Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barbalet (1980) - Principles of Stratification in Max Weber: An Interpretation and Critique
Barbalet (1980) - Principles of Stratification in Max Weber: An Interpretation and Critique
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
JackM.Barbalet
It hasbeenarguedbyGerthandMills,Coser,andothers,thatWeber
departsfromverstehensociologyin his analysisof classby applyinga
social-structural
account of stratification.The argumentbelow
demonstrates
that Weber'streatmentof classand statusconforms
entirelyto hismethodological
principles
of socialactionandideal-type
analysis.It is also shownthat a social-structural
interpretation
of
Weber'stheolyof stratification
is incoherent.Onlyas an accountof
culturalstructure,
of thewayinwhichsocialdifferentiation
isperceived
in thesocialconsciousness,
is Weber'stheoryof stratification
formally
coherent.
Theelementsof MaxWeber's
generalsociology,includingthetheoryof
stratification,
are designedto amplifyand confirmthe methodology
elaboratedin thefirstpartof hismajoropus. Yeta numberof writers
havereportedthatWeber'smethodandhis treatment
of stratification
diverge.It shallbe shownbelowthatthe analysisof stratification
in
Weberdoesin factfollowfromhissociological
methodology.
Weber's
principles
of stratification
occupya meretwentyoddpagesof
hismammothWirtschaftund Gesellschaft.
1In spiteof itsbrevity,Weber's
discussionhasdominatedthedevelopment
of stratification
theory.It is
widelyheld that Weberprovidedan importantanalysisof social
differentiation
which, in its complexityand multi-dimensionality,
containsa critiqueof cruder,one-dimensional
models,withwhichit
nevertheless
sharesa conceptionof economicallydeterminedclass.
(Thereis somedissentagainstthisgenerally
accepted
assessment.)
Butit
isnotthefragmentaly
natureofWeber's
treatment
of stratification,2
nor
itsremaining
unfinished
atthetimeof hisdeathwhichisresponsible
for
itsconfusingandcontradictoly
formulation.3
Rather,social-structural
interpretations
ofWeberhavetheseconsequences.
Theinterpretation
of
Weberwhichfollowsdemonstrates
thathis theoryof stratification
is
limited to an explicationof social differentiationin the social
consciousness,
to theculturalstructure
of stratification.
BritishJournalofSociologyVolume3s Number3 SeptemberIg80
) R.K.P.
51.50/
401
402
JackM. Barbalet
Withoutprejudicing
a consideration
of therelationship
betweensocial
actionandsocialstructure,
Weber's
positionisexplicit.'Sociology',
says
Weber,'is a sciencewhichattemptsthe interpretive
understanding
of
socialactionin ordertherebyto arriveat a causalexplanationof its
courseand effects.'4Thus he emphasizesthe scientificor objective
natureof sociological
discourse.
Butthematerial
dealtwithbysociology
as he understands
it, andtherefore
Weber's
conception
of societyitself,
is,ina sense,'subjective'.
By'action'ismeant,Webergoeson to say,'all
humanbehaviour
whenandin so farastheactingindividual
attachesa
subjective
meaningto it', and actionis socialwhen'byvirtueof the
subjectivemeaningattachedto it by the acting individual(or
individuals),
it takesaccountof thebehaviour
of othersandis thereby
orientedin its course'.On thisaccountthebasicunitof sociological
analysisis theorientationof the individualactor- eithersinglyor in
aggregate- which,in providinga meaningof anticipated
reciprocal
significance
of action,bestowsuponit a socialquality.
Becausethe socialqualityof thingsis regardedas residingin the
meaningwhich their interactionhas for the actors themselves,
sociologicalentitiescan neverbe supra-individual
collectivities
for
Weber.5Methodological
individualism
is thereforecorrelativewith
Weber'sactionfocus,for socialentitiesare understoodthroughan
interpretation
of meanings,motivesandintentions,6
which,in thefirst
instance,derivefrom individualactors.The individualist
mode of
explanation
inWeber's
sociologyanditsrelationtotheanalysis
of social
structurehave been variouslytreated. One approachregards
explanations
throughsocialactionon theone hand,andstructure
on
theother,to be notopposites,buttwolevelsof a singlemodel.Talcott
Parsons,forinstance,arguesthatthesubjective
meanings,
expectations
andmotivesof individuals,
throughwhichsocialactionoccurs,inbeing
theorientations
of relatingindividuals,
constitutes
thestructure
within
whichsocialactionis located.7
PercyCohenhassimilarly
proposedthat
if the conditions'of lateral and temporalstandardization
and
recurrence'
of actionobtain,it can then be said thatthereexistsa
structure.
For,if different
actorsina commonsituationtendto thesame
or similaractions,and if at differenttimesthesameactorsin similar
situationstendto thesameor similaractions,thenthereareenduring
constraints
on action,andthisis whatis meantbystructured
action.8
If constraintis the essentialcharacteristic
of structure
thenwhatis
regardedas the structural,
or constraining,
factorwill determinethe
qualityof theconceptualization
of structure
inthatparticular
instance.9
Themultiplicity
of typesof constraint
andtheproclivity
of theoriststo
selectonly particularones for explanation,makes'structure'an
'essentiallycontestedconcept'
.' The questionhere then becomes
whether
thestructure
impliedbysocialactionin theWeberian
senseisa
4o3
itself,theconcept
or someotherkind.Like'structure'
socialstructure,
is essentially
contested.
'socialstructure'
thatthereare manydefinitionsof socialstructure,
Acknowledging
a typologyof it whichis bothsimpleand
ErikAllardthasconstructed
He beginswith the premisethatit is the presenceof
non-arbitrary.
considered
whichis generally
observable
stablepatternsof interaction
any
Allardtproceedsby disqualifying
socialstructure.
to demonstrate
explanationof social structurewhichemploysthe notionsof the
For
in it mayhaveof thestructure.
interaction
thatthoseparticipating
through
termsareestablished
that'somestructural
whilehe recognizes
Allardtinsists
a scrutinyof theconceptionsof theactingindividuals',
individuals
. . . maynotenterinto
that'thenotionsof theparticipating
the explanationitself' of social structure."Social structuremust
thereforebe explainedwithoutrecourseto subjectiveorientations,
motlvesor lntentlons.
orientationof socialactioncanneverbe a qualityof
Thesubjective
socialstructure,but is ratherthe elementwhich,in beingsubjectto
at
merelyindicatesthepresenceof socialstructure
systemicconstraint,
of ParsonsandCohenstatedabove
level.Thearguments
theindividual
of social
only to the descriptionor identification
addressthemselves
isalien
Notthattheconceptof'structure'
structure,
notitsexplanation.
to Weber'smethodology.Indeed,Weberdevelopsa modelof typical
of legitimacy,
structures
structures
of action,fromwhichareelaborated
Theseareall explainedin termsof
andauthority.
socialrelationships
Moregenerally,
Weber
orientations.
actors'subjective
theparticipating
reasonsthata scientific'law'of sociologyrequiresthat'typicalmotives
and typicalsubjectiveintentionsof the actors'must featurein the
or explanationof 'givenconditions[in which]an
understanding
expectedcourseof socialactionwill occur'.'2Thatthisexhauststhe
methodology
suggeststhatWeber's
generalization
scopeof sociological
Thevalidityof thisconclusion
to explainsocialstructure.
is ill-equipped
or
belowwhenitisshownthatthereisnoadequate
willbedemonstrated
whichcan be
theoryof socialstratification
coherentsocial-structural
of stratification
The 'structure'
derivedfromWeberianassumptions.
whichWeber'stheoryexplainsis of a differentorder.
A secondtreatmentof the relationbetweenWeber'smethodology
is
individualism
analysisclaimsthatmethodological
andhissubstantive
whichpermitsan adequate
absentfrom his theoryof stratification,
terms.The classicalstatementof this
explanationin social-structural
positionis thatof HansGerthand C. WrightMills.'3Theywritethat
reflectionscould not justifyhis analysisof
Weber'smerhodological
operatesinstead
andthathistheolyof stratification
socialstratification,
LewisCoser'4
asopposedtoanactionexplanation.
througha structural
similarlyopposesWeber'smethodologyto one whichemployssocialstructural
terms,and goes on to proposethatWeber'didnot always
guidelines.Contralyto hisnominalistic
followhisownmethodological
.
JackM. Barbalet
4o4
On a superficial
reading,theconceptof classin termsof 'lifechances'
seems to imply that it functionsindependently
of the subjective
orientations
whichindividuals
mayhavetowardsobjectivestructural
conditions.It hasbeenheldto be quiteunliketheconceptof statusin
thisregard.2lIt willbecomeclear,however,thatthequalifications
to
'lifechances'of 'economicinterest'and 'marketconditions'directly-
in Max Weber
Principlesof stratification
4o5
JackM. Barbalet
406
in MaxWeber
ofstratification
Principles
407
or
it is not thepossessionof property
and'lackof property',
'property'
of
individuals,
situation
class
the
determines
Weber
whichfor
otherwise
but 'the "meaning"whichtheycan and do giveto the utilizationof
Secondly,a socialrelationshipbetweenthosesharinga
property'.32
1S a particular
interest,that1S, a classrelationship,
economic
common
oneinwhich
socialrelationship,
caseofwhatWebercallsan'associative'
motivated
a
rationally
on
it
rests
within
action
of
social
orientation
'the
The
agreement.'33
motivated
similarly
a
or
of
interests
adjustment
a
structural
is
not
therefore,
terms,
explanationof classin economic
areexplainedthroughthe
for Weber.Classrelationships
explanation
the
imperativeof objective
through
not
and
orientation
actor's
of whetherpersonsare
independently
function
which
forces
economic
awareof them. Indeed,the socialdimensionof economicactivity,
of the
its appreciation
Webersays,is preciselyits intersubjectivity,
interested
Classaction,theactionof theeconomically
'others'action.34
individual,is clearlyan instanceof whatWeberdescribesas rationalaction,35 actionwhichresultsfroma modeof orientation
instrumental
based upon particularexpectationsand individuallychosen and
givenends.
culturally
noton
Itwillbe clearthattheconceptof classinWeSeris elaborated
of
butthroughanapplication
premisesof explanation,
social-structural
in the conceptof socialactiorl,
presuppositions
his methodological
meaningsandintentions.
whichfocusesuponorientations,
CLASS STRUCTURE AND CLASS RELATIONS
stratlhcatlon.
408
JackM. Barbalet
sltuatlons.
On thedistinctionbetweenthepropertymarketandthemarketfor
services
Weberdifferentiates
between'property
classes'and'acquisition
classes'.40These qualitativelydifferentclass types are further
differentiated
on an axis of 'privilege'.Positively
privilegedproperty
classesaremadeupoftheownersanddirectcontrollers
ofpropertywho
derivetheirincomefrompropertyrentsandsecurities,
thenegatively
privileged
propertyclassesaresimplythosewithoutproperty;
outcasts,
debtorclassesandthepoor,andthosewhoarethemselves
theproperty
of otherssuchas slaves.Positivelyprivilegedacquisitionclassesare
thosewhocontrolthemanagement
of productive
enterprises
andwhose
securityof positionderivesfromtheirabilityto influenceeconomic
policyin theirfavour.Negatively
privileged
acquisition
classes,on the
otherhand,areskilled,semi-skilled
andunskilled
workers.
Between
the
classesof negativeand positiveprivilegeare thosegroupingswhich
occupythecatchbag'middleclasses'.Throughthisterminology
Weber
developsa complextypologyof classifications
whichamountsto a
pluralistic
conceptionof classes,employinga limitednumberof class
categories.4'
Thisfavourable
assessment
willrequirerevision,however,
whentheseriousdifficulties
of Weber'sclasstypesareappreciated.
The point has been madeby OliverCox that the specificsocial
groupings
usedto illustrate
theseclasscategories
are'derived
practically
at convenience'and 'cannotbe applied to any single society'.42
Furthermore,
Weber'sinclusionof entrepreneurs
suchas shipowners,
for example,into thecategories
of bothpositively
privileged
property
and acquisitionclassesindicatesan inadequate
demarcation
between
class typeswhich blurs ratherthan clarifiesthe distinctionsand
boundaries
betweenthem.Onemightaddthat,fromthepointof view
of a sociological
analysisof classstructure,
thereisaprimaJacie
absurdity
in the inclusionwithina singlecategoryof suchdiversegroupsas
4o9
entrepreneurs,
liberalprofessionals
andlabouraristocrats,43
forto the
extentthattheymayeachpossesspositiveprivilege,therecan be no
qualitative
uniformity
in theirdoingso,andtheycouldhardlybesaidto
sharea commonor 'average'classinterest.Forthesesortsof reasons
Cox and Giddens,for example,havealso concludedthatWeber's
typologyis inapplicable
forempiricalresearch
andfortheformulation
of theoretical
postulates.44
Thesedifficulties
highlightthe minimalutilityof thisformof class
structuration
for historicaland sociologicalanalysis.Indeed,class
structure
in thissenseis at besta marginalaspectof Weber'stheoryof
stratification
and, as the followingexamplesindicate,frequently
ignoredbyhim.Weberfailsto see,forinstance,
theexpropriation
of the
workerfromthe meansof productionin the movementfromEstate
Society(Feudalism)to ClassSociety(Capitalism)
in class terms.45
Similarly,the processof labourexploitationis to Webera non-class
phenomenon.46
Classstrugglealsoisnotregarded
asa relationbetween
classesbyWeber,butmerelyas'anactionbetweenmembers
of different
classes'.47
Thisis not onlybecausethebasisof all classactionis in the
formationof a 'community'
drawnfrombut not equivalentto class
itself,48but becauseclassstruggleis a typeof'conflict',technically
understoodas a form of social relationshipbetweenparticularly
orientedindividuals.49
Weber'saccountemphasizes
the fact thatthe
actorsin classstrugglecanneverbe equivalentto classesas such.But
thereisno placeinWeberforananalysisof thosehistorical
situations
in
whichclassesarethebasicunitsof conflictin thesensethatthefortunes
andinterestsof oneclasscanberealizedonlyat theexpenseof thoseof
another.It is withinthis latterframework
thatan accountof class
structure
wouldin partexplainstrugglebetweenvariousorganizations
andgroupsof individuals
of a classnature.Classrelationsareinvisible
to Weberwhentheytakea structural
formandareotherwise
explained
not throughsocial-structural
termsbut throughan understanding
of
the actionsof individualsoccupyingdifferentclasssituations.The
conceptualstructuration
of class is largelyoutsidehis explanatory
discourse.
ThatWeberdoesnot conceptualize
classrelationsbetweenthe four
basiccategoriesof positivelyand negativelyprivilegedpropertyand
acquisitionclasses,but only relationsbetweenelementsof them,
suggestsa typologyof fragmenting
structuration,
one whichtendsto
breakdownintonarrower
categories,
andtherefore
providesno clear
structuration
at all. Atbestit offersa descriptive
schemaforgrouping
but not structuring
classsituations.It canbe saidin generalthatthe
typologyfails to identifya structuralpropertywhich in equally
constraining
the groupsto whichthe termapplies,unifiesthemin
relationto eachother.Theconceptof'privilege',forexample,requires
ratherthanindicatesa structural
backboneof classcategories.
Andthe
concepts'property'
and'commerce'
arenotstrictly
speaking
classterms.
JackM. Barbalet
410
4 1 1
between'socialclass'and'statusgroup',to
classaction.Thesimilarity
whichWeberrefers,is simplyin thefactthatbothareinitiallyidentified
whichunifythemembersof each,althoughthebasesof
by constraints
in thisregardareclearlyquitedissimilar.
theirstructuration
Thisis not to saythatWeber'sconceptionof socialclassis without
in termsof themobilitychancesof
flaw.A conceptionof classstructure
asGiddensand
ifitlacksa notionof 'closure',
itsmembersisincomplete
of social
Weberleavesoutof hisdiscussion
Parkinhavedemonstrated.53
classthequestionof closure,andwherehedoesemploytheconceptit is
in terms of subjectivelymotivatedorientationswithin 'social
barriersto
ratherthanin termsof objectivestructural
relationships',54
with
problem
second
The
classes.
between
of
individuals
movement
the
between
of
relations
no
explanation
is
that
the concept'socialclass'
classescan follow a definitionof class in mobilityterms.Such a
definitionrefersto individualmovementswithinand not to the
connectionsbetweenclasses.Weber'sdefinitionof social class, if
supplementedwith a notion of closure,could functiononly to
andperhapsindicatethe
classbarriersbetweenindividuals,
demarcate
accountforthe
employedin doingso. It doesnotadequately
strategies
of class
wayin whichclassesrelateto eachother.The structuration
of single
situationsinto 'socialclasses'refersat mostto the structure
in thesystemof stratification.
classes,not to theclassstructure
DIALECTIC OF STATUS AND CLASS
class'and 'socialclass'are
Theconcepts'propertyclass','acquisition
of theidealtype
Thecentrality
of the'idealtype'formulation.
instances
that'onlyin terms
in hisstatement
isindicated
methodology
to Weber's
The
analysispossiblein sociology.55
of suchpuretypes'is theoretical
ideal type is an abstractionof particularpropertiesdrawnfrom a
numberof phenomena,withoutregardto theirhistoricalcontext,
onlyof the
theformalattributes
whichfocusesuponandconceptualizes
by the concept'status'or 'status
It is exemplified
objectof inquiry.56
group'drawnfrom the empiricalexamplesof feudalestate,Hindu
to noneof
groupandso on, butreferring
caste,modernoccupational
withtheapplication
of anddifficulties
Thelimitations
themexclusively.
willbe
tool to Weber'sanalysisof stratification
of thismethodological
indicatedhere.
Theconcept'status',definedbyWeberthroughthesocialestimation
which
of esteem,is conceivedin generalasa dimensionof stratification
distinctand separatefromclass;indeed,in Reinhard
is functionally
Bendix'swords,Weberdefinedclassand statusin 'termsthat are
Whereclassis a functionof marketsituation,
mutuallyexclusive'.57
statusoperatesin the absenceof the market;whereclassis a mere
economic situation, status founds social community;where
class,statusis typifiedby
opportunitiesfor possessioncharacterize
412
JackM. Barbalet
consumption
patterns,stylesof life andsocialhonour.A principleof
Weber'stheoryof stratification,
therefore,is the sharpdelineation
drawnbetweenclassandstatus,eachregardedas alternative
meansof
socialdifferentiation.
Thisanalyticpostureis impossibleto maintain,
however,in the applicationto social analysisof the ideal
type
conceptionof status.In Weber'stheoretical
accountof stratification
'status'acquiresat leastthreedifferentcontextualmeanings,and
is
ultimately
renderedworthlessto theexplanation
of thesocialstructure
of stratification.
Theconcept'status'doesnotposeanyproblemsforananalysis
ofthe
stratification
structure
whenit is conceived
asa dominantdimensionof
socialdifferentiation
historically
preceding
theadventofmarketorclass
society.ThusWeberrefersto the 'epochof statusgroups'58
when
mentioningHellenicand RomanantiquityandtheMiddleAges,
says that statusgroups 'developand subsistmost readily and
where
economicorganization
is of a monopolistic
andliturgical
character
and
wheretheeconomicneedsof corporategroupsaremeton a feudal
or
patrimonial
basis'.59
Thediscussion
in TheProtestantSectsandtheSpirito
Capitalism60
of thelimitsoncompetition
inthemedieval
guildincontrast
tothecapitalistic
ethosof Christian
sectsdemonstrates
theutilityof the
concept'statusgroup'to Weber'shistoricalsociology.Indeed,
sensetheconceptsof statusandclass,asmutuallyexclusive in this
categories,
provides
a clearindicationof thedifference
between
historical
societies
inwhichthe householdand workgroupare
undifferentiated
and
societies
in whichtheyarenot.6'
Weberthoughdoesnotconfinetheapplication
of statustoananalysis
ofnon-market
societies,butnotesthatthesocialestimation
of honour,
indicative
of status,'maybe connectedwithanyqualityshared
by a
plurality,
and, of course,it can be knit to a classsituation:class
distinctions
arelinkedin themostvariedwayswithstatusdistinctions'.62
Itis withoutquestionthat 'class'and 'status'are
formallydistinct
concepts
whichostensibly
referto different
dimensions
of stratification
based
on differentprinciples.
Buttheirapplication
to theanalysisof a
single
societyraiseswhatT. H. Marshall
hascalled'thereallyimportant
question',
namely,'to whatextent[do] theirproductsconverge'.63
Weber
suggestsa relativedependence
of statusonclasswhenhesaysthat
'today
theclasssituationis byfarthepredominant
factor,forof course
the
possibility
of a styleof lifeexpectedformembers
of a statusgroupis
usually
conditionedeconomically'.64
Is it to be assumed,then,that
status
merelyrepresentssymbolicallythe class structure
? Modern
defenders
of Weber'stheoryof stratification
generallydenythis,65
and
Weber
canbe similarly
interpreted
whenhesays,forinstance,
that
status
'is
not . . . determined
by[classsituationl
alone',eventhoughit 'maybe
based
on classsituationdirectlyor relatedto it in complexways'.66
For
while
'present-day
societyis predominantly
stratified
in
classes
.
.
.
[it]
contains
a vetytangibleelementof stratification
bystatus'.67
Thuswhile
in Max Weber
Principlesogstratification
413
,%
stratlhcatlon.
of Weber's
Thisthirdusageof 'status'mustleadto a re-evaluation
of social
dimensions
as
distinct
co-exist,
may
status
and
class
claimthat
Thislatterpropositionthatclassandstatusareparallel
stratification.
is, in effect,arguedon the
formswithina singlesystemof stratification
in
groundsthatwhileclassmaybea conditionof statusgroupformation
be so. The otherargument,
capitalistsociety,it neednot necessarily
though,is thatstatusmaybe a conditionof classformation.These
question',for
'reallyimportant
togetheranswerMarshall's
propositions
theylead to the conclusionthatthe productsof classand statusdo
indeedconverge,and- it willbe shown- theyconvergein a manner
whichdepreciatesthe valueof 'status'in explanationof the social
of stratification.
structure
in
dimensionof stratification
Weberarguesthat,as an alternative
marketsociety,statusis representedby the economicmonopoly
That
of certainsocialgroups.72
qualifications
positionsandparticular
status groups form through the ability of large corporations,
professionalassociationsand labour unions to relativelyinsulate
fromthefreeplayof marketforcesandacquiresomepower
themselves
must
overtheirownincomes,neednotbedisputed.Buttheseprocesses
andrelationsatparticular
alsobe seenasa keyaspectof classformation
historicaltimes.It is preciselyin thepursuitof economicclassinterest,
conceptionof classsituation,thatsuchpower
centralto theWeberian
occur.Thisis notto saythattheseandsimilarprocesses
configurations
prestigeof a statusnature.
to somegroupsacquiring
willnotcontribute
Rather,the point is that in his discussionof statusin classsociety
of the
Weber'sanalysismust ultimatelylead to the abandonment
414
JackM. Barbalet
Prtnciples
olstratification
in MaxWeber
4 15
social-structural
interpretation
of Weber,the full significance
of this
statement
escapeshim.It is precisely
theunderstanding
of stratification
through'ananalysisof howa certainactionfollowsfromthechoiceof
certainalternatives'76
whichindicatesto Allardt,for instance,that
culturalstructure
is thesubjectofexplanation.
Weberrefersto thesocial
bases of choice or preferencebetweenalternatives
which lead to
differenttypesof socialaction generativeof eitherclassor status
StratlhCatlOn ln .]1S statement
t zat
Whenthe basesof the acquisitionand distributionof goods are
relativelystable, stratificationby status is favoured. Every
technological
repercussion
andeconomictransformation
threatens
stratification
by statusand pushes the class situationinto the
foreground.
Epochsandcountriesin whichthenakedclasssituation
is of predominant.significanceare regularlythe periods of
technologicaland economictransformations.
And ever slowing
downof theshiftingof economicstratification
leads,induecourse,to
the growthof statusstructures
andmakesfora resuscitation
of the
important
roleof socialhonour.77
It is implicitin thispassagethatwhetherclassor statusis 'favoured'
is a
matterof choicepromotedby the rate of socio-economicchange.
Second,it is explicitlystatedthatclassand statusmaybe alternative
meansof stratification
in a singlesociety,butnotcontemporaneously.
Bothpointsrequiredevelopment.
An explanationof the culturalstructureof stratification,
by either
classor status,is indicatedin Weber'snotionof economicinterest.
Economicinterest,to Weber,as the orientationof particularly
motivated
individuals,
isoperableonlywhenit ispursued.
Whilethereis
a probability
of economicinterestin classsituation
perse, therecanbe
no manifestation
of it in theabsenceof classaction.Weberindicates
that
it is thevisibleoppositionof interestswhichmostclearlygivesriseto
classsituations,and, therefore,it is theattemptto acquireeconomic
advantage
whichcreatesclassstratification.78
A stabilityof modesof
acquisition
anddistribution
of goods,on theotherhand,indicatesthe
absenceof directeconomiccontestation,
and,therefore,thatclassor
economicinterestis non-operative.In such situations,when the
economicinterests
of individuals
aresatisfied,
thereisa relativeabsence
of orientationto the pursuitof economicadvantage
and,instead,an
inclinatlonto theenjoyment
of economicadvantage
alreadyachieved.
At thesetimes,Webernotes,individualorientationstend to follow
principlesof consumption
andthe attainment
of socialesteem.79
But
such stability and orientations are disrupted by economic
transformation
and technological
development,
for theselargelyshift
thebalanceof economicadvantage.
Previously
satisfied
individuals
and
groupswill find in the emergingsituationthattheydo indeedhave
economicinterestswhichtheyareledto pursue.It is on thesegrounds
.
,%
416
JachM. Barbalet
thatWeberarguesthat statuspredominates
whenthereis a stable
arrangement
of accessto goods, and class at times of economic
transformation.80
Weber's
argument
isnotnecessarily
thattheeconomicdetermination
of lifechanceceasesto function'whenthebasesof theacquisition
and
distribution
of goodsarerelatively
stable'andthata socialevaluation
of
prestigecannotoccurduring'periodsof technological
andeconomic
transformation'.
Rather,it is thatthe rateof socio-economic
change
determines
howpersonschooseto act;andit is alwaystheparticular
contentof thechoiceof actionwhichdetermines
theculturalstructure
of stratification.
It is exclusively
whetherindividuals
perceivetheirclass
situationor their positionin a statushierarchyas crucialto an
understanding
of societyandtheorientation
of theirinteractions
within
it,whichprescribes
theculturalstructure
of stratification.
Itfollowsthat
not only are the terms'class'and 'status'mutuallyexclusivein the
formal sense, but their empiricalrepresentations
in the cultural
structure
areliterallyalternative
dimensions
of stratification.
According
to Weberclassstratification,
forexample,
willbecomemostclearlyefficacious
whenall otherdeterminants
of
reciprocalrelationsare, as far as possible,eliminatedin their
significance.8l
NOTES
1. MaxWeber, EconomyandSociety,New
York, Bedminster Press, 1968, vol. i, pp.
302-7, vol. ii, pp. 926-40. Also Max
in Max Weber
Principlesof stratification
WrightMills(eds),FromMax Weber:Essays
London,RoutledgeandKegan
in Sociology,
Paul,1970, pp. l 80-95.
2. Talcott Parsons, 'Introduction'to
Weber,1964,0p. cit., p. 3o n. 1.
3. Dick Atkinson, OrthodoxConsensus
Radical Alternative, London,
and
Heinemann,1971, pp.71-2.
4. Weber, 1964, op. cit., p. 88.
Quotationsin the rest of this paragraph
arefromthe samesource.
5. Ibid.,p. 102.
6. Ibid.,pp. 107-8.
7. Parsons,op. cit., p. 22.
8. Percy Cohen, ModernSocial Theory,
London,Heinemann,1975, p. g5.
9. StevenLukes,'PowerandStructure',
Essaysin SocialTheory,London,Macmillan,
977,p 7-
o. Ibid.,pp. 8-9.
1l. Erik Allardt, 'Structural,Institutionaland CulturalExplanations',Acta
vol. 15, no. 1 (1972), p.59.
Sociologica,
2. Weber,1964,0p. cit., pp. 107-8.
13. Hans Gerthand C. WrightMills,
'Introduction'to Weber,1970, op. cit., p.
5714. LewisCoser, Mastersof Sociologtcal
Thought, New York, Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich,1971, pp .217-18.
5. Ibid.,p. 226.
16. ReinhardBendix,Max Weber:An
Intellectual Portrait, London, Methuen,
1966, pp. xviii-xix; S. N. Eisenstadt,
'Introduction'to Max Weberon Charisma
and Institution Building, Chicago,
Universityof Chicago Press, 1968, p.
xxxiii; Steven Lukes, Individualism,
Oxford, Blackwell,1973, p. 111 n. 3. A
417
negativelyprivilegedpropertyclass.Itwill
be clearfrom discussionbelow that this
apparent contradictionderives from a
of Weber,
interpretation
social-structural
andis resolvedwhen'class'and'status'are
seento referto thedifferentwaysin which
is culturallyperceived.
stratification
25. Weber,1970,0p. cit., p. 183.
26. Ibid.,p. 301; emphasisadded.
27. Ibid.,pp. 181-2.
28. Weber,1964,0p. cit., p. 424.
29. Karl Marx, The GermanIdeolofv,
Moscow,ProgressPublishers,1968, p.44.
30. Weber,1970,0p. cit., p. 183.
31. Ibid.,p. 405.
32. Ibid.,p. 182.
33. Weber,1964,0p. cit., p. 136.
34. Ibid.,pp.ll2-l3.
35. Ibid.,p. 115.
36. Dennis Wrong, Max
Weber,
EnglewoodCliffs,Prentice-Hall,1970, p.
25.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
JackM. Barbalet
418