Misreading status as class: A reply to our critics

Theory and Society

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 731-736

  Pakulski, Jan ^a   Waters, Malcolm ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21444449636     PISSN: 03042421     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00188105     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. N. Poulantzas, Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (London: Verso, 1974);
2. R. Miliband, Marxism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977),
3. Divided Societies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989);
4. E. Wright, Classes (London: Verso, 1989);
5. G. Marshall et al. Social Class in Modern Britain (London: Hutchinson, 1988).
6. Class analysis, they argue, does not need to assume the centrality, fundamental nature, or causal primacy of economic class. Unfortunately, they never define what class analysis does mean to them, and their vague statements raise the specter of "conceptual stretch," e.g., "PW appear to wish to claim that sociological analysis is a zero-sum game. An analyst invoking class, in their formulation, is necessarily abandoning the prospects of analyzing other types of social cleavages." The clear misinterpretation of our statements aside, this seems to suggest that class analysis is synonymous with a sociological analysis that merely invokes class. This is incompatible with the normal meaning of class analysis and with what it should mean for the purposes of this debate.
7. This distinction is recognized by Wright elsewhere (Classes, 107-108). However, his portrayal of Weberian theory as "culturalist" (vs. materialist) is problematic.
8. M. Weber, Economy and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 938.
9. H. Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society (London: Routledge, 1989).
10. Ancient China, India, and pre-modern European societies were "status societies." The dominant strata in such societies, the Mandarins, the Brahmins, and the European aristocracies and nobilities, were status groups. Politics in such societies was predominantly status politics; the major conflicts were either conflicts between status groups or between status and class orders. For Weber's definition of status, see Economy and Society, 305-306, see also 926-935.
11. Even in modern Western societies, which, as Weber acknowledges, tend to be "class societies," modern bureaucracies generate salient status divisions, and the state is capable of independent structuring of social and political relations. The state can shape classes (e.g., through a redistribution of property) and status orders, and it can generate social and political divisions independent of both. Such configurations cannot be explained and analyzed easily with the class model.
12. The Weberian analytic scheme originated from a critical refutation of Marxism, especially Marxist class theory. This is illustrated well in Weber's analyses of contemporary German politics (e.g., Economy and Society, 1381-1462), which leave no doubts as to the multdimensionality of his vision. By contrast, Marx's analyses of French and German politics (
13. Karl Marx: Selected Writings, editor, D. McLellen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977) 300-326 leave no doubt as to the centrality of class (including class sections, factions, etc.) in his analytic scheme.
14. For a relatively complete analysis, see J. Pakulski and M. Waters, The Death of Class (London: Sage, 1996).
15. Manza and Brooks analyze only U.S. data. Both here, and in Death of Class, we stress the unique features of American society, including the traditional weakness of class vis-à-vis racial, religious, and ethnic divisions, and the absence of class-oriented political parties. Historical trends in the United States are therefore likely to be less apparent.