Talk:Social class/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Social class in Britain

The definition of the various classes in Britain verges on the bizzare - there appears to be a rather arbitrary list of professions to go alongside the various class definitions. In fact, as far as class is concerned in Britain, profession plays a rather small part (education is much more pronounced). Most of the confusion seems to set in around the "Middle class" definitions with partitioning that puts accountants and lawyers into different class, despite no evidence of there being an educational or financial distinction between the two. Professions such as the above two and teachers and policemen who have a massive range of classes represented within their ranks (there are even teachers who are Lords) simply get thrown into one class. This is highly mis-representive.

I am going to fix this to be consistent with the other classes listed (i.e. less occupational, and more about the background of the individual). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso Jade (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"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, according to historian Gwyn Alf Williams in his book When Was Wales, has been a country which thinks of itself as being of a single class, like Czech Republic and Slovakia" - this doesn't seem right to me, even if it was true pre-19th C. Surely there is a clear class structure in Wales today, this seems to suggest that all Welsh people consider themselves of the same class. 81.103.165.201 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference to capitalist and pre-capitalist society is Marxist, and accordingly both POV and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Social class in animals

in most similar discussion on wiki, it is normal to cite other forms of social class. see language which links to animal languages. Thus it is not out of context, it can exist as a sub in this section., and it is not original reserach u can add ref tags if you need but dont delete this contribution, discuss here--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference [1] which you use specifically states "These results suggest that baboon lipsmacking provides positive social communication independently of social status.". From wikipedia, what you have added was "Social class and stratification can be seen among many social animals in nature such as baboons..." so you cite a paper that says that lipsmacking is a communication mechanism independant of social status and yet state that social class can be seen in baboons ?. The paper doesn't support what you say !. The Cambridge paper is refering to the rise of "Pet keeping". They present that pet keeping is associated with certain groups of people in society (e.g. women); this doesn't support a heirachy in which animals fit within themselves. This cite again does not support what you say. I really really really (did I mention really enough ?) do not see what you want to say here without being more blunt on this. Ttiotsw 12:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying social class exist in animals (excluding us from the def for the minute). In language and other articles it is normal to cite other forms of language , other forms of speech, etc, so why is it a problem to list as a small sub section class systems in animals. Sorry about the bad refernces, It was because you pressured me and i rushed and coulnt find the correct stuff.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats OK but the issue is that you mentioned certain animals without citing who said this. Almost certainly from what I've seen, animals such as baboons do have complex family structures but I wouldn't add that to this particular wikipedia article - as it to date seems to focus on human social structures - without very good cites (and ideally start another article on this subject). I did not rush you; Wikipedia has no version 1.0 to hit; you entered specific data without citation; I reverted on that basis. Ttiotsw 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisting the subject I still feel it is not relevant for this article "Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups in societies or cultures" and throughout rfers to humans. I still plan to delete this new section. Please start a new article on the subject if the existing articles of say Comparative psychology or Animal communication do not apply and place a link at the top e.g. For social class in animals see...... Ttiotsw 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to agree this article pertains to social class among human societies. While I don't doubt that there may some sort of social stratification (I'm not sure whether or not the word "social" is applicable here) exsists among animals, that should be mentioned in another article. Besides I doubt that "social class" is really the terms that should be used in regards to animals. We wouldn't add ant colonies to the article pertaining to the colonization of the North American continent, now would we. Stratification among animals should definitely be mentioned on WP, but not on this particular article. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't add ant colonies to the article pertaining to the colonization of the North American continent that is a good point--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to delete the social class stuff pertaining to animals. This article is about humans and human society only. I feel that existing articles or Comparative psychology or Animal communication are more relevant and extensive. Ttiotsw 10:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. Signature^brendel 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Income?

One thing that drives me crazy in some sections of this article is people simply talking about income. Just can't just say "Income." What type of income? Household? Personal? Per capita? Median? Mean? In the Academic models section under the Dennis Gilbert model, it was stated that the upper middle class constitutes 14% of the population and has an average income of $120,000. Is that personal income or household income. Well, I'm guessing it's household income as the top 15% of income earners made $62,500+ while the top 15% of households had incomes in excess of $100,000. If it is indeed household income than we're not talking about 14% of the population (300 million) but the 14% of households (114 million). So please state the type of income. Remember that 42% of households have two or more income earners, 76% of those in the top quintile, so the difference between households and personal income is huge! Happy '07, Signature^brendel 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Indian caste system content.

Can someone expert comment on the changes [2] made by an IP address [3], . I have reverted another one they did but can't really comment on the nature of these particular changes. It is a pity that Wikipedia (the software) doesn't have a meta-tagging of changes e.g. some sort of "flag changes for expert in 'x'" and then have the recent changes queue be filtered by this. Ttiotsw 13:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and sexual orientation

Currently in article - "Also a minority sexual orientation and, to a far lesser degree, minority ethnicity have often been faked, hidden, or discreetly ignored if the person in question otherwise attained the requirements to be high class."

I disagree with this statement on a few levels

1. I don't know of any Western countries where sexual orientation has anything whatsoever to do with class. In Europe and North America, you do not get banished to another class by coming out. outside of Europe, I think the argument can be made that in a lot of countries, not being straight mighe cause you to be excluded from society altogether and I suppose an argument can be made that one would then be removed from the social class system. I can't think of any country where you, say, move from upper to middle class because of your sexual orientation. It baffles me what this paragraph is doing in this article. 2. Saying that in some situations someones' race is "ignored" in order to attain the requirements of high class because that person has the other attributes is not quite right, if we are looking at the Western world. Let us take the post-1960's United States and African-Americans as an easily recognisable and debatable case (I note that historically there would have been barriers in the US in particular due to openly racist rules, also South Africa but it is of interest that such rules were never prevalent in Europe_. I think we can all agree that most African-Americans today are not considered to be upper-middle or upper-class, and perhaps most are even considered lower class. The sentence in the article currently seems to suggest that, therefore, being black is generally a barrier to being of those higher classes though sometimes society is willing to discreetly ignore the black person's race if he or she fulfills all other criteria. I think this is the wrong way of thinking about it. I think explicitly class and race in the West have almost nothing to do with each other. There is certainly a direct proportionality to the two scales but this is due to other factors. Essentially I am saying that the reason there are so few African-Americans of upper-middle and upper classes in the US is not at all because of their race itself but rather because very few fulfill the necessary criteria to be considered of a higher class. However, if an African-American does fulfill the criteria, then they would immediately be considered of such class with not a second thought of their race. This has nothing to do with discreetly ignoring their race; it is simply not an issue. How many people would disagree with the fictional "Banks" family from the show Fresh Prince of Bel Air not to be upper middle class because of their race? Europe is certaily even less racially split, class-wise; the top Indian castes have always been treated virtually as British aristocracy are in the UK, for centuries, part-black author Alexandre Dumas was treated as the French Elite, as was Pushkin in Russia and even his fully black grandfather Gannibal.--Zoso Jade 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to this I have changed the article to reflect the following, which I am sure will be backed up by most anthropologists (please note that I am only sure of my comments in the context of Western society, and am willing to accept challenges based on other societies).

• I have removed all reference to sexual orientation. The earlier writer(s) of this section seemed to be a bit confused about the distinction between prejudice and classism. Thinking lower of someone for their sexual orientation is not the same as demoting them a class. How someone would be considered lower class because they were, say, gay is a strange notion to me. This reached its most ridiculous when the writer claimed that one could "improve their class position" in ancient Greece by having sexual relations with people of the same sex. Yes, the ancient Greek upper class men had sex with other men and boys, but this was not specifcally in an attempt to be upwardly mobile.
• On race, I have cleaned up the author(s) clear confusion of racism with classism. While the two may be interlinked they are not the same. To say that just because a country such as the US has a history of racism then people of certain races are banished to certain classes shows a misunderstanding of what class means. I'm sure few would consider Eminem to be upper class just because he is white, and I even fewer would consider Condoleezza Rice lower class simply because she is black.
• I have noted however, that in many countries, such as Japan apparently, class is indeed explicitly linked to race. I have edited the article so that this is talked about in context, so that it is clear that this is related to certain societies, and not a broad, sweeping definition of class

I welcome discussion--Zoso Jade 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Li Yi book seems okay

The book by Li Yi seems fine for use in this article, see the amazon link. Just becuase the author him/her-self added it is no reason to exclude the book from the article. There is a policy against self-advertising but such does not seem to be the case here. As added the book actually helps explain socio-economic stratification in China. It is a legit academic book sold on amazon written by what I assume to be a sociologist ([see http://www.oycf.org/Retreats/2006.htm]). Just don't put in the ISBN number, as we don't mention it for any other of the featured books. Signature^brendel 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually ISBN is ok on Wikipedia (see WP:ISBN and such - it is very useful for library refs). That said, having one's book sold on Amazon is not enough for it to be used on Wikipedia (per WP:ATT and WP:RS). Until academic reviews proving notability of Li Yi works can be provided, it does not belong here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the book isn't self-published-so I'm suprised that there arn't any reviews yet. Are you sure there arn't any? PS: I know ISBN mentions are OK, but we don't do it for any other books in this article-so we shouldn't do it for this one either to keep some unity in the article. Signature^brendel 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We should try to get ISBN for other books, not censor the only good ISBN reference we have :) Assuming we keep it. As for the lack of reviews, here's a theory: the author herself claims above its a textbook. Textbooks don't get many reviews, usually...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that that part of the problem, apart from the self-promotion, is that it is being included under its own section named after the author, who does not appear to have achieved enough notability as a (discussed) theorist in the field. The book seems to be a suitable reference however. As long as this page is structured the way it is, the more appropriate place would be under a section for social class in China, and not under a section named after the author. I also think the graphics are far too big, and dare I say it, crude. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I downsized the graphics and re-named the section. The book does seem a suitable reference to me. Signature^brendel 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if wiki notability is being used correctly in this discussion: "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources and trivia [emphasis mine]."[4] The question is not whether or not the book is notable, it's whether or not it's a reliable source. If every source used on wikipedia had to meet notability criteria (i.e., had to have multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources on it), wikipedia would be very small indeed. Jordansc 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw the contemporary context of this discussion, but Yi Li had a separate section alongside Karl Marx and Max Weber. While a complete article on Yi Li would be dubious according to the notability guidelines, a complete section outlining the rather unknown Yi Li social class model is equally dubious. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article review

While we are at it, this article needs a copyedit. Quick notes:

• lead: inadequate per WP:LEAD. Solution: expand preferably by using material from 'Dimensions...' below
• unreferenced sections: 'Dimensions of social class', 'The relevance of social class today', 'Problems with the models'. Solution: merge the last two into 'Controversies', and use 'Dimensions...' which look like an 'overview' section to expand lead. Note that it's not comprehensive anyway (for example, term 'Middle Class' is not mentioned till that section)
• 'The Middle Class' section stands alone without much logic to it - why the article doesn't discuss higher class or lower class? Suggest moving entire section to middle class
• 'Historical models' - needs some renaming ('Development'?), the title is confusing and the section discusses both countries and theories (Marx, Weber) without any distinction. The section should discuss history of social classes in various countries, amd Marx and Weber should be split to the next section
• 'Academic models' - rename to models (are there any non-academic). Drop country division: while 'William Lloyd Warner' and 'Gilbert & Kahl' discuss American social class, there is no indication the other two are also limited. Consider creating subsections for local and global approaches
• 'See also' - gigantic, preferable size is none at all (per WP:GTL). Delete duplicates used in main body, incorporate or get rid of rest.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with just about all those points, especially a re-do of the lead section. FYI: Thompson and Hickey are limited to the US. I actually think we should only divide this article by society and put the academic models in the country sections. Signature^brendel 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article needs a complete re-organisation. I think we should have less divisions by country. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Less? Why?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no denying that Marxist and Weberian approaches are notable enough to be separate. Which does gives us a different type of section. On the other hand, putting the current four (or five) relativly unknown names next to those two giants would be kind of... blasphemous :) Since a closer look indeed implies all four models are US related, yes, let's merge them there. But I think we need both country and theory division, depending on the focus of the theories (and some may be mentioned in both sections. That said, I need to brush up my social class knowledge - everything here looks more or less Marxist to me (with Weber being an exception :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why less country divisions? I could say, for the same reasons that Marxism considered itself fundamentally international by nature, and for the same reason that postmodern theorists are also interested in globalisation. There are meta issues. I'm not saying there should be no country differences mentioned, but that this article needs some coherence to stick it all together. I think that agrees with what you said above, which are the bigger issues with this article. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we first need to settle on some sort of outline. I still propose having national divisions as so much research we feature here pertains to nations/societies; yes, many schools of thought do have a global point of view but much of the available research is still nation-specific. I will merge the Gilbert, Thompson & Hickey and Werner models soon. Signature^brendel 05:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Models

The Problems with the Models section includes weasel words ("Some would argue," "Some youth activists") & lacks citation. I'm also not sure if the content addresses the issue of social class: the wiki article suggests that class has to do with hierarchy yet the "problems with the models" section talks about "quality of life." It's entirely possible to be powerless, happy, and free. So, who's voiced these problems and what concept of class are they responding to? 24.164.77.105 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"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."

this a bizarre understanding of Marx's ideas - I think Marx explicitly attacks ideas like this in Critique of the Gotha Programme - I should delete this sentance 84.68.230.162 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (gcm)

Class not universal

There are problems with a few statements at the beginning of this article:

1. "Anthropologists, historians and sociologists identify class as universal..."
2. "In the simplest societies, power is closely linked to the ability to assert one's status through physical strength..."
3. "As societies expand and become more complex, economic power replaces physical power as the defender of the class status quo..."

If these claims are true, direct references should be provided. I can't speak for historians or sociologists, but many anthropologists would argue that class is not universal, and that the "simplest" societies do not determine status or class relationships through physical power. Such societies are referred to as non-stratified societies or acephalous societies. Certain status relationships may exist in these cultures in terms of personal relationships between individuals, but not in terms of broad social classes or political & economic hierarchies.--Pariah 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

True, these "simple" societies do not have complex class systems, though they do usually have a "leader" - who in some cases has asserted his position through the use of physical strenght. In regards to these societies it isn't common to speak of classes. Social class, however, is universal to complex societies, where numerous individuals occupy a wide array of vastly different occupations. Perhaps the intro could be fixed by adding that class is identified as a feature of complex societies. Signature^brendel 04:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, simple societies (at least those mentioned in the above link) tend not to have leaders at all and lack the concept of leadership or obedience. There is no individual or clique of individuals that makes binding decisions for the group. But I believe you are right in that state level cultures usually do seem to have economic classes, leaders, and status hierarchies. The intro should be qualified to complex cultures, with references. However, I think it is important to broaden our thinking by making the point that classes are not universal to all cultures when simple societies are included.--Pariah 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edit tag

Removed this tag (from February), as the article seems ok. Please specify if a particular section wants checking, and we'll be back to help. thisisace 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Class interest vs. Social class

Although related, theses are not identical. The former is better know, as it was and is a widely used expression. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hunter-gatherers and classless societies

Dear Sunray,

I understand your objection to including the following statement in the article:

Most societies, particularly nation states, seem to have some notion of social class. However, most Hunter-gatherer societies have no notion of class at all.

Both claims--1.) that most societies have classes, and 2.) that most (MOST--not all) hunter-gatherer societies do not have classes--are unsourced. The work of anthropologists Richard Borshay Lee, David H. Turner and others make it clear that hunter-gatherers are in general without notions of social class hierarchies, but I do not presently have access to a specific statement to that effect, and I understand that this is not ideal for Wikipedia.

However, the opening paragraphs of the article contain several unsourced claims regarding the supposed universality of social class and social classes as they may or may not exist in non-state societies. If you are certain you wish the hunter gatherer statement be removed, I propose that these other statements are removed also. Failing that, we should keep the lede as is, but add an original research or NPOV warning tag until proper references can be added. Please let me know your thoughts on this.---- Pariah (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that many hunter-gatherer societies apparently do have class systems. For example, many of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest had slaves as well as other distinctions based on both occupations in the long house and on family rights to certain resources. Moreover, even in less complex nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures there were apparent class distinctions (e.g. the difference between hunters and gatherers). Thus I don't think that it is correct to say that "most hunter-gatherer societies do not have classes." So I guess you could say that I am challenging the statement.

According to WP:V there is a burden of evidence when statements are challenged::

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

It seems clear to me that if someone wants to restore that statement to the article, s/he will need a citation. I believe that is the only way to build a credible encyclopedia. Sunray (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sunray; I understand your concerns and am currently engaged in the process of finding proper sources. At the moment, I can give you an Anthropology tutorials site at Palomar College in California (http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/cglossary.htm#sectA). Under Acephalous Society, Dr. Dennis O'Neil writes:

A society in which political power is diffused to the degree that there are no institutionalized political leadership roles such as chiefs and kings. Bands and tribes are acephalous. Most foragers and simple horticulturalists have highly egalitarian, acephalous societies. The word "acephalous" is Greek for "without a head."

According to the same glossary, "forager" is synonymous with hunter-gatherer. It is also true that the !Kung San and many Australian Aborigines are entirely classless. That notwithstanding, I am not disputing that some hunter-gatherers do indeed have classes.

I will continue the search for more and better sources, and will re-add the statement when they are found. In the meantime, I hope you will consider letting me add the statement that some hunter-gatherers have no notion of class; but I will not add it until I hear your thoughts about this.

Also, I am still concerned about several statements made in the article. My original purpose in adding the hunter-gatherer reference was to show that class was not universal (see above, "Class not universal"), as the article contained several unsourced statements indicating that all cultures have classes. I have done my best to qualify them, but I am still not convinced of the factualness of some of the statements in the intro, and the opening sentence in the section on 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." I added the word "recorded" to qualify this claim, but it is still unsourced. Clearly, this article needs a lot of work.--Pariah (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

many Australian Aborigines are entirely classless.

I think you mean 'were'. And even so, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with this claim. Certainly they did't have the same level of class structure as many societies, but they had recognised leaders, both male and female, and wise men (magicians if you like) and artisans (definetly tool makers, probably midwives), as well as division by age (children, adults, elders) and by gender. That doesn't constitute class as we know it, but neither is it "entirely classless". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a level of specialization which simply does not exist in many aboriginal cultures (or did not, prior to European colonization, and in some places still does not). The Warnindilyagwa, for example, have no specialized wisemen--all men and women are trained in spiritual practices, and they have no permanent leaders. There's always at least a few differences in any culture between age groups and gender roles, but that does not mean they have anything like the dominance hierarchies we define as classes. I think it is fair to say that the societies in question are indeed classless.--Pariah (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with the whole notion of class is the difficulty of comparing societies with very different forms of social organization. There is also a tendency on the part of many in Western counties to romanticize hunter-gatherers. I think that the way to resolve this is to find sources that provide good ethnographic evidence on this subject. We can improve the article considerably by only adding sourced material to it. Sunray (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed. I think we would have to nail down what we mean by class before we could talk intelligently about which societies have it. At the moment the article is more like a collection of concepts of class, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe we should rewrite the introduction to reflect that.

And another thing - take this sentence: Also, because different livelihoods are so closely intertwined in less complex societies, morality often ensures that the old, the young, the weak, and the sick maintain a relatively equal standard of living despite low class is clearly wrong. There is plenty of evidence that in at least some primitive societies there is a very clear pecking order, where those at the top eat well and those at the bottom are considered completely disposable should there not be enough to go around. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it only makes sense to work from a good definition. Having said that, I looked at The HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology and noted that the first definition they give is close to the one currently in the lead:

"the hierarchal distinctions that exist between individuals or groups (for example occupational groups) within a society."

Of course, the entry for class then goes on for four pages, comparing class to social stratification, discussing aspects of class in industrial society (a term we should use, BTW), comparing social mobility in industrial society with other social systems (e.g., caste, estate), and comparing Marxian and Weberian conceptions of class. Perhaps expanding the lead to introduce concepts such as stratification and mobility, might be worthwhile. Sunray (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

deindent One way to go might be to say something like "Class is a way of understanding the similarities and differences between the individuals that make up a society, employed both by academics and the general public. Sometimes, identifiable but fluid social classes of people happen to emerge from circumstances; at other times, class membership is rigid and actively enforced." Regards, Ben Aveling 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I definitely agree that only sourced statements should be added to the article; that has been a problem on both sides of the classed / classless societies debate in the article. It must remain balanced, whatever we do. It's fair to say that sometimes hunter-gatherers are romanticized and that must be avoided, but it is also true that a sort of Hobbesian mythology predominates, leading many Westerners to believe that such dominance hierarchies reflect some kind of universal natural order. That must be avoided also. So, I think it's important to note that many societies have radically different structures and than our own, and while some enforce rigid pecking orders, others actively work to prevent any sort of pecking order from developing. Cheers, --Pariah (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Ben's definitional statement. It is written in plain English—always to be sought after in my book. I think we should add it to the lead. I also cannot disagree with Pariah's comments. Hobbesian mythology indeed! That discussion might make a nice section. Do you have any references we could cite? Sunray (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. As for sources--I do have a source for a society that avoids hierarchy: Lee, Richard B. (1976), Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Unfortunately, I don't have a source for the Hobbesian mythology--it was just sort of a personal observation. I will begin searching.--Pariah (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We could say something like: "While it is generally accepted that most societies have some notion of social class, there is evidence that some hunter-gatherer societies do not have classes with hierarchical relationships."<ref>Lee, Richard B. (1976), ''Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors,'' Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.</ref> Do you have the page number? Also, it might be a good idea to quote from the article (for verification purposes). This could be either be added to the article or in the form of a note. Sunray (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I don't have a page number at the moment, but next time I'm at my library I'll see if I can find it. I should also be getting a new book in a couple of weeks that I'm hoping will have more evidence for the non-hierarchical nature of many hunter-gatherer societies (The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, Richard B. Lee, Richard Daly, eds. Cambridge University Press, 2004), and hopefully another soon after that by David H. Turner regarding Australian Aborigines. I'm still looking for support for the Hobbesian mythology comments.--Pariah (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Ben & Sunray and other interested parties. I've finally got a clear reference stating that class is not universal--specifically, that many hunter-gatherer societies live without social classes. The article is: Gowdy, John (1999) "Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market," in Richard B. Lee and Richard H. Daly (eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, pp. 391-398. New York: Cambridge University Press. Here's some quotes:

1. "Many hunter-gatherer societies have also enjoyed a great amount of personal freedom. Among the !Kung, and the Hadza of Tanzania, for example, there were either no leaders at all, or temporary leaders whose authority was severely constrained. These societies had no social classes and arguably no discrimination based on gender." (p.391)
2. "Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples." (p. 391)
3. "The most important challenges to economic orthodoxy that come from the descriptions of life in hunter-gatherer societies are that... (5) inequality based on class and gender is not a necessary characteristic of human society" (p. 393)
4. "Finally, inequality is not a natural feature of human societies. Immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies were "aggressively egalitarian" (Woodburn 1982). These societies worked because of, not in spite of, the fact that power and authority were kept in check." (p. 394)

I'll continue the search for other references, but this is a reputable publication and I think that we can now add to the article a statement to the effect that class is not universal, particularly in many hunter-gatherer societies. I knew it was in there, but now I can confirm it. Thanks for your patience.--Pariah (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate

I've removed this section here for discussion.

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 benefit themselves. That is good for societies cause its supposed they will 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.

This material is unreferenced, thus original research, and doesn't seem to belong in this article. As an elucidation of corporate hierarchy, it would be better suited to an article that deals with corporate structure. However, if someone has citations, and can make a case for it, let's discuss it. Sunray (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Eat Their Own Poop?

Could someone explain what is meant by this phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Coprophagia appears nowhere in the article, but I think you may be late to Algebra I or PE about now. Rorybowman (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved this down here to put in chrono order with other entries. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do artists belong in the upper middle class?

I was just reviewing the recent edit to the William Lloyd Warner section, where a number of professions were added to the lists under each class. The edit indicates that "artists, writers, poets, and musicians" are in the upper middle class, but is this factual? Granted, there must be a few successful members of those professions in that class, but the vast majority would seem to fall under the "starving artist" category, or have some other profession to supplement their income. Can anyone comment?--Pariah (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this would depend on your definition of an artist. If a person's profession is defined by what they do to earn money, then in order to be an artist you would have to be successful, and therefore not starving. Under this definition a starving artist isn't an artist at all.

Of course such a definition misses the point rather. It could be assumed that a certain level of education is required for a person to become an artist; however since the post-impressionists, there has been a general disdain of formal education as being a necessary prerequisite for being an artist.

Perhaps the easiest way of putting it is that an artist, self-defined or otherwise, is in some sense bourgeoise, which would place them in the middle classes or thereabouts. Caspar esq. (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the judgement of who qualifies as an artist is itself a product of class. To a working class person, artists may seem impractical and therefore bourgeois. To an upper class person, an artist isn't really an artist until he or she is successful or at least educated in it, again defining an artist as bourgeois / upper class. But I think this misses what art has become--in the twenty-first century, an artist can come from any social or educational background, any age group, and any social class. His or her level of success may be irrelevant to what the person spends most of their time doing. So a person might be an artist, writer, or musician when you measure how they spend their time, but be something entirely different based on how they earn their income. I suspect that while some artists may define themselves in the traditional way (i.e. as upper class), many contemporary artists probably define themselves differently--not really fitting into any of the traditionally defined social classes. I don't think Warner's classification holds when considered by what people actually do instead of only what they are paid to do.--Pariah (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Language

In the section, describing a distinction between elaborate code, which is seen as a criterion for "upper-class", and the restricted code, which is associated with "lower classes" -- can someone elaborate further? What is "elaborate code" and what is "restricted code"? Further information about these is found on sociolinguistics and in the entry about Basin Bernstein. Either linking to these pages somehow (can one link to a section within a page?) or adding brief definitions would help clarify. LegalTech (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to start a discussion on class and status as a utility index -as a matter of economic theory i am wondering about interdependent constrained and negotiated class functions or index- agents may just be trying to maximize some thing related to this concept.

Kiche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.55.151 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing permanent semi protection

This article's history indicates it is subject to nearly daily anon's vandalism and that about 90% of anon's contribution is vandalism. Hence, I propose permanent semiprotection.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Social class needs semi-protection just like multiculturalism and racism need protection, for obvious reasons. --Tomsega (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Third. Its a top importance article that badly needs contraction in some areas and expansion in others. Continued instability won't help it actually deserve its current B status. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Social class means ( or at least I think it means) your position on the popularity table. Of course,this might be wishful thinking, since I'm pretty low on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.202.93 (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Social class used to be a matter of law and religion. For example, in France, killing someone of the upper class was punishable by death, killing someone of the lower classes punishable by a fine. There were sumptuary laws which forbid anyone of the lower classes to dress like someone of the upper classes. In New York, in 1900, there was a police line, to prevent anyone of the lower classes from entering the Wall Street district.

Today, class distinctions are blurred, but still present, and the only way to be upper class is to be born upper class. Neveau riche don't count. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

16th to 19th century America as an example of slave-owning society

Hi people, as I know Marxist theory never counted 18/19-th century America as a slave formation. They were usually considered Capitalist or semi-feudal societies.--MathFacts (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As an extraordinary claim, it should be removed unless cited reliably. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

The article said that women and slaves could be legally killed by the head of a household. This is untrue. Even killing of slaves was prohibited by law (and too harsh treatment also). Later codes also prohibited selling non-criminal slaves to gladiator schools. Not to say killing free women. I removed this passage. I also doubt one could legally sell his wife as the article says currently (are there known examples?).--MathFacts (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have specialist knowledge to concur, but this seems to be a non-controversial removal of an extraordinary and uncited claim. (Thanks for checking Social class!) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Does class exist?

I'm not a sociologist so I want the basics from this article, but one basic is missing...how do we know "Class" exists? I mean why not a sliding scale of wealth? E.g. although we use the terms, there is no such class of temperature as "warm" or "hot" or "cold", these are just relative terms. Can someone explain this basic question that I have in the article please? Matthewcgirling (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

this is the sort of topic that is covered in introductory sociology courses. The point is that different classes have different jobs in society, different training & education, and involve different people. Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then can you show, in the article, that "Class" exists please? I'm trying to understand it but the article's not quite coming up with a convincing argument.08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewcgirling (talk • contribs)

History/Etymology

Resolved

I suggest a chapter on the historical development of the term. I can't produce material on this since I came here to find out. However, there must be information on when--at least in general terms--of when it was used first to describe society. It might be nice to read when the various classifiers lived and who influenced whom, and perhaps even pre-history of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.213.241 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone ahead and created this section, with a source. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Large deletions of text

Mesoderm has removed a large amount of text from the article, including some that is sourced. I think there are better ways to approach this. It is a good idea to discuss major changes to the article on the talk page before making large deletions. Sunray (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

An article on social class in general should not contain several lengthy sections about various textbook author's categorizations of classes by income in the United States. It should focus on the theory/history of social class in general and provide a brief overview on class in the U.S. with a link to the article Social class in the United States for more detailed information. The current article is extremely cluttered -- so much so that it is unreadable. It needs to be trimmed and focused on the topic, so that people will actually read it. That is what I was doing. The large majority of the information I removed was unsourced and horribly written. The parts that were sourced simply do not belong in this article (and if written as poorly as they are here, they don't belong on Wikipedia either). Mesoderm (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually it is a good idea to put a note on the talk page before you begin. You have now cut the article in half. In some cases, you may have been too quick to cut. For example, there is now no mention of Warner in the article. While the former section may have been overly long, are you suggesting that the article should not describe Warner's theory and its influence? Often when re-organizing an article it is a good idea to put an outline on the talk page and let other interested editors comment. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative editing project. Sunray (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

why should one instrumentalist stratification methodology achieve especial weight, particularly when it is explicitly culturally limited in scope? This isn't social class in the united states. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the point I was trying to make. Are you suggesting that Warner should not be mentioned? Sunray (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Warner should be covered in Social class in the United States (maybe warranting a sentence or two here). Take a look at any encyclopedia article on class, and note how much weight they give Warner vs. Marx/Weber. This article should provide a broad overview of the concept of social class. Warner is usually either briefly mentioned or not mentioned at all in such overviews, and I suggest we do the same here. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And with that said, I'll point out that the entire section on Warner was horrible, and needed to be scrapped and completely rewritten even if it did warrant so much weight here. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not the quantity but the quality of the text removed that is relevant. However, any finished article will be longer than the one I began editing, so we obviously need to add a lot of quality content to make that happen. I've already started adding sources and content here and there, but I feel it's more productive to focus my initial efforts on trimming off the bad parts and re-organization, and only then focusing heavily on re-writing and addition of content. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am supportive of these edits. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality of text is usually an editing problem and, as I have said, I don't question cutting back much of the material formerly in the article. I certainly wouldn't argue that Warner warrants anything like the weight of Marx or Weber. I'm only suggesting that there needs to be mention of Warner's theory, which was influential in the U.S. Medoderm has said that a sentence or two covering Warner would be appropriate weight. I am in agreement with that. I also appreciate the explanation of editing plans for the article. Sunray (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mesoderm's edit

I usually view large, rapid edits with alarm, but Mesoderm's edit seems to correct many flaws in the article and to be even-handed. I've made a few changes, most involving typos. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are the upper class really called the bourgeoisie. I have always heard that word applied to the middle class, or sometimes to the upper middle class. Here is the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, "bourgeoisie, name given in Europe to the middle class." Websters: "of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class". Merriam-Webster: "bourgeois, citizen of a town, a middle-class person." I would just change it, but I'm not sure what to replace it with, using Marxist terminology. "aristocracy"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked this question as I think that Marxist usage differs somewhat from common English usage and that is potentially confusing. According to our article Bourgeoisie, the term in, pre-revolutionary France, referred to the wealthier members of the third estate (the nobility being the second estate), thus it was akin to "middle class." Marx used the term to mean "owners of the means of production," as opposed to the proletariat, or wage labourers, thus, basically two main classes (though he complicated this by referring to "landowners" as a class, albeit marginal). Here's a note on use of the term "middle class" in Marxian theory:

"The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.

While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry, there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class. Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping..." [5]

Then there is the usage you refer to, which is more common and given as the definition in dictionaries such as Merrian-Webster: "bourgeois, citizen of a town, a middle-class person." Does it not, thus, make sense that we should use the Marxist definition when we are referring to M's theory about class relations and use the dictionary definition otherwise? Sunray (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Sunray. I think we should use the term "bourgeois" only when writing about Marxist theory. Elsewhere, we should use the terms "upper class"/"middle class". ~ Mesoderm (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It would likely be safest, then, to refer to the bourgeoisie, as that is the term used by Marx. "Bourgeois" may lead to confusion with the more general term. Sunray (talk)

I've removed the non-Marxist use of bourgeoisie for "upper-class" and added "the one percent". Do we really need a reference for "blue-collar workers" as a synonym for the working class. It would be easy to provide one, but the usage seems sufficiently common that I don't see the need. Finally (for now) is www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/Reports/MadisonOverview.ppt really an unreliable reference? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think a reference is needed for "blue-collar workers"; I've removed the tag. The MadisonOverview may have been called "unreliable" because it doesn't download/open properly. At least, I couldn't read it. Sunray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 28 January 2012

Working class housing photo

The photo of a supposedly "working class" street in Camden, New Jersey, USA is totally unrepresentative of actual working class housing in the U.S. and should be replaced. The street shown is practically abandoned and only a few of the very poorest people (almost certainly unemployed) live there. The photo gives the impression of having been selected to make the U.S. look bad. While such streets exist in many places in the U.S., few or no low-wage workers live in them; they can easily afford better. I would select a more representative photo but I don't have one. 38.97.115.21 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel

I have substituted "the urban poor" for working class in this image of urban slum neighborhood. It is a quite good image to illustrate an urban slum. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit results in a misleading illustration of United States working class life, which is, in the main, much more prosperous. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This article covers all social class in all time periods. I would defy you to propose that historically the majority of urban and rural workers, and as a subset, the majority of US workers, have not lived in slum housing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Historically, Dreary tract housing was more typical. Keep in mind that in the United States "middle class" means working class. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Skilled workers in the United States make serious money. Wikipedia is NOT RT. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Though the current caption you proposed is perfect, in that it both regards social class, exemplifies the point of having a housing image, and accurately represents the image. Well done! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Class Conflict

This part of the article has a good start on Marx’s thoughts on class conflict, but as the Wikipedia editors said it needs expansion. The article says, “For Marx, the history of class society was the history of class conflict” which is a good statement, but could be backed up by more examples of exactly how lower classes conflict with higher classes. When it points out that it was a “heightened form of class conflict,” so I would maybe expect to see some evidence of a less violent and bloody example of class conflict. In the second paragraph it talks about poverty and exploitation being an in-built structure of capitalism, and that these two characteristics have always been a part of class conflict. I agree with this statement that poverty and exploitation have continuously had a role in class conflict, but it would be helpful in showing where poverty and exploitation were a part of class conflict before capitalism and Marx came to be. With these changes appropriate references would have to be added. LFriesen (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)LFriesen

Issues with this article

The second half of this article is in bad shape. Consider the article on social class in Encyclopedia of Social Theory for suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couriel76 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210115927/http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11839 to http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11839
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517043322/http://www.monthlyreview.org/797wood.htm to http://www.monthlyreview.org/797wood.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

recommended reading

Paul Fussell, Class: a painfully accurate guide through the American status system (1983).
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Change

The History section of this article requires more citations. Perhaps even examples of social class in history and how those affect the lives of others could be added. --Owlettes (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Biased information removed"

@Zubin12: Can you explain why you removed this section from this article? Jarble (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jarble:It describes a subjective classification as an objective fact, there isn't any consensus on how American social classes work