Class

Edgell (1993: 1) argues that the concept of ‘class’ was originally used to refer to the division of the Roman population on the basis of property and for military purposes and that this was a set and prescriptive system. Contemporary notions of class are specifically linked to the reorganization of society that occurred along with the Industrial Revolution. In particular, studying and defining the nature of social class was of particular interest to early sociologists, such as Karl Marx and Max Weber. Marx offers one of the most famous analyses of the concept. His discussion of class was part of a wider consideration of the history and nature of societies and how these were shaped by the means of production within each historical period. Marx argued that with the Industrial Revolution there emerged two key social classes, which were both defined by their relations to the means of production – the capitalists (or bourgeoisie) who owned the means of production and the workers (or proletariat) who worked for the capitalists for a wage. Though Marx recognized internal conflicts between these classes, he suggested that the key feature of capitalism was that the bourgeoisie sought to exploit the proletariat as much as possible in order to maximize production and profit, thereby causing an inevitable conflict between these two classes.

It is a common misconception that Marx only recognized the existence of two social classes. He also acknowledged the existence of other social strata, such as the petite-bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia and the lumpen-proletariat. However, he saw these as transitional classes, because as the power of the bourgeoisie increased there would be a ‘proletarianization’ of society as all non-bourgeoisie become wage labourers (or in Marx's terms ‘wage slaves’).

Max Weber is generally seen to have developed Marx's work, both in adapting Marx's consideration of class and in recognizing the existence and importance of other forms of stratification such as status and ethnicity. For Marx, social class was defined by the relations to the means of production; similarly for Weber, the key defining feature of class was market position or, more specifically, the ownership (or lack of ownership) of property. However, Weber recognized other (both positively and negatively) privileged classes, such as those with a higher or lower education or social status. This then creates a much more complex and multi-faceted understanding of social stratification (i.e., social ordering) than that set out by Marx.

To a significant degree, there has been some convergence between the definitions of class offered by both neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian writers. In particular, several neo-Marxist writers (such as Wright, 1976) have recognized the complex nature of class relations and composition. Furthermore, definitions and conceptualizations of social class have been offered and developed by numerous other authors who have each contributed their own understanding of this, such as Pierre Bourdieu who recognized the importance of other forms of capital beyond the economic (such as social capital and cultural capital) in shaping social class position.

Inevitably an individual's class position does have a significant impact and influence on their leisure. At its simplest level, the increased income and better work conditions that come with a higher class status can lead to greater leisure choices and opportunities [Page 31]than are afforded to those lower down the social order. However, as indicated, class is much more complex than simple economics, and so too is its relationship to leisure.

...