JAHNVI JHA

B.A. (Hons) Sociology

Question: How does the study of inequality differ in the Marxian and Weberian framework?
Explain.

The study of inequality differs in the Marxian framework, which looks at it in terms of class
differences, and that being the basis of all forms of differences and inequality. Whereas the
Weberian framework takes a wider approach and goes beyond class differences (class
situation), and also takes into consideration the differences of status (status situation), honor,
power. This essay will try to cover first, Marxian understanding of inequality, then Weberian
understanding and lastly a differential comparison of the two through the work of Reinhard
Bendix.

According to Marx, class differences, class struggles are an important part of the history of all
sorts of societies and accordingly societies changed and developed. And these struggles are
marked by revolution which requires a particular class to identify its interests with that of
society’s, and there would be an eventual revolution which would lead to a classless society.
And this struggle would be shown to its full extent in capitalist society and would eventually
lead to the end of it.
Despite of the utmost importance of the idea of class for Marx, there is no systematic analysis
of the same. He talks about three classes(tripartite model of class), that of wage labourers,
capitalists and landowners, who derive their source of income from labor, capital, and owned
property, respectively. Marx reduced this down to the “two class model” consisting that of
bourgeoisie and proletariat, according to their relation to the means of production. These two
classes stand in a relationship of hostility. And as the gap between the two classes would widen,
this would lead to eventual “immiserisation of the proletariat”, with increase in commodity
production, profit, capital and decrease in the welfare of labourer. While talking about other
intermediary classes, that of petty bourgeoisie, peasants, landowners, which make the class
structure complicated, Marx brings in the two class model again. Even though the term
proletariat is most often applied to industrial workers, can be identified in terms of its concerns
and interests with that of a peasant’s, and a capitalist with that of a landowner. However,
Marxian analysis is limited to modern capitalists and proletarians and doesn’t really categorize
the two (peasants and proletariat) together. Next intermediate group that Marx talked about is
that of “Intelligentsia” or the ideological class, the one he himself identified with. Marx called
this group, paid workers, who worked for the interest of the bourgeoisie. This class worked for
the sustenance of the bourgeoisie, who controlled the aspirations of the same. Marx referred to
them as representing the Bourgeoisie and this class along with other middle classes, shows a
desire to move upwards, upward mobility. And that is why an identification with one’s own
class, realization of self belonging to a class is a struggle.
Marx did not want to deny the advent of these new intermediate classes, which would make
class structure complicated with middle categories developing and disappearing in between and
hence class evolving as a category. However, all of these classes will eventually submerge into
the two dichotomous classes, that of bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx also talked about the
subjective element/dynamics of the class, that is a sense of association and the realization of
the collective, becoming aware of one’s own interests, which are mostly in opposition to that of
the other class. He talks about “class consciousness”, political organization leading to organized
collective action. Subjective element is in the sense who wants to associate themselves with
that class group. If they don’t identify with common interests and common battle, then they are
competing within themselves in a desire of upward mobility, hence reestablishing class relations
which are hierarchical. Marx again and again emphasized on the necessity of politicization of
the struggle between the two classes. Class consciousness is the first step in order to bring
about a revolution.
Thus, Marx’s notion of class has two important elements, one, relation to the means of
production; and second, the subjective element, that is class consciousness and it’s political
organization. Marx said that based on the evolution of class structures and changing relations to
means of production, is the reason for the historical evolution of societies through different
stages. And that there would be an eventual overthrow of capitalism and establishment of a
classless society.

Absence of power evokes desire. Weber talks about multiple sources of power, that is economic
order, social order and legal order. Weber goes beyond economic status and says it is not
enough to understand power, one also needs to look at social honor. “Economic order” is to do
with how economic goods and services are distributed and “Social order” is to do with how
social honor is distributed in a community between typical groups. Social order is conditioned
by Economic order and reacts upon it. “Legal order” is to do with authority, bureaucratic
machinery and the legality of it.
Weber problematizes the definition of class, he says a class doesn’t form a community. For a
community there has to be a greater sense of identification. A class group has a specific causal
component (economic interests, opportunities for income), under conditions of commodity and
labor markets, of their life chances. A class group is nothing but people in the same class
situation. Weber says that class situation is the “market situation”, how easily one can access
the market, acquire more capital. It is governed by the situation/place in the market. Weber
makes a difference between possession of “property” and “lack of property” in class
situations/economic order. In agricultural communities, the creditor-debtor relationship defines
class situations. Status group is a group whose fate is not defined by possession of economic
goods and services within a market. Economically conditioned power is not the only power.
Weber’s idea of class is interrelated with power dynamics, and is nuanced more than just the
economic aspect. Class situation, for Weber, is ultimately a market situation. Class helps us
understand what can really produce collectivized, organized action. Status honor works as a
greater pull towards action. For a “communal action”, actors need to have a feeling of belonging
together and Weber says that class identities are usually overshadowed by other identities that
of religion, region, ethnicity, race, language, etc. according to Weber, class struggle is in order to
be able to determine the price of labor and production, have more and better access to market.
Status groups can be identified as communities. “Status situation” is to do with social
estimation of honor, positive or negative. Such groups are defined by a different style of life,
restricted social intercourse and are endogamous groups. Status groups belong to a certain
caste, have rituals maintaining purity and pollution, are marked by ethnic differences. Status
groups become caste groups when these are arranged in a vertical system of “subordination and
superordination”, with the one having more honor being the more privileged. These groups are
politically socialized leading up to communal and political action. Status privilege comes with
“monopolization” of ideal, material, cultural goods and opportunities. There’s an exclusiveness,
the group's unique lifestyle originates within and is conserved. Differences between class group
and status group are quite clear, in terms of relations to production, market, possession of
goods; and in terms of different lifestyles, honorific preferences, respectively. However when it
comes to occupational groups, which is a status group, differences can overlap.
“Parties” which comprise legal order, acquire power and influence communal action through its
societalization. There can be two goals behind this influence of communal action, one, there
could be an ideal or material purpose behind it; or it could be personal. The societalization takes
place through a rational order and parties have a staff which would enforce that order. The
sociological structure of parties depends on the kind of communal action that it intends to
influence, how the community is stratified and what is the structure of the domination. Party
has to influence the current dominion.

Reinhard Bendix engages with and compares Marxist framework of class and Weberian
explanation of class, status and power. Marx primarily talked about group formation on the
basis of ownership of property, which would lead to or is the basis of exercise of rule/possession
of power. His was an economic analysis. Class defines the condition of social life and was the
only cause of collective action. Polarization of classes, and eventual collective consciousness
and organized action would lead to revolution. Marx has a very narrow conception of inequality.
He did not talk about other sources of identity and group formation, such as nationalism,
citizenship, linguistic, religion, region, ethnicity. Marx just called these as “false consciousness”.
Weber, on the other hand, talks about class situations only limited to control over goods and
services. He accepts this on Marx’s line that it would lead to successful organization but differs
on that it would not lead to concerted action. It would just lead to mass reactions, and not
associations. The Marxian notion of class is an ideal type. He broadens Marx’s conception, and
goes beyond the class model given by him and talks about the instability within the class
structure and that solidarity is weakened by other (ethnic/religious) differences. Weber goes
beyond inequalities of class and talks about prestige, social esteem, status. Status groups can
exist even without any organization and consciousness. Both the groups, that of class and
status, have a self interest and their own set of ideas. But for Marx, class was a decisive
determinant. Marx predicted a final overthrow of capitalism and Weber did not predict
anything. Marx had a very reductionist approach and Weber did away with his reductionism. For
Weber, consciousness and organized action was not obvious. Economically powerful groups can
influence the political class because of their financial competence but there’s an actual group
who exercise administrative apparatus, and it’s this group which can influence organized action.
He also talked about intellectuals, in that they interpreted the goals of a group. This group forms
cliques and schools of thought and there can develop class and status differences among them.

What Marx did was an economic analysis of inequality, by looking at the two main classes and
the polarization between them. And hence his analysis was too narrow, nonetheless important.
Weber did not completely dismiss what Marx said, but he does away with Marx’s reductionism
and brings into consideration other forms of collectivities, associations, emphasizing on status
groups. Both class groups and status groups influence and interact with each other and are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, however status group solidarity is much stronger.

References:
1. McLellan, David. The Thought of Karl Marx. London: Papermac, 1995. Part 2. Chapter 6.
Class, pp. 182-194
2. Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. From Max Weber. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1946. Chapter VII, Class, Status, Party. Pp. 180- 195
3. Bendix Reinhard ‘Inequality and Social Structure : Comparison of Marx and Weber’
American Sociological Review, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 149-161