8/3/2019 6245 -W1-Weber

1/1

Nick Caverly09/19/2011

GANT 6245

W1 Response

Situating Class and Status

In the opening of Webers essay Class, Status, Party, he writes, Now: classes, status

groups, and parties are phenomena of the distribution of powerwithin a community

(1958:181). Although some issue may be taken with his determination of what constitutes acommunity, it is easily seen that Weber is not describing a single hierarchical class structure ashis predecessors had done, but for three separate, yet interrelated ranking systems present

concurrently within societies. Moreover, these systems are intimately related to the sources of

economic, social, and political power present among the people whom they connect. The utilityof unbounding of class and status categories is observable in Jones chapter on the genderedanxieties surrounding capital circulation among Indonesias emerging middle class groups.

Together, Jones and Webers pieces call into question the utility of conceptualizing classes as

distinct cultural categories at the expense of ignoring status group subjectivities.

Whereas Marxs writings strictly divide the social world between an elite bourgeoisie andthe poor working class (leaving only marginal room for a temporally limited middle class),

Weber determines that class structure is more varied, saying class determination based onproperty alone is insufficient (1947: 425). That said, Weberian classes are determined by marketinterests; thus, it is possible to situate middle classes as people without property who possess

marketable skills necessary to elevate themselves economically above proletarians who have

neither property nor marketable skills (Giddens 1973:43; Weber 1958:183). As the unifyingfactor between people of the same class is purely an economic relationship, Weber posits that

classes in and of themselves do not normally comprise a community and as such their members

need not be aware of one another (1958:184-186). It is here that the possibility of another socialhierarchy arises, based not on the economic ties between individuals, but upon the interests and

values they have in common.

As opposed to his idea of classes, Webers status groups are usually communities, as they

are formed on the basis of having a shared lifestyle or position (1947:429; 1958:187). In thisrespect, the members of a status group (or social strata) normally know each other or are able to

identify themselves on the basis of distinct social characteristics (e.g. way of dress, material

possessions, place/style of residence, etc). Jones chapter on Indonesian middle classsubjectivities delves into the complex discourses surrounding the appropriate use of feminine

income and status during a time of political and economic change. Her analysis centers on how

female wage earners, a symbol of the regions burgeoning middle class, are encouraged to purifytheir income through the purchase of material goods (Jones 2011:210-211). Their purchases

allow capital to transcend its symbolic existence as a symbol of government corruption (237).

Nevertheless, the purchases made by women are further scrutinized, with western goods eliciting

questions of corruption and traditional Islamic materials begetting praise of the buyers piety

(225). Thus, the ways in which capital is cleansed of its dirty nature become an index for apersons social status.

Webers writings on class provided an interesting response to Marx, whose ideas on

class I am reading this week for Critical Foundations. For better or worse, I began reading Weberbefore noticing that I would be reading Marx as well. Because of this, I found myself constantly

critiquing Marxs strict boundaries between classes that leave little room for social movement. I

was also struck by Giddens discussion of Weber and Marxs conflicting explanations of the

states role in modern capitalism. As Weber witnessed the transformation of Germany into anindustrial state and not a bourgeois society as Marx had predicted, he was in a unique position to

refute the preceding theorists claim (1973:49).