The First Look at the Current Social Class Theories – Social Class Conflict and Mobility

Firstly in my earlier post, I talked about Marx’s view on society–he thinks that an industrialized society is divided simply by two. The Bourgeoisie/Capitalists and the Proletariat/Workers. And added the undefined Inconsequential Others (Those who do not take part in production, beggars etc.).

He harshly stresses that the conflict between capitalists and workers is the power engine of modern society, workers are constantly on the side of disadvantages, thus revolution is the key to overthrow this module of society. Although, this is the view of Marxism itself, but hardly Marx his own. We can say that the books and manuscripts have borne, characterized by revolution–a radical and violent provocation to turn tides in the battle of two, Communism.

After studied Adam Smith and the others’ views on economy, Marx firmly believes that the Workers is the meat shield of economy bust and would thus continue to be, the winner ends up always the Capitalists.

However, due to his incomplete and rather cynical and illogical belief on society, the module is not useful to actually study a society. Later, came the Weber module.

A module that is refined by the successors as this:weber social classA module that is factored by three main factors: Education, Occupation and Income. Respectively, Power, Prestige and Wealth, the so-called three pillars of social life. Which, to my interpretation, means Power, Influence and Money.

However, this module is heavily focused on the income, thus using it to study all sorts of subsequent studies.

The view, of current sociologists, is rather cynic and entitled to their own. Sociologists think that this ladder is indivisible and undeniable, the more I read in the Essential of Sociology, the more I find the views of sociologists are canned.

They are too entitled to the theories they have created, unaware of the theories are born from the reality, the society itself. Too much absorbed into the framework they created for their own, the thoughts are trailing through the frame at last.

As Marx and Weber pointed out, social class penetrates our consciousness, shaping our ideas of life and our “proper” place in society. When the rich look at the world around them, they sense superiority and anticipate control over their own destiny. When the poor look around them, they are more likely to sense defeat and to anticipate that unpredictable forces will batter their lives. Both rich and poor know the dominant ideology, that their particular niche in life is due to their own efforts, that the reasons for success—or failure—lie solely with the self. Like fish that don’t notice the water, people tend not to perceive the effects of social class on their own lives.

            –Essential of Sociology

This almost pessimistic and overthinking opinion is something that the modern sociology is working for. These rungs on ladder, the social classes, are nothing more than some imaginary lines drawn between men and men.

They adopted the ideas first, therefore are so convinced that “social class” affects people’s life. However, it’s not the social class is affecting people’s life, it’s people that are affecting people’s lives. This artificial concept isn’t really there, otherwise we would be facing a stagnant society that doesn’t change at all. Locking yourself into the concept is such as this.

In general, the social class is an imaginary framework that serves to separate population into some social groups to better understand them, but it should not be the measurement to determine whether the impact comes from a specific social class. Because social classes are manifestations, not causations.


We are striving for a meritocracy society that is built on everyone can work their ways up and the only defining tools of success are abilities, skills and intelligence.

If we overthink the problems coming not from inside, but outside, this thing wouldn’t change a lot.

That’s some heavy cynic mindset there. The mindset that blames the society, however, you, we, are the society. 

An open society provides mobility for people to go up and down the social ladder. And till this day, the lines between each social class is blurrier and blurrier. The defining tool of social class is still heavily focused on the so-called income, wealth, by which wouldn’t spark many things for the society to push forward.

The book states there isn’t inter-class conflicts between class and class, each class should consider themselves being in one class not the upper one, nor the lower one. This is some other level pessimism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.