of a black underclass in British cities.
Assessments of webenerian Theory?
A key difficulty with Weberian theory is the challenge of measuring subjective forms of power, such as status. Different social groups may have varying criteria for what constitutes high status, making it hard to apply Weber’s ideas to analyze inequality. Additionally, Weber’s concept of multiple classes complicates class classification, as many people identify with broad social groups like being Welsh or working class, taking pride in these identities. This leads to the argument that status groups are not fragmentary, as people can belong to multiple status groups simultaneously based on factors like job, gender, age, and ethnicity.
