Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups
in societies or cultures.
Most societies, particularly nation states, seem to have some definition of social
class.[citation needed] However, less complex
societies such as Hunter-gatherers, may or may not have any notion of class.[citation needed]
Where social classes do exist, the factors that determine class vary widely from one society to another. Even within a
society, different people or groups may have very different ideas about what makes one "high" or "low" in the social hierarchy. The most basic class distinction between the two groups is between the powerful and
the powerless. Social classes with more power usually subordinate classes with less power, while attempting to cement their own power positions in society. Social
classes with a great deal of power are usually viewed as elites, at least within
their own societies.
In the simplest societies, power/class hierarchies may or may not exist. In societies where they do exist, power may be linked
to physical strength, and therefore age, gender, and physical health are common delineators of class.[citation needed] However, spiritual charisma and religious
vision can be at least as important.[citation needed] Also, because different livelihoods are so closely intertwined in simple
societies, morality often ensures that the old, the young, the weak, and the sick maintain a
relatively equal standard of living despite low class.[citation needed]
In so-called non-stratified societies or acephalous societies, there is no concept of social class, power, or hierarchy beyond temporary or
limited social statuses. In such societies, every individual has a roughly equal social
standing in most situations.[citation needed]
In societies where classes exist, one's class is determined largely by:
Those who can attain a position of power in a society will often adopt distinctive lifestyles to emphasize their
prestige and to further rank themselves within the powerful class. Often the
adoption of these stylistic traits are as important as one's wealth in determining class status, at least at the higher
levels:
- costume and grooming
- manners and cultural refinement. For example,
Bourdieu suggests a notion of high and low classes with a distinction between
bourgeois tastes and sensitivities and the working
class tastes and sensitivities.
- political standing vis-à-vis the church, government, and/or social clubs, as well as the use of honorary titles
- reputation of honor or disgrace
- language, the distinction between elaborate code, which is seen as a criterion for
"upper-class", and the restricted code, which is associated with "lower classes"
Finally, fluid notions such as race can have widely varying degrees of influence on class
standing. Having characteristics of a particular ethnic group may improve one's class status in many societies. However, what is
considered "racially superior" in one society can often be exactly the opposite in another. In situations where such factors are
an issue, a minority ethnicity has often been hidden, or discreetly ignored if the person in question has otherwise attained the
requirements to be of a higher class. Ethnicity is still often the single most overarching issue of class status in some
societies (see the articles on apartheid, the
Caste system in Africa, and the Japanese Burakumin ethnic minority for examples). However, a distinction should be made between causation and correlation when it comes to race and class. Some societies have a
high correlation between particular classes and race, but this is not necessarily an indication that race is a factor in the
determination of class.
The Middle Class
-
For most of recorded human history, societies have been agricultural and have existed with essentially two classes -
those who owned productive agricultural land, and those who worked for them.[citation needed] The landowning class often arranged itself into a sometimes elaborate
hierarchy based on the criteria listed in the previous section, without changing the essential power relationship of owner and
worker. About the 1770s, when the term "social class" first entered the English lexicon, the concept of a "middle class" within
that structure was also becoming very important. The Industrial Revolution was
allowing a much greater portion of the population time for the kind of education and cultural refinement once restricted to the
European leisure class of large landholders. Also, the far greater distribution of news and
liberal arts knowledge was making workers question and rebel against the privileges and
religious assumptions of the leisure class. Today, most talk of social class assumes three general categories: an upper class of
powerful owners, a middle class of people who may not exert power over others but do control their own destiny to a certain
extent through commerce or land ownership, and a lower class of people who own neither property nor stock in the corporate
system, and who rely on wages from above for their livelihood. Since the Age of
Revolution, Eurocentric governments have generally upheld the middle class as the ideal, and have at least claimed to be
working toward expanding it. Especially in the United States, the ideal of a middle
class reached via the American Dream is of central importance when discussing
social class.
US middle class
-
Today in the US there are multiple theories as to what constitutes the middle
class. As the vast majority of Americans identify as being middle class, the term has been used to describe people from
all walks of life, from janitors to attorneys.[1][2] As a result the middle class is often
sub-divided into two or three groups. While one set of theories claim that the middle class is composed of those in the middle of
the social strata, other theories maintain that professionals and
managers who have a college degree make up most of the
middle class.[3] In 2005 roughly 35% of Americans worked in the
professional/professional support or managerial field and 27% had a college degree.[4] Sociologists such as
Dennis Gilbert or Joseph Hickey argue that the middle
class is divided into two sub-groups. The upper middle class consists of white
collar professionals with advanced educations and constitutes roughly 15% of the population. In 2005 the top 15% of income
earners (age 25+) had incomes exceeding $62,500.[5] The
lower middle class (or middle-middle class for those who divide the middle class
into three segments) consists of other mostly white collar employees with less autonomy in their work, lower educational attainment, lower personal income and less prestige than those of the upper middle class.
Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James Henslin, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey have brought forth class models in which
the middle class is divided into two sections which combine to represent 47% to 49% of the population.[6][7][8] Economist Michael Zweig defines class as power
relationships among the members of a society, rather than as a lifestyle or by income. [9] Zweig says that the middle class is only about
34% of the U.S. population, typically employed as managers, supervisors, small business owners and other professional people.
Historical models
Although class can be discerned in any society, some cultures have published specific guidelines to rank. In some cases, the ideologies presented in these rankings may not concur with the mainstream power
dialectic of social class as it is understood in modern English use.
Indian
The Indian caste system is one of the oldest and most important systems of social
class with peculiar rigidity (in the sense that it lacks upward or downward mobility between castes). It differs from
Varnashrama Dharma[10] found in Hinduism, which allowed people born into a certain
Varna to move upward or downwards depending on their qualification. It divided society
based on skill and qualifications. Briefly, the Brahmin varna was
idealized as a leisurely priest class devoted to religious ceremonies, while the
Kshatriya defended them as military princes. The modern concept of the middle class was
represented by the Vaishya varna artisans, farmers, and
merchants, and the lower varna were the Shudra laborers. Within
this basic framework were arranged a huge number of jatis, or subcastes. Despite being notorious
for its rigidity, it should be recognised not as a religious system (as Varnashrama
Dharma prescribed in Hinduism), but a social system, which
evolved from Varnashrama Dharma.
Chinese
Traditional Chinese society divided workers based on the perceived usefulness of their work. Scholars ranked the highest because the opportunity to conceive clear ideas in a state of leisure would
lead them to wise laws (an idea that has much in common with Plato's ideal of a philosopher king). Under them were the farmers, who produced necessary food, and the artisans who produced useful objects. Merchants ranked at the bottom because they did not actually produce
anything, while soldiers were sometimes ranked even lower because of the destruction they caused. The Confucian model is notably different from the modern Eurocentric view of social class, since merchants
could attain great wealth without reaching the social status accorded to a poor farmer. In practice, a rich merchant might
purchase land to reach farmer status, or even buy a good education for his heirs in the hopes that they would attain scholar
status and go into the imperial civil service. The Chinese model was widely disseminated
throughout east Asia. [1]
Japanese
The Japanese class structure, while influenced by the Chinese, was based on a much more feudal environment. The Emperor, as a deity, was unquestionably at the pinnacle of the Japanese class structure (and still is, despite no longer being
considered a god). However, for most of Japanese history the emperor was not allowed outside the palace grounds and his will was
"interpreted" by a shogun, or military dictator. Beneath the shogun, daimyos or regional lords, administered the provinces through their samurai
lieutenants. Perhaps through Chinese influence, and perhaps springing from a lack of arable
land, the Japanese class structure also ranked farmers above merchants and other bourgeois.
- See also: Four divisions of
society
Iranian
Under the Qajar dynasty of Iran, the class structure was set up as follows:
- the permanent hereditary class of Qajar princes
- an upper class of "nobles and notables"
- religious leaders and students of theology
- merchants (note the difference from east Asian models)
- agricultural landowners
- master artisans and shopkeepers
As in many official class structures, the laborers who made up the majority of the population but owned no land and relied on
wages were not even considered part of the structure at all. [2]
French
France was an absolute monarchy for most of its history, with the king at the pinnacle of the class structure. However, the French States-General, established in 1302, provided a sort of
legislative assembly with its members ranked according to hereditary class. The First Estate consisted of the highborn sons of
great families who had devoted themselves to religion (compare to the Indian Brahmins, Confucian scholars, and Qajar theology
students). The Second Estate consisted of all other members of the nobility, who constituted approximately two percent of the
total population. The Third Estate consisted, technically, of everyone else, but was represented only by the richest members of
the bourgeoisie. In truth, the peasantry had no voice at
all in the system, as contrasted with the ideologically high status of farmers in Confucian China. The rigidity of the French
hereditary system has been suggested as a major cause of the French Revolution.
Hispanic American
Access to positions of power and wealth were delineated by race. Accordingly, Peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) held the
top ranks- including titles such as Viceroy, Captain General, etc. They were followed by Criollos (Those directly descended from Spaniards but born in America), who held considerable power and
class but were barred from the highest decision-making posts. After these there was a system of castes, listed in order of
rank:
- Mestizo (Mixed Amerindian and Spaniard);
- Mulatto (Mixed Spaniard and African)
- Amerindian
- Zambo (Mixed Amerindian and African)
- Negro
It is to be noted that even today there is a strong correlation between class and ethnicity.
British
-
The Parliament of the United Kingdom still contains a
vestige of the European class structure undone in France by the Revolution. The
Queen maintains her status at the top of the social class structure, with the
House of Lords up until very recently still representing the hereditary upper class and
the House of Commons technically representing everyone else. Due to the
electoral rules, however, the House of Commons historically (until the late 19th, early 20th centuries) represented the Landed
classes. In the Victorian era of the United
Kingdom, social class became a national obsession, with nouveau riche
industrialists in the House of Commons trying to attain the status of House of Lords landowners through attempts to dress, eat,
and talk in an upper class manner, marriages arranged to achieve titles, and the
purchase of grand country houses built to emulate the old aristocracy's feudal castles. It was the Victorian middle class who tried to distance themselves from the
lower class with terms such as "working class", which seemed to imply that their new
white collar positions couldn't really be considered "work" since they were so
clean, modern, and safe.
It was also in 19th century Britain that the term Fourth
Estate was used to describe the press. Thomas Carlyle equated the Queen to
France's First Estate of clergy, the House of Lords to France's Second Estate of hereditary aristocracy, and the House of Commons
to France's Third Estate of rich bourgeoisie. But he then pointed out that the editors of newspapers in Britain's booming
Industrial Revolution (similar to the pamphleteers before and during the French
Revolution) held powerful sway over public opinion, making them equally important players in the political arena. The political
role of the media has become ever more important as technology has blossomed in the 20th and 21st centuries, but few academic
models today set aside the media as a specific class.
It remains important in any analysis of social class in the UK to allow for regional variations. What may be true of England
may be untrue or at least less true of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. Attempts to assume a 'British' class system rarely
produce useful or reliable results. Scotland's population's inter-class relations are (from an English point of view) confused by
the vestiges of the clan system. Wales had most of its nobility killed off in a series of conflicts between different families
and different centres of power, and of course with England. The upshot of this has been, according to historian Gwyn Alf
Williams, a country which thinks of itself as being of a single class; he compared it, in his book When Was Wales with the
then Czechoslovakia.
United States
-
The social structure of the United States is a vaguely defined concept which includes several commonly used terms that use
educational attainment, income and occupational prestige as the main determinants of class. While it is possible to create dozens of social classes within the confines of
American society, most Americans employ a six or five class system. The most commonly applied class concepts used in regards to
contemporary American society are:[6]
- Upper class; Those with great influence, wealth and prestige. Members of this
group tend to act as the grand-conceptualizers and have tremendous influence of the nation's institutions.
- Upper middle class; The upper middle class consists of white collar
professionals with advanced post-secondary educational degrees and comfortable personal
incomes. Upper middle class professionals have large amounts of autonomy in the workplace and therefore enjoy high job
satisfaction. In terms of income and considering the 15% figure used by Thompson, Hickey and Gilber, upper middle class
professionals earn roughly $62,500 or more and tend to reside in households with six figure incomes.
"#wp-_note-The_Inner_Life_of_the_Middle_Class">[3][6][12]
- (Lower) middle class; Semi-professionals, non-retail salespersons and
craftsmen who have some college education. Out-sourcing tends to be a prominent problem among those in this class who often
suffer from a lack of job security.[6]
"#wp-_note-Middle_income_can.27t_buy_Middle_class_lifestyle">[13] Households in this class may need two income earners to
make ends meet and therefore may have household incomes rivaling the personal incomes of upper middle class professionals such as
attorneys.[13]
- Working class; According to some experts such Michael Zweig, this class may
constitute the majority of Americans and include those otherwise referred to as lower middle.
"#wp-_note-The_American_Perception_of_Class">[14] It includes blue as well as white collar workers who have relatively low
personal incomes and lack college degrees with many being among the
45% of Americans who have never attended college.[6]
- Lower class; This class includes the poor, alienated and marginalized members of
society. While most individuals in this class work, they commonly drift in and out of poverty throughout the year.[6]
Marxist
It was in Victorian Britain that Karl Marx became the first person to critically attack the
privileges not just of a hereditary upper class, but of anyone whose labor output could not begin to cover their consumption of luxury. The majority proletariat which had
previously been relegated to an unimportant compartment at the bottom of most hierarchies, or ignored completely, became Marx's
focal point. He recognized the traditional European ruling class ("We rule you"), supported
by the religious ("We fool you") and military ("We shoot at you") élites, but the French Revolution had already shown that these
classes could be removed. Marx looked forward to a time when the new capitalist upper class
could also be removed and everyone could work as they were able, and receive as they needed.
Karl Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which an individual or social group has
control over the means of production. In
Marxist terms a class is a group of people defined by their relationship to the means of
production. The prerequisite for classes is existence of sufficient surplus
product. Marxists explain the history of "civilized" societies in terms of a
war of classes between those who control production and those who produce the goods or
services in society. In the Marxist view of capitalism, this is a conflict between
capitalists (bourgeoisie) and wage-workers (the
proletariat). For Marxists, class antagonism is rooted in the situation that control over
social production necessarily entails control over the class which produces goods -- in capitalism this is the exploitation of workers by the bourgeosie.
Marx himself argued that it was the goal of the proletariat itself to displace the capitalist system with socialism, changing the social relationships underpinning the class system and then developing into a future
communist society in which: "..the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all." (Communist Manifesto).
Vladimir Lenin has defined classes as "large groups of people differing from each
other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed
and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the
dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it." A Great
Beginning
Proletarianisation
The most important transformation of society for Marxists has been the massive and rapid growth of the proletariat in the
world population during the last two hundred and fifty years. Starting with agricultural and domestic textile labourers in
England and Flanders, more and more occupations only provide a living through wages or salaries.[citation needed] Private enterprise or
self-employment in a variety of occupations is no longer as viable as it once was, and so many people who once controlled their
own labour-time are converted into proletarians.[citation needed] Today groups which in the past subsisted on stipends or private wealth --
like doctors, academics or lawyers -- are now increasingly working as wage labourers.[citation needed] Marxists call this process
proletarianisation, and point to it as the major factor in the proletariat being the
largest class in current societies in the rich countries of the "first world." However, only in the strongly social-democratic
societies such as Sweden is there much long-term evidence of the weakening of the consequences of
social class.
The increasing dissolution of the peasant-lord relationship (see pre-capitalist
societies), initially in the commercially active and industrialising countries, and then in the unindustrialised countries
as well, has virtually eliminated the class of peasants. Poor rural labourers still exist, but
their current relationship with production is predominantly as landless wage labourers or rural
proletarians. The destruction of the peasantry, and its conversion into a rural proletariat, is largely a result of the
general proletarianisation of all work. This process is today largely complete, although it was arguably incomplete in the 1960s
and 1970s.
Dialectics, or historical materialism, in Marxist class
Marx saw class categories as defined by continuing historical processes. Classes, in Marxism, are not static entities, but are
regenerated daily through the productive process. Marxism views classes as human social relationships which change over time,
with historical commonality created through shared productive processes. A 17th century farm labourer who worked for day wages
shares a similar relationship to production as an average office worker of the 21st century. In this example, it is the shared
structure of wage labour that makes both of these individuals "working class."
Objective and subjective factors in class in Marxism
Marxism has a rather heavily defined dialectic between objective factors
(i.e., material conditions, the social structure) and subjective factors (i.e. the
conscious organization of class members). While most Marxism analyses people's class based on objective factors (class
structure), major Marxist trends have made greater use of subjective factors in understanding the history of the working class.
E.P. Thompson's The Making
of the English Working Class is a definitive example of this "subjective" Marxist trend. Thompson analyses the English
working class as a group of people with shared material conditions coming to a positive self-consciousness of their social
position. This feature of social class is commonly termed class consciousness in
Marxism, a concept which became famous with Georg Lukacs's History and Class
Consciousness (1923). It is seen as the process of a "class in itself" moving in the direction of a "class for itself," a
collective agent that changes history rather than simply being a victim of the historical process. In Lukacs' words, the
proletariat was the "subject-object of
history", and the first class which could separate false consciousness (inherent to
the bourgeois's consciousness), which reified economic laws as
universal (whereas they are only a consequence of historic capitalism).
Max Weber
The seminal sociological interpretation of class was advanced by Max Weber. Weber
formulated a three-component theory of stratification, with
class, status and party (or politics) as subordinate to the ownership of the means of production, but for Weber how they interact
is a contingent question and one that will vary from society to society. Weber is also known for his six "American Dream" Values
which are: 1) Hard work, 2) Universalism, 3) Individualism, 4) Wealth, 5) Activism, and 6) Rationality.
Corporate
Modern corporations have established a fairly regular hierarchy, which economists in
capitalist nations may extend to delineate social class in the broader society. In direct opposition to the Marxist ideology
outlined above, the capitalist ideal is not that the class structure will disappear into an egalitarian utopia. Capitalism holds as an ideal that the smartest and hardest working individuals will rise to the highest
levels of the class structure and then use their exceptional skills to raise the standard of living for all classes.
- At the top of the corporate structure are the shareholders, people who have either purchased or inherited a share of the
corporation in the form of stocks. This group may be as small as a single owner or as large as
the millions of stockholders in blue chip corporations. To the extent that
directors and executives are answerable to shareholders, the corporate structure is sometimes compared to democracy. Obviously actual influence within the corporation is relative to the amount of stock owned. Those
who can live off stock dividends without working for a wage themselves make up what Marx called the "capitalist class".
- The boards of directors are elected by shareholders, and are often members of
high prestige in the corporation's sphere of influence. Chairman of the board has become a stock character in
American art, symbolizing someone of the highest prestige who is uninvolved in day to day administration, similar to a
head of state. In theory, directors are responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing the
company executives, setting big picture goals and long range direction for the corporation, but are not active in daily work. In
practice, executive officers often appoint directors of their choosing, undermining the boards interest in monitoring executive
abuse. Moreover, the main function of the board, hiring and firing of the executive, is often undermined by golden parachute agreements, designed to make firing executives cost prohibitive for the corporation
and shareholders, thus undermining the ability of the board to exercise its main function. Directors of a corporation may also be
known as officers, holding titles such as president and vice-president.
- Executives are the highest ranking day-to-day leaders in a corporation,
similar to a national head of government and ministers. In the typical model, executives are decision makers, and do not directly oversee
routine activity. They correspond to the haute bourgeoisie of the Marxist model.
- Managers oversee workers directly and control operations "on the ground". They are
typically salaried employees.
- Workers do the manual and service labor of a corporation. They are typically paid
an hourly wage. These are the "proletariat" of Marx's model.
- In the capitalist view, where production and consumption are the levers of society, the lowest class are the unemployed. This term is usually used in an economic sense to mean those are not productive in the economy
as workers but would like to be given the opportunity. The leisure class of major stockholders is not considered "unemployed" and
is at the opposite end of the class spectrum. The unemployed may overlap with Marx's lumpenproletariat.
The above model apply in general to large corporations. In a small corporation, the major stockholder may officially be the
company's president and may in fact function as both a chief executive officer
and general manager, as well as assisting as a worker in daily duties. Also, there may
be a wide range of subclasses within a corporate structure. "Supervisors" may regulate daily activity similar to the role of a
manager, but without the ability to hire and fire or the access to company money given to a manager.
The relevance of social class today
There have been fierce debates in the area of sociology about whether or not social class has become relevant in terms of
shaping identity. The arguments suggesting that it is no longer relevant are bought forward by supporters of postmodernism. One argument for class being unimportant follows:
Arguments against relevance of class today
- Mode of consumption is much more important than actually earning the means of income (Clarke and Saunders, 1991).
- French sociologist Mattei Dogan has argued in his "From Social Class and Religious Identity to Status Incongruence in
Post-Industrial Societies" (Comparative Sociology, 2004) that the relevance of social class has declined, giving way to a
different form of social identification that is largely cultural and religious, and which raises identity conflicts called status
incongruence. This can be observed in particular in the developing countries, but even in many post-industrial societies.
Arguments for relevance of class today
However, there has been a lot of criticism from other sociologists who claim that class still develops the individual's
identity. Although a lot of arguments come from Marxism, there is still a lot of evidence that
suggests that class still affects almost everyone. Some ideas from different sociologists follow:
- Jordan suggested that those in poverty had the same attitudes on work and family as those in other classes, this being
backed up with surveys expressing that the poor/working class/lower class feel almost shame about their position in society.
- MacIntosh and Mooney noted that there was still an upper-class which seems to isolate itself from other classes. It is
almost impossible to get into the upper-class. They (upper-class) kept their activities (marriage, education, peer groups) as a
closed system.
- Marshall et al noted that many manual class workers are still aware of many class issues. They believed in a possible
conflict of interest, and saw themselves as working class. This counters the postmodern claims that it is consumption which
defines an individual.
- Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard (1998) discovered a new super
class, which consisted of elite professionals and managers, which held high salaries and share ownership.
- Chapman noted there was still an existence of a self-recruiting upper-class identity.
- Dennis Gilbert argues that class is bound to exist in any complex society as not all occupations are equal and that
households do form pattern of interaction that give rise to social classes.
Academic models
Schools of sociology differ in how they conceptualise class. A distinction can be drawn
between analytical concepts of social class, such as the Marxian and
Weberian traditions, and the more empirical traditions such as socio-economic status
approach, which notes the correlation of income, education and wealth with social outcomes without necessarily implying a
particular theory of social structure. The Warnerian approach can be considered
empirical in the sense that it is more descriptive than analytical.
The traditional `pigeon-holing' mainstay of much of the advertising industry used to be that of social class. Recently,
however, as affluence has become more widespread, the process has become much less clear. It is now argued that the new `opinion
leaders' come from within the same social class. The class groupings that were traditionally used by advertising agencies (for
example in the NRS social grade schema were: AB - Managerial and professional, C1
-Supervisory and clerical, C2- Skilled manual, DE-Unskilled manual and unemployed.) have been reported to be of decreasing value
in recent decades, especially in the distinction between clerical workers and manual workers in education and disposable income.
Whereas some four decades ago, when these groupings were first widely used, the numbers in each of the main categories (C, D and
E) were reasonably well balanced, today the C group in total (although now usually split to give C1 and C2) forms such a large
sector that it dominates the whole classification system and offers less in terms of usable concentration of marketing effort.
[3]
US models
| Academic Class Models |
| Dennis Gilbert, 2002 |
William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005 |
Leonard Beeghley, 2004 |
| Class |
Occupation and
Compensation |
Education |
Class |
Occupation and
Compensation |
Education |
Class |
Occupation and
Compensation |
Education |
| Capitalist class (1%) |
Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs with incomes in the top 1% |
Ivy League common |
Upper class 1% |
Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common |
Ivy league common |
The super-rich (0.9%) |
The top 0.9%, multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,0000; includes celebrities and powerful
executives/politicians |
Ivy League common |
| The Rich (5%) |
Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity |
College degree |
| Upper middle class1 (15%) |
Highly educated, most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy |
Graduate
degrees
common |
Upper middle class1 (15%) |
Highly educated professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above
$100,000 |
Graduate degrees common |
Middle class (plurality/majority?; ca. 46%) |
College educated workers with incomes considerably above-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000
and a woman making $40,000 may be typical |
College degree |
| Lower middle class (30%) |
Semi-professionals and craftsman with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white
collar. |
Some college
Bachelor's |
Lower middle class (32%) |
Semi-professionals and craftsman with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000 |
Some college |
| Working class (30%) |
Clerical and most blue collar workers whose work is highly routinzed. Standard of living varies depending on number of income
earners, but is commonly just adequate. |
High school |
Working class (32%) |
Clerical, pink and blue collar workers with often low job security; common household incomes range from $16,000 to
$30,000 |
High school |
Working class
(ca. 40% - 45%) |
Blue collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman
making $26,000 may be typical |
High school |
| Working poor (13%) |
Service, low-rung clerical and some blue collar workers. High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. |
Some high
school |
Lower class (ca. 14% - 20%) |
Those who occupy poorly paid positions or rely on government transfers. |
Some high school |
"The Poor" (ca. 12% |
Those who live below the poverty line with limited to no particiaption in the labor force; a household income of
$18,000 may be typical |
Some high school |
| Underclass (12%) |
Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. |
Some high
school |
References: Gilbert, D. (2002) The American Class Structure: In An Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth; Thompson, W. & Hickey, J. (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon; Beehgley,
L. (2004). The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
1The upper middle class may also be referred to as "Professional class" Ehrenreich, B. (1989). The Inner
Life of the Middle Class. NY, NY: Harper-Colins. |
William Lloyd Warner
An early example of a stratum class model was developed by the sociologist William Lloyd
Warner in his 1949 book, Social Class in America. For many decades, the Warnerian
theory was dominant in U.S. sociological theory.
Based on social anthropology, Warner divided Americans into three classes (upper,
middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and "lower" segment, with the following postulates:
- Upper-upper class. "Old money." People who have been born into and raised with wealth; mostly consists of old "noble"
or prestigious families (e.g., Earl of Shrewsbury, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller).
- Lower-upper class. "New money." Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes (e.g., entrepreneurs,
movie stars, as well as some prominent professionals).
- Upper-middle class. Professionals with a college education (e.g., doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, professors,
and corporate executives).
- Lower-middle class. Lower-paid white collar workers, but not manual laborers (e.g., police officers, school-teachers,
non-management office workers, small business owners).
- Upper-lower class. Blue-collar workers and manual labourers. Also known as the "working class."
- Lower-lower class. The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the "working poor."
To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the actual amount of money an individual made. For
example, the richest people in America would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them created their own fortunes; one
can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of the wealthy upper-upper class tend to be more powerful, as a
simple survey of U.S. presidents may demonstrate (i.e., the Roosevelts;
Kennedys; Bushes).
Another observation: members of the upper-lower class might make more money than members of the lower-middle class (i.e., a
well-salaried factory worker vs. a secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work they perform.
In his research, findings, Warner observed that American social class was largely based on these shared attitudes. For
example, he noted that the lower-middle class tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little separated them
from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a relatively small section of the population, usually "set the standard"
for proper American behavior, as reflected in the mass media.
Professionals with salaries and educational attainment higher than those found near the middle of the income strata (e.g.
bottom rung professors, managerial office workers, architects) may also be considered as being true middle class.
Coleman and Rainwater
In 1978 sociologists Coleman and Rainwater conceived the "Metropolitan Class Structure" consisting of three social classes,
each with a number sub-classes.
- Upper Americans
- Upper-upper class; (ca. 1%) Old money stemming from inherited wealth. Persons in this class typically have an "Ivy
league college degree." Their household income in 1978 was over $60,000 ($183,000 in 2005 dollars)
- Lower-upper class; (ca. 1%) This is the "Success elite" consisting of "Top professionals [and] senior corporate
executives." People in this class have degrees from "Good colleges." Their household income was also commonly in excess of
$60,000 ($183,000 in 2005 dollars).
- Upper-middle class; (ca. 19%) Also called the "Professional and Managerial" class, it consists of "Middle
professionals and managers" with a college and often graduate degrees. Household incomes for this group lay between $20,000
($60,000 in 2005 dollars) and $60,000 ($183,000 in 2005 dollars)
- Middle Americans
- Middle-class; (ca. 31%) This class consists of "Lower-level managers; small-business owners; lower-status
professionals (pharmacists, teachers); sales and clerical" workers. Middle class persons had a high school and some college
education. Their household incomes commonly ranged between $10,000 and $20,000 ($30,000 - $60,000 in 2005 dollars)
- Working class; (ca. 35%) This class consists of "Higher blue collar (craftsman, truck drivers); lowest-paid sales and
clerical" workers. Younger individuals in 1978 who were members of this class had a high school education. Their household income
lay in between $7,500 and $15,000 ($23,000 - $45,000 in 2005 dollars)
- Lower Americans (ca. 13%)
- Semipoor; This class had a partial high school education and consisted of "Unskilled labor and service" workers with
household incomes ranging from $4,500 to $6,000 ($14,000 - $18,000 in 2005 dollars)
- The bottom; Those who are "Often unemployed" or rely on welfare payments. These individuals typically lack a high
school education and had household incomes of less than $4,500 ($14,000 in 2005 dollars)
Thompson & Hickey
The Thompson & Hickey model found in their 2005 book,
Society in Focus.
In their 2005 scoiology textbook, Society in Focus, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey present a five
class model in which the middle class is divided into two sections and the term working class is applied to clerical and pink
collar workers. Their class system goes as follows:[6]
- Upper class, (ca. 1%-5%) individuals with considerable power over the nation's economic and political institutions.
This group owns a disproportionate share of the nation's resources. The top 1% had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having household incomes exceeding $140,000. This group features strong group solidarity
and is largely consitituted by the heirs to multi-generational fortunes. Prominent government officials, CEOs and successful
entrepreneurs are among the upper class even if not of elite background.[6]
- Upper middle class, (ca. 15%) white collar professionals with advanced post-secondary education such as physicians, professors, lawyers,
corporate executives, and other management. While households commonly have six
figure incomes in this group, the majority of income earners do not. Only 6% of persons had six figure incomes while 15%
were upper middle class. While high educational attainment
commonly serves as the staple mark of this group, entrepreneurs and business owners may also be upper middle class even if
lacking advanced educational attainment.[6]
- Lower middle class, (ca. 33%) individuals who worked their way through college and commonly have a Bachelor's degree
or some college education. School teachers, sales-employees
and lower to mid level supervisors rank among those in this particular group. Household income is generally in the range of $30,000 to $75,000. Workers in this
group are mostly white collar but have less autonomy in their work than do upper middle class professionals. Members of this
class often attempt to emulate those in the two higher classes and have recently become overly indebted by their desire to have a
comfortable lifestyle.[6]
- Working class, (ca. 30%) individuals who occupy both blue and white collar occupations. Pink collar workers in
predominantely female clerical positions are common in this class. Job security tends to be low for this group and unemployment
as well as losing health insurance remain potent economic threats. Household incomes typically range from $16,000 to $30,000.[6]
- Lower class, repeated cycles of unemployment, working multiple low-level part-time jobs are common among this group.
Many families fall below the poverty line from time to time when employment
opportunities are scarce.[6]
![Class in the US, featuring occupational descriptions by Thompson & Hickey as well as US Census Bureau data pertaining to personal income and educational attainment for those age 25 or older.[6][<a href=](http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/00/350px-Class_US.png)
Census
Bureau, personal income distribution, age 25+, 2006|[11]]<a href=
"#wp-_note-US_Census_Bureau_report_on_educational_attainment_in_the_United_States.2C_2003">[4]" width="350" height="350"
/>
