This Paper analyzes the class systems present
in the United States and compares them with
the class systems set out by Plato.
Social class is an important factor for most
people since it measures the position of that
person in society. Social class is defined from
two standpoints:
(a) objective and (b) subjective
Objective class is one that can be measured,
such as for example: by occupation. But subjective
class refers to the class that the person feels
he or she belongs to. (For example, a person
who has fallen on hard times and lives with
lower class people may still perceive himself
or herself as high class).
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CLASS:
There are many systems for measuring social
class. The first is The Registrar General’s
classification, which is done on the basis of
occupation and is set out as follows:
(a) CLASS I: Lawyers, architects and doctors
(b) CLASS II: Shopkeepers, farmers, teachers
(c) CLASS III: Shop assistants, clerical staff
(non manual) electricians, miners (manual)
(d) CLASS IV: Bus conductors, farm workers
(e) CLASS V: Laborers on building sites.
Classification by marketing groups is done
as follows:
(a) A Upper middle class: Higher managerial,
administrative or professional
(b) B: Middle Class: Intermediate managerial,
administrative or professional
(c) C1 Lower Middle Class: Supervisor or clerical
and junior
(d) C2 Skilled Working Class: Skilled manual
workers
(e) D Working Class: Semi-and unskilled manual
workers
(f) E Those at the lowest levels of subsistence:
State pensioners etc. with no other earnings
Social classes in ancient Rome were as follows:
(a) Patricians: The upper echeleon of society,
comprising government officials, landowners
and leading citizens.
(b) Plebians: Ordinary citizens comprising mostly
small businessmen.
(c) Slaves: These were the lowest echelon society
of society, owned by patricians and plebians,
performing mostly menial jobs although well
educated slaves were also doctors and teachers.
Social class in Rome was defined by the criteria
of Roman citizenship, wealth, land and property
and family relationships. There was mobility
among the classes.
The great philosopher Plato, proposed three
classes as follows:
(a) Philosopher Kings (rulers): According to
Plato, philosophers were best suited to be kings,
to bring out the best of society
(b) Guardians (soldiers) who maintained law
and order and administered justice
(c) Workers, or those who performed labor, such
as artisans, etc.
CLASS SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SOCIETY:
Three classes have been identified in American
society. They are (a) Rich (elite) Class (b)
Middle class and (c) Poor.
The rich (elite) class comprises that section
of American society wherein we may include those
who have a high income level. They are rich
enough to buy islands, build houses out in the
middle of nowhere, or as in the case of Bill
Gates, buy an entire neighborhood to secure
their privacy. These are the people who have
more money than they know what to do with.
Sometimes, this wealth may be inherited wealth,
in other cases, royalties from artistic works
or commercial companies turning in handsome
profits – whatever, the cause for the
wealth, this section of society is classes as
the top upper class of American society and
have gained that position by virtue of their
wealth. Old family wealth and good social connections
– the families that send their sons and
daughters to Ivy League colleges - these are
the people who do not worry about class distinctions,
because they already know that they are superior
to everyone else.
On the contrary, they enjoy a sense of superiority
– a self confidence that comes from the
enormous wealth and status that they enjoy.
This is the class that reinforces that sense
of superiority by making donations to charitable
causes. Fat, rich corporations make the most
of the tax benefits that come to them by donating
them to the weaker sections of society. This
section of American society is like the icing
on the cake.
The Middle Class comprises the majority part
of America. These are the people who work hard
for a living, and make just enough to enjoy
a decent standard of life. Among the middle
classes, further distinctions may be made into
upper middle class and lower middle class. The
Upper middle class would qualify as that group
who have enough and much more to spare, while
the lower middle classes could be categorized
as those who have enough and a little more to
spare – or perhaps just enough. It is
in this group that is the most class conscious
– the group that always wants to “keep
up with the Joneses”. They are always
anxious to do things ‘just right’
and may try to ape the lifestyles of the rich
and famous.
They constantly need reassurance about their
status and possessions. Although two families
may be at the same class level in terms of the
money the family makes, yet they may feel superior
or inferior depending upon their positions and
possessions. There is a constant struggle to
rise within this class structure. Similarly,
this class may also include a rich person who
has now fallen on hard times. Such a person
may continue to remain a snob and perceive himself
or herself as being superior to the others in
that class, inspite of being economically on
par with them.
The poor classes are the dregs of society.
Relegated into this class by virtue of their
economic condition, they are miserable and struggling
to make a living. They are the class that is
the least class conscious because they already
know that they are the poorest class and that
they cannot do much to change their lot in life.
This is the class where despair and misery may
drive many to crime.
PLATO’S SYSTEM OF CLASS DIVISION:
In his book “The Republic”, Plato
lays out certain principles for the establishment
of “the Republic” [Taylor, 1997]
which would be an ideal establishment where
virtues of justice and truth would prevail.
According to Plato, a society is formed because
of man’s inability to survive alone. It
is impossible for a man living alone to amass
all of life’s necessities and therefore
a society is formed of a group of individuals
who congregate together and live and work in
a group for the mutual benefit of all the members.
This group of people is classified into definite
groups depending upon the nature of their contribution
to society. Artisans were divided into groups
based upon the nature of the work they performed.
These groups were known as workers.
Since there were several groups living together,
there arose the possibility of disputes. Therefore
it was necessary in this society to distinguish
two groups of people who would be responsible
for two important functions: (a) the adjudication
of disputes arising among various group members
and (b) those who would guard the community
against attacks from outside forces. This group
of society were known as soldiers or guardians,
since they performed a protective function.
According to Plato, the function of the guardians
was very important and since they were to set
an example to others, it was necessary for them
to be of high moral fibre themselves. Therefore
the guardians were provided a good system of
education and exhorted to uphold and enforce
the values of society.
Lastly, there was the highest level of the
community – the group that headed and
provided leadership to the community. Since
these were the people who had to lead others,
they had to maintain high personal standards
and also demonstrate a high level of understanding
and wisdom. Plato therefore believed that only
philosophers would be good enough to qualify
for this position of rulers of the society and
he called them kings. Therefore the philosophers
would make good kings and the truly good kings
would also be good philosophers.
RELATION OF PLATO’S SYSTEM TO
AMERICAN CLASS SYATEM:
One important factor of Plato’s system
was the class mobility. It was possible for
people to migrate from one class to another
by changing their citizenship, for example,
or by accumulation of wealth. The American class
system parallels this, because it is also possible
from a poor class to acquire an education or
wealth and move up in the hierarchy of classes.
Just as in Plato’s class system, the
majority of laborers belong to the lowest class.
Artisans, carpenters, plumbers, etc all belong
to that category that may be classed as ‘workers’
which would correspond to the poor class in
the American system. Similarly, the guardians
and rulers of Plato’s system – those
who set the standards for the poorer sections
would be classified as the middle classes of
America, who consider themselves to be on a
higher class level than the poor. The elite
rich, who set themselves as the role models
for society, the benefactors of the poorer sections
of society, would correspond to Plato’s
kings who ruled over the rest of society.
OPINIONS OF EXPERTS:
Paul Fussel, in his book [Fussel, 1992] states
that the American Class system is defined by
the amount of money one has, the amount of political
power and social prestige. He also states that
the perception of class is defined by the class
one belongs to. Therefore the lower class person
perceives class as a function of the money that
is possessed by a person, while the middle class
perceives it as a function of the education
and job a person holds and the rich base their
judgment of class on the values, styles and
tastes a person advocates.
The system of class division as mentioned
above is based on the economic status a person
enjoys in society. American society prides itself
as being a meritocracy, i.e, the value and class
of a person is determined by his contribution
to society [Benedikt, 2000] rather than his
economic or social status. There are instances
where a person has ‘migrated’ from
one class to another by the improvement of his
or her economic status.
Fussel, as mentioned above defines class in
terms of style, judgments – or on the
“symbols that demarcate class. In contrast,
Domhoff [Donhoff, 2000] approaches the issue
of class through institutional and power struggles
between the extreme rich and extreme poor to
capture “middles”. Domhoff focuses
on corporate America and also notes the reluctance
of people to acknowledge the existence of class
in America.
Both Fussel and Donhoff the importance of attendance
at boarding schools and an Ivy League college
as an indicator of class. The linchpins in the
upper-class educational system are the dozens
of boarding schools...'' [Domhoff, p.82] Fussell
states:``...But those who postpone Ivy still
extends an irresistible appeal to the upper-middle
class ... it's essential to `go away' preferably
some distance ... (unless you happen to live
in Cambridge, New Haven, Princeton, Providence,
Hannover, or the like)'' [Fussell, p.140]
STUDIES DONE ON SOCIAL CLASS:
Some examples of studies that have been done
on social class are as follows:
(a) Sociologists Judith and Peter Blau in their
1982 paper: “The Cost of inequality: Metropolitan
Structure and violent crime” have summarized
several studies that demonstrate the effect
of crime due to differences in social class.
The southern states are poorer than the northern
states and the rate of crime is correspondingly
higher. The population of African Black Americans
is also higher and this class has been shown
to be more prone to crime. These studies suggest
that the traditional oppression of the black
race may be responsible for this phenomenon
and the tendency to lump them into a group with
a tendency to crime only accentuates this aspect.
Can't
find your paper.
(b) Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay's 1942
study (Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas)
showed that poverty in general tends to incite
crime, irrespective of race or gender. The prospect
of “illicit gain” appeals more to
the poorer sections of society and makes them
more prone to crime.
(c) A study done by Loftin and Parker (1985)
, Taylor and Covington (1988) indicates that
there is a relationship between crime and poverty
– a function of belonging to the social
class termed poor and therefore the unavailability
of education, etc.
(d) Blau and Blau (1982) also found that high
rates of crime were linked to economic inequalities.
They concluded in their study that “if
there is a culture of violence, its roots are
pronounced economic inequalities, especially
if associated with ascribed position.”(page
114)
(e) Archer and Gartner (1984) found that the
social approval of killing during the war time
has its effect in the post war period, resulting
in an escalation of violence, particularly because
during this time, there was social approval
for violence.
In the light of the foregoing, it may be concluded
that social class is an important factor in
determining certain trends in society. Although
America may like to claim it is a meritorious
society, the truth is that the social mobility
is confined only to a few individuals who are
lucky enough or talented enough to make that
class transition. Most people are restricted
into and remain within the class level they
were born into. As Studies have shown, there
exists a definite class structure in America
and it is this class structure that is contributing
to the escalation of crime in society.
Plato’s system of three classes may
be applied to America’s class system by
classifying all Americans into three castes
– elite, middle class and poor classes.
The limited mobility that existed within Plato’s
class system may also be seen in American society.
However, just as during the time of Plato, there
is no equality of classes and inspite of proclamations
to that effect, America is not a class-less
society. There is an inequitable distribution
of wealth and resources, that contributes to
the widening gap between the haves and have
nots.
Roman society was not a completely egalitarian
society either, the rights of certain people
were not taken into account,, for example the
slaves who were considered the sole possessions
of their masters and even educated slaves like
doctors and lawyers were still bound by slavery.
Much in the same way, we may observe in today’s
American society, the same chains of poverty
and lack of opportunity binding many of the
lower classes firmly into place to remain forever
poor.
Even those who manage to secure an education
to better their prospects may be discouraged
by the invisible class barriers they encounter
out in society and will remain confined into
their class for all time. Much like the educated
slaves of Rome, the educated poor aspiring for
a better life face disillusionment at the refusal
of the upper castes to accept them as equals
and this is often responsible for escalating
crime.
One may also conclude that the strictly materialistic
nature of American society also fuels the inequalities
created by the lack of economic assets. American
society perceives a successful, upper class
person as being one who makes a lot of money
and therefore, when a poor, talented person
from a lower class finds himself or herself
unable earn the respect of the higher classes
by virtue of his achievements, he or she often
resorts to crime as a vent for his or her frustration
and rage.
There are subtle differences and social classes
based on race, gender, ethnicity, economic status,
occupation and many other factors, all and/or
some of which may be relevant in a particularly
section of society at a particular time, affecting
the conditions of its citizens. Position and
class affects not only crime and homicide rates,
it may also affect other aspects of society.
REFERENCES:
1. “Social Class Definitions” :
2. “Social classes of Ancient Rome”
:
3. “Introduction to Social Class”:
4. “Plato: The State and the Soul”:
5. Book Title: The American Class Structure.
Contributors: Joseph A. Kahl - author. Publisher:
Rinehart. Place of Publication: New York. Publication
Year: 1957. Page Number: iii.
6. Paul Fussell, Class: A Guide Through the
American Class System (New York, Simon and Schuster,
1992 [1986]), p. 16.
7. C. W. Taylor, From the Beginning to Plato:
Routledge History of Philosophy, Vol I, Routledge,
1997
8. Vanneman, Reeve. 1977. "The Occupational
Composition of America's Classes." American
Journal of Sociology 82(4): 783-807.
9. Michael Benedikt, “Class Notes”:
Harvard Design Magazine (2000). http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt_articles/Class.html
10. G. William Domhoff Class System analysis,
[Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the
Year 2000, 1998]
11. Western, Mark and Erik Olin Wright. 1994.
"The Permeability of Class Boundaries to
Intergenerational Mobility among Men in the
United States, Canada, and Norway." American
Sociological Review 59(4): 606-629.
12. Wright, Erik Olin. 1978. "Race, Class
and Income Inequality." American Journal
of Sociology 83(6): 1368-1397.
13. Wright, Erik Olin and Donmoon Cho. 1992.
"The Relative Permeability of Class Boundaries
to Cross-Class Friendships: A Comparative Study
of the U.S., Canada, Sweden and Norway."
American Sociological Review 57(1): 85-102.
14. Wright, Erik Olin and Bill Martin. 1987.
"The Transformation of the American Class
Structure." American Journal of Sociology
93(1): 1-29.
15. Wright, Erik Olin and L. Perrone. 1977.
"Marxist Class Categories and Income Inequality."
American Sociological Review 42(1): 32.
16. Drew A. Hyland, Questioning Platonism: Continental
Interpretations of Plato (S U
N Y Series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy)
( October 15, 2004)
17. Zipp, John F. and Joel Smith. 1982. "A
Structural Analysis of Class Voting." Social
Forces 60(3): 738-760.
18. “Explaining violec\nce: Socioeconomics
and Masculinity”:< http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/aust-violence-1/Alder.pdf>