Economic Changes in Working Class of the UK - Coursework Example

?The Working in Modern Britain The working in modern Britain requires further study because of the fact that there have been certain changes in the factors that determine their identity. It is clear that the working class, as a particular section in society, is defined by factors that are not within its control. The aforementioned circumstances are basically attributed to people’s ownership or non-ownership of the means of production as well as the relationship among people in the context of the production process. The general definition of the working class in this regard is that they are people who do not own any means of production and who must, therefore, sell their manual or physical labour to those who own such means, i. e. the capitalists, in order to survive. However, as Britain marches along with the rest of the developed countries on the path of automation and computerization, it may seem that such definition is no longer valid. It is for this reason, that there is an important need to reconsider the concept of the working class in Britain. In order to determine the concept of the working class in Britain, it is necessary to consider the previous definitions of the sociologists who had introduced the theory of social stratification. Two of the foremost promoters of this theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. Although both share similar views on the condition that the working class must sell labour in order to live, their difference lies on the question of ownership of the means of production. According to Marx and Engels (2012), with the means of production not within their control, “these labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition to all the fluctuations of the market” (p. 161). It is clear that in the Marxist definition, the value of labour depends much on aspect of the ownership of the means of production, hence, the term proletariat, which means “property-less”. The more people are deprived of the opportunity to own such means, or capital, the bigger the employable population becomes. It follows that salaries and wages drop when there is a huge employable force around. There are obvious and fundamental differences in Marx’s and Weber’s respective definitions of the working class. The reason for this is that both have different bases or recognizing the development and existence of the working class as well as its role in transforming society. Marx clearly bases his definition on the relationship of the working class to the means of production. He also asserts that it is the creation of surplus product that serves as the condition for the existence of classes in a capitalist society. Weber, on the other hand, presents a theory of stratification with three components. The three are wealth, which actually refers to economic situation, prestige, which means status situation, and power, which pertains to the political influence and the parties to which people belong. Marx’s definition is anchored in production, while Weber’s is based on the relativeness of a social group to others. Weber, on the other hand, does not go to the extent of studying the internal dynamics of production. He merely defines the working class in relation to other classes in society and whose labour is their only means for survival. It is in this context that Weber dwelt on the plurality of classes, especially on the characteristics of a growing middle class (Bradley, 1996, p. 48). It is because of this framework that Weber set out to further categorise working class, explaining the differences of each category and challenging the Marxist concept of being a homogeneous or monolithic section of society. The Marxist and even the Weberian definition of the working class treats it as alienated or disadvantaged and, therefore, suggests that changes in social structures should be done. Functionalism, on the other hand, is a theory that proposes that the working class is a section of society that has a specific role, particularly in production. It asserts that the working class functions in harmony with other sections for the benefit of society. There may be conflicts that can arise in the process though, but because of the inherent characteristic of being a part of the same machinery, which is society, this could be resolved through mere conciliation. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore presented an articulation that further asserts the point of structural functionalism. This line testifies the concept that social classes exist not because of exploitation or inequalities. They explain that the existence of classes is even beneficial to society as it guarantees order and stability. Davis and Moore (2006) stated that “as a functioning mechanism, a society must somehow distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions” (p. 2). In relation to this, they also present the theory that those in the hierarchy must see to it, and those in the lower positions or the working class are motivated to do their jobs. Salaries and wages are considered as motivational factors. The concept clearly advocates the maintenance of the current conditions not just of the working class, but that of all the other classes in society. New definitions of the working class have been presented through time as changes occurred in societies, particularly in the economic aspect. Such changes could be seen also in Britain. Dahrendorf, for instance, insists that the Marxist and Weberian concepts of the working class have been invalidated by the actual practice of the socialist countries as well as the emergence of corporations (Sorensen 2000: 20). According to Dahrendorf, the emergence of a state that controls economic enterprises and the corporations with different owners and rights has invalidated the concept of Marx on the subject of ownership of productions. Therefore, it is the authority on the areas of politics and the economy that the distinctions of classes begin to manifest. In this theoretical context, the working class in Britain would have to be re-categorised into groups according to authority in the workplace. This may lead into the further reduction of those who would fall under the definition of the working class from a Marxist and even from a Weberian point of view. David Lockwood, on the other hand, sustains Marx’s definition of the working class. However, it can also be said that with his definition of the contemporary working class, he tends to reduce their number and isolate from other wage-earners. Lockwood differentiates the manual workers and, according to his definition, labels them as the proletarian traditionalists. He does not assert though that “this group was representative of the whole of the working class, but he did believe that the proletarian traditionalist was typical of close-knit working class communities such as those based around dock work, coalmining and shipbuilding” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 56). With this perspective of the working class, it is only expected that their number is effectively reduced by mere definition. This is further shrunk when empirical data are actually used and interpreted in this manner. From empirical data, it would seem that the working class in Britain has indeed greatly shrunk because of five factors. First of all, the number of manual workers has decreased significantly through the years. Data that support this is that since 1945 jobs in the manufacturing sector have dropped by 54 per cent while those in the service sector have risen by 45 per cent. Secondly, the demand for manual labour has decreased due to de-industrialization (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 57). Thirdly, the expansion of manual jobs is said to have allowed those in the working class to cross over to the middle class. Fourth is that the living standard in the country has increased, including that of the working class, making them feel that that are better-off now. Lastly, the working class itself is no longer united. It is now divided between those that are successful in their occupations and those that are not. Thus, from the traditional working class concept a new one emerged which is said to be a product of the aforementioned five factors. These are the affluent manual workers whose income and economic status in society may no longer be easily distinguished from that of the middle class, particularly its lower section. In Britain, it is clear that the working class is no longer the same as it was in terms of economic, cultural, and political perspectives. There are white-collar workers who have been proletarianized while blue-collar workers are bourgeoisified (Edgell, 1993, p. 77). At the same time people have become socially mobile to a great extent that it has become almost impossible for an individual to stay in a class permanently. In the 1950s until the early 1960s there were sociologists that further bolstered this point. These sociologists argued “that a process of embourgeoisement was occurring whereby increasing numbers of manual workers were entering the middle stratum and becoming middle class” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 58). Their theory further asserts on the point that the working class has actually become irrelevant as a catalyst as Marx had envisioned. While there are individuals who shed of their working class distinctions through embourgeoisement, there are also people belonging to the petty bourgeoisie who undergo a process called proletarianization. Proletarianization occurs when the white-collar workers suffer reductions in their incomes in relation to the rising prices of basic commodities. It can develop when “non-proletarian places in the structure (such as those occupied by routine white-collar workers) have often been so de-skilled, in terms of job content and routinization of tasks, that they are similar or even identical to those occupied by the manual working class” (Marshall et al 103). It can also occur because of loss of jobs brought about by economic crisis similar to what hit Britain and the other developed countries in the first decade of the 2000s. The global financial crisis that occurred in the latter half of the said decade virtually displaced thousands of employees in the banking and finance sector. As a result, the once relatively better-off workers, which in the traditional Marxist definition of the working class are not part of the working class, were forced into a situation where they begin to shape the perspectives of the proletariat. On the other hand, there are sections of the working class who gave gained higher incomes and have been able to achieve an economic status that may be similar already to those of the petty bourgeoisie. It must be pointed out though that such method of identifying class is not similar to that of Marx. The concept behind is that class should be distinguished and defined according to economic status, The observations of the sociologists in the 1950s and early 1960s on the changes of the concept of working class in Britain may be accurate. It is true that an affluent working class is gradually establishing itself as an advanced section, but it is still a part of the said class. Because of this, the said section still has the potential of leading or representing the interests of the rest of the working class. The basis for this is definitely not Weberian or structural functionalist, but rather Marxist. Even if the said affluent working class has higher income acquiring more privileges than the other workers, they are still exploited. They still create surplus value which is appropriated by the capitalist class. Fiona Devine aptly points out that “they have aspirations as consumers and their living standards have risen, but they would still like to see a more egalitarian society” and that “they have lost faith in the ability of unions and the Labour Party to deliver their objective, but they have not fundamentally changed their values” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 60). This essentially maintains some of the elements of Marxist concepts. Goldthorpe and Lockwood present five major conclusions that do not invalidate the existence of the working class but just define its new characteristics. The first conclusion is that the affluent working class considers their jobs as the means instead of the end. The second conclusion is that affluent workers maintain friendly relationships with those of the working class instead of those in the middle class. Third is that they are more determined to succeed, which may make them different from the working class in some respects. However, they work for this in a collective manner. Fourth is that their political stand does not shift towards the Conservatives but they remain supportive of the Labour Party. Finally, Goldthorpe and Lockwood argue that in view of the previous conclusions, a new working class may have emerged instead. The Marxist perspective insists that, despite the emergence of certain characteristics that tend to stratify it, the working class would remain homogeneous. Modern sociologists, however, have presented arguments that may debunk this. There are basically five major arguments that deal with the issue whether the working class has become homogeneous or not (Haralambos & Holborn 2008: 61). The first argument is that the working class has become even more divided because of the development of technology. According to Dahrendorf, technological advances have driven a wedge between workers depending on their degree of skills. The second argument is presented by Roger Penn, who agreed with Dahrendorf’s idea but also pointed out that this has been the case always. He explains that unions would even have conflicts with each other because of this. Ivor Crewe presented a third argument based on his studies of the working class’s voting behaviour. He divided the working class into the old and new according to what he considers as sectoral factors. The said factors involve residence, housing, job, and membership in the union, which have already divided the working class. The argument of Gordon Marshall et al is not entirely different from those aforementioned ones. This fourth argument states support for Dahrendorf’s division according to skills and Penn’s assertion that this is not new. Marshall et al however “denied that the types of sectoral divisions identified by Crewe were significant” (Haralambos & Holborn 2008: 61). The fifth argument presented by Warwick and Littlejohn accepted some points of Crewe’s argument. Through their studies, they have found out that tenants and owner-occupiers of homes differ. In relation to this, they assert that housing tenure has led to the division between those who are better-off economically and the others in the working class. All these arguments on homogeneity of the working class only attempt to present an understanding of the changes that may affect their definition but these do not necessarily serve the point that the working class is on the verge of extinction. Even if there are some changes in the economic disposition of the working class, they have not become extinct and their distinction from the rest of British society exists. As a consequence, it would be wrong to consider that that class has become irrelevant. To do so is to ignore the fact that the working class is no longer around. Some of the working class may be more affluent and many may have housing, which are conditions that Marx had not foreseen in his definition of a traditional working class. However, if the essence of the class is not just economic status, but also its relation to the means of production, then it remains to be relevant. If the basis for defining class is through levels of income and through participation in electoral politics, then it would be convenient to conclude that Britain is now experiencing a process where the working class is becoming extinct, which also means the death of the class or of the concept of a stratified society. However, if the ownership of the means of production is the basis, then classes still exist. Reference List Bradley, H., 1996. Fractured Identities - Changing Patterns of Inequality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Davis, K. and Moore, W. 2006. Some Principles of Stratification. In Inequality: Classic Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. Ed. by David Grusky et al. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Edgell, S. 1993. Class. London: Routledge. Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 2008. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London: Collins Marx, K. and Engels, F. 2012. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In Classical Sociological Theory. Ed. by Calhoune, C. et al. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, Gordon et al. Social Class in Modern Britain. London, UK: Routledge, 1988. Sorensen, A. (2000) Employment Relations and Class Structure. In Renewing Class Analysis. ed. by Crompton R. et al. Oxford: Blackwell Read More