Take a class, get some status

and join a party.

Max Weber laid out his concept of the relationship between class, status and party in his book Economy and Society. Weber addresses several different areas of interest w/in his conception of societal structure.

He begins by talking about “Economically Determined Power and the Status order” (Farganis, 136). He says, “the structure of every legal order directly influences the distribution of power, economic or otherwise, within its respective community” (Farganis, 136). He then references how many societies are organized according the ownership of property or lack there of. With the end result being that those who own property are in a higher status group, to be addressed later.

Weber goes on to explain what he calls the “Determination of Class Situation by Market Situation”(Farganis, 137). He makes a point of mentioning that “classes are not communities; they merely represent possible, and frequent, bases for social action” (Farganis, 137) He then states that the manner in which property is distributed among people determines there life chances. Weber contends that this predetermination of opportunity according to property is what creates the common bond between men. Those that have property bond with like people and those w/o property bond with like people, thus establishing their “class situation”.

Anytime people unite around a central sociological similarity there exists the opportunity for social action, what Weber referred to as “Social Action Flowing from Class Interest”(Farganis, 138). An example of what Weber is talking about would be if the workers, via the common interest in higher wages, all walked off the job to force the owners hand. The workers united behind the class interest of a higher wage and participated in a social action, the walk out. The previous example is the most common type of social action but not the only one.

In a rather opaque discussion of what Weber calls “Types of Class Struggle” (Farganis, 139) the topic is raised of social actions existing within the larger context of class struggles. While a social action can be a singular event a class struggle is a compilation of social actions by a class. He expressed that these social actions may run the gamut of social actions but are all related to the struggle between one class and another.

To further complicate things Weber introduce “Status Honor”(Farganis, 140). He termed status situation as being “every typical component of the life of men that is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation of honor”(Farganis, 140). He further elaborates that “both propertied and property less people can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences”(Farganis, 140) although the lower of the two might be overtly reminded of their status.

As the status group progresses Weber asserts that strict segregation between the status groups evolves into “Ethnic Segregation and Castes”(Farganis, 141) Weber claims that the distinction between classes becomes “guaranteed not merely by laws, but also by religious sanctions”(Farganis, 141). He claims this development of the caste system establishes clear lines and boundaries between the haves and the have-nots.

To further distinguish themselves from the lower classes Weber claims that these Castes utilize techniques of subordination and discrimination by which only those of certain castes are allowed to do certain desirable things. He refers to these as “status Privileges”(Farganis, 143)

Weber then moves on to discuss “Economic Conditions and Effects of Status Stratification”(Farganis, 143). Weber says that “classes are stratified according to their relations to the production and acquisition of goods; whereas status groups are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special styles of life”(Farganis, 144).

In the end he speaks of parties and their position in and affect on society. According to Weber parties can exist w/in any sphere of power, social or class. The primary concern of parties is to garner power of social actions. Parties will use a variety of means to obtain and maintain their power. So what then does all of this intellectual exploration mean as applied to modern life?

As has been so meticulously illustrated by Weber the influence of wealth, defined by amount of property owned, is the driving force behind society. Most legal systems found in the world today are created with the primary purpose of protecting the property of citizens, be it real property or personal. With the foundation of society, the law, being based on property it follows that all other aspects of society would be directly related to property.

The societal position that one holds is often relative to the size of ones bank account, no matter how shallow it is the sad truth. Much of what people do in “social action” concerns increasing their social positioning. When people find they have similar desires for increased wealth and property ownership they will band together and seek alternative means to obtain the desired social position, legally or illegally.

In order to demonstrate their social position people will display certain items that demonstrate their social position. A rich person driving a fancy car that takes them the same place as my average one or buying a Rolex that keeps time as well as my Timex. These things serve to exhibit their social position via material items, their ability to posses certain things that everyone can’t have, signs of their status privilege. This leads to further division among the people. It isn’t often that you see a young black man from South Central driving his “hoopty” to Beverly Hills to pick up little Lindsey for a date. This is an exaggerated example of ethnic segregation and the existence of a modern caste system. In order to protect what they do have, and to get more, people form into political parties. These parties, often times political in nature, serve to try and garner as much social power as possible for their members and to keep social power from their competitors.

While money isn’t everything it is a lot. Sadly, often times society measures a persons worth by their income. With this knowledge it is important that we make a concerted effort to recognize and value people for the person they are and not the money they make. Perhaps when societal position is based on societal contribution and not monetary compensation we can attain societal unification.