Category: Social Class

Introduction

The Safavid Empire, which reigned over Persia from 1501 to 1736, had a complex social structure that shaped the lives of its inhabitants. Understanding the social hierarchy and organization within the Safavid Empire provides valuable insights into the power dynamics, societal norms, and daily lives of its people. This essay aims to provide an informative overview of the social structure of the Safavid Empire, highlighting the roles of different social groups, their privileges, and their interactions.

The Shah and the Nobility

At the top of the social structure stood the Shah, the ruler of the Safavid Empire. The Shah held absolute power and was considered the spiritual and political leader of the empire. The royal family, including the Shah’s immediate relatives, enjoyed immense privileges and lived in opulence within the royal court.

Directly below the Shah were the nobility, consisting of high-ranking officials, governors, and military commanders. These individuals held significant positions of power and influence, serving as advisors to the Shah and governing various regions within the empire. The nobility enjoyed vast estates, received generous land grants, and had access to substantial wealth and resources.

Religious Leaders: The Ulema

Religion played a crucial role in the Safavid Empire, and the Ulema, the religious scholars and clergy, held considerable authority and influence. They were responsible for interpreting and enforcing religious law and played a significant role in shaping social and cultural norms. The Ulema were well-educated and enjoyed privileges such as tax exemptions and control over religious endowments. They also had the power to issue fatwas (legal opinions) and were responsible for maintaining religious orthodoxy within the empire.

The Bazaar Merchants and Artisans

The Safavid Empire had a vibrant commercial class centered around the bazaar, which served as the economic and social hub of the cities. Bazaar merchants and artisans formed an important segment of the social structure. Merchants engaged in domestic and international trade, importing and exporting goods across the empire and beyond. They amassed wealth through commerce and contributed to the empire’s economic prosperity. Artisans, such as craftsmen and skilled workers, produced a wide range of goods and played a vital role in the empire’s artistic and cultural development.

Peasantry and Rural Population

The majority of the Safavid population consisted of peasants and rural communities who worked the land. They provided agricultural produce, essential for sustaining the empire’s economy and supporting the urban centers. Peasants lived in rural villages and were subject to the authority of local landowners and nobles who owned large estates. Although their living conditions varied, the peasantry generally lived a modest and labor-intensive lifestyle, relying on agriculture for their livelihood.

Slave and Servant Class

Slavery was an integral part of the social structure in the Safavid Empire. The slave class comprised individuals captured through military conquests and slave trade. Slaves served various roles, including domestic labor, agricultural work, and military service. They had limited rights and were considered the property of their owners. Slavery was not limited to individuals of a particular ethnicity or background, and slaves could be found in various social and occupational roles within the empire.

Social Mobility and Interactions

While the Safavid Empire had a structured social hierarchy, social mobility was possible to some extent. Individuals could rise in status through military achievements, royal favor, or successful entrepreneurship. Marriage alliances between noble families also played a role in social mobility.

Interactions between social classes were necessary for the functioning of the empire. The nobility relied on the support of the peasantry for agricultural production, and the commercial class facilitated economic transactions and trade. The royal court provided a space for the convergence of various social groups, fostering cultural exchange and political maneuvering.

Conclusion

The social structure of the Safavid Empire was characterized by a hierarchical organization that reflected the distribution of power, wealth, and privileges. The Shah and the nobility occupied the highest positions, followed by religious leaders, merchants, artisans, peasants, and slaves. Despite these divisions, social mobility was possible, and interactions between different social groups were integral to the functioning of the empire.

Understanding the social structure of the Safavid Empire allows us to grasp the dynamics of power, economic relationships, and societal norms during that period. By examining the various strata of society, we gain insights into the complexities of life and social interactions within the empire.

Social class refers to the hierarchical categorization of individuals within a society based on a number of variables including wealth, income, education, occupation, and social network. While there are a number of models describing social class, the most commonly known model includes the upper-class, the middle-class, and the lower-class. The higher one’s position within the social hierarchy, the more advantages and opportunities they will receive. On the other hand, the lower an individual falls within the social hierarchy, the more disadvantages or consequences they will experience. Although social class can affect many aspects of an individual’s life, inequality when it comes to access to education is the one that stands out the most.

This clear form of inequality starts out at the preschool level. By age three, most children are old enough to attend an early-education program or preschool. However, many preschools charge tuition and the ones that are publicly funded typically have long wait-lists and are located in middle-class neighborhoods. This leaves lower-class children unable to access the necessary early education that can prepare them for elementary school. According to research done by Stanford University, children that do not experience formal education until the kindergarten level start off a year behind in math and verbal skills and, they will likely never catch up to their preschooled peers (Long, 2017). Lack of access to preschool also creates a problem for the parents due to the cost of private childcare. While middle and upper-class parents can send their children to preschool while they go to work, lower-class families either have to come up with the cash to pay for childcare while they work or, one parent must stay home. Either way, there is a substantial cost or loss of income associated with children who cannot attend an preschool, making it nearly impossible for families to save money and potentially move up the class hierarchy.

The educational consequence of being in a lower-social class comes from the typical K-12 system in America. In kindergarten, students are “tracked” which refers to being placed in a specific type of learning program based on perceived skills and potential. The tracking is done based on the opinion of a teacher and not necessarily a student’s true intellectual ability. Students that are perceived to have higher potential are placed in more rigorous programs while students that are perceived to have less potential are placed in less challenging courses of study. This leaves lower-income students at a great disadvantage because, many of them were unable to attend preschool thus, leaving them with lower math and verbal skills. Additionally, because tracking is susceptible to bias from the teachers, black and brown students are more likely to be “tracked down”, or placed in a path that is less rigorous than what they are capable of, while white students are more likely to be “tracked up”. Finally, once placed in a track, a student is generally held in that track for the entirety of their K-12 career. Higher tracks offer more advanced courses that better prepare students for college while lower tracks lack these sorts of courses, leaving lower-class students disadvantaged and undereducated.

A second educational consequence of being in a lower class comes from the quality of education one receives throughout the K-12 levels. While upper-class families can place their children in prestigious private schools, lower-class students are subjected to poorly funded public education. In these less-funded schools, students often face overcrowded classrooms which in result allow the teachers less time with each student to address their unique educational needs. Additionally, due to improper staffing, low-income public schools often cannot provide school counselors to address behavioral issues or other problems that a student may face at home, causing many students to face educational discipline such as suspension and expulsion at higher rates than those who attend wealthier schools. School libraries have few books and many of them are outdated and, students often have to share computers for research and other assignments. Because of this, many students suffer from low grades affecting their overall chances of getting into college. Honors or AP classes that prepare students for college are often unavailable and so are skill-building elective classes such as home economics or auto-shop. Low-income schools additionally fail to provide extracurriculars such as clubs or sports. Furthermore, the high-school drop out rate is significantly higher in low-income areas than it is to middle or upper-class neighborhoods. All of these factors severely limit the opportunities available to children that come from lower-class families and overall disadvantage them for the rest of their lives.

Lastly, the consequence of being in a lower social class is seen at the college level. Because of the undereducation low-income students face in the K-12 system, many of them are turned away from universities, if they even apply. For those that do get accepted into university, their options are limited due to the astronomical cost of higher education. While wealthier students can afford the high tuition of prestigious private universities, lower-class individuals do not have this privilege.

Social class is a separation of society based on social and economic status. It’s also one of the main reasons for division in today’s society. The novel Pride and Prejudice originated in the late 1800s and early 1900s. During this time, social hierarchies were what mattered and this was what determined the success of someones life. In the 21st Century, some people divide what is now called social class into the elite, upper-class, middle-class,[a] and lower-class. Income, influence, and status determine which social stature someone is placed in. These labels are what also causes division amongst society, this is because people’s personal prejudices affect their interactions with others. In the 19th Century, social status was determined by family connections and on a smaller scale, how one earned money.

Mr. Bennet was an English gentleman who owned the estate, Longbourn. His estate earned him around 2,000 pounds per year, which was a good living at this time. This put him near the upper-class status, which made him a well-respected man. This would automatically make societies think that he was arrogant and conceited. Mr. Bennet was not the only member of his immediate family who married someone from a class that was considered inferior. It was looked down upon to marry from a lower social class and a lot of families did not accept this idea. The main faces of the upper class in this novel are Mr. Bingley, who is a well respected man with an honorable reputation, and Mr. Darcy who is seen as a man who is drowning in his own ego —but[b] he still draws attention from those who don’t know him. But throughout the novel, Jane Austen uses the character’s own prejudices against them and the audience gets to see who they truly are. Social class is the main reason for initial prejudice.

In an initial interaction with someone comes with many mixed emotions and all of these emotions come from preconceived prejudices. When first meeting someone the first three things that get accounted for is appearance, body language, and mannerisms. It is completely normal to judge people during a first interaction, and it isn’t always a bad thing. By having these guards up, people are able to distinguish between those who they wish to associate with and invest time in and those who won’t add any value to their lives. Some studies say that these initial interactions are somewhat accurate in gauging a person’s true intentions. In the novel Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy attends a ball where all the characters have their initial interaction with each other.

At this ball, Mr. Darcy remained reserved and the other people characterized him as being conceited and dismissive of those around him. This is because he came with Mr. Bingley who set a good image for himself and the upper-class entourage. Elizabeth had a completely different interaction with Mr. Darcy at this ball she overheard Mr. Darcy saying “she is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; I am in no humor at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me.” (Austen 7).[c] He says this because she is not the most beautiful and she is from a different social class than him. After this initial interaction, Elizabeth has no intention to ever speak to him again. But later in the novel, the audience sees a change in the characters; When[d] Elizabeth turns down his marriage proposal, it surprises Darcy and he realizes just how arrogant and prejudice he’s been. Later there is a moment where Darcy and Elizabeth speak on how they have both changed. At this turning point, Jane Austen uses the characters and the audience’s own prejudices against them.

Social class has long been used as a measure of society, and often as an explanation for many of the phenomena within it. But what is social class? Depending on the viewpoint, there are a few different answers to this question. Some theories, such as Marxism would argue that class is defined as “economic, in relation to the ownership of the means of production” (Platt, 2010), meaning that class is in terms of who owns the means of production. Other theories, such as Weberism, would argue that “a class situation is one in which there is a shared typical probability of procuring goods, gaining a position in life, and finding inner satisfaction” (Breen, 2009), meaning that, essentially, members of the same class will have access to the same life chances as one another. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, emphasised the link between status and class, with status being “seen as manifestations of social class differences” (Weininger, 2009). In 21st century society, there are many ways in which these theories could be applied. The theory of class explains a lot of phenomena observed in society, for example wealth inequalities can be explored using the medium of classes, for example, the phenomena of the upper classes having more material goods than the lower classes. However, some conceptions of class are better suited to 21st century society than others. This essay will explore the different conceptions of class, and conclude that the Weberist concept of class is best suited to 21st century society

The Marxist concept of class views society in two classes; those being the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is defined as the ones who own the means of production, and so can use this to their advantage at the expense of those less fortunate than themselves. The proletariat are defined as the class do not have access to the means of production, and only have access to their capacity to work for the bourgeoisie, allowing the bourgeoisie to use them to their gain. A theme of the Marxist concept of class is that of exploitation, with the bourgeoise exploiting the proletariat for their own gain, with the proletariat seeing no real rewards for their effort. The Marxist concept of class could apply to 21st century society on a very basic level, however there are issues with it. As Marx stated, “To each according to need, from each according to ability” (Wright, 2009). This statement illustrates one of the main principles behind the Marxist concept of class, which is that of radical egalitarianism, essentially meaning that all members of society must work together in order to achieve the best overall situation for all members of society. The attributes of Marxism including that of the dynamic between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat fit into society in very broad terms; when society is stripped back, it could be argued that all components of society can be classed as part of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, for example in terms of business, the venue manager could be classed as bourgeoisie in relation to the venue staff, but then classed as proletariat in relation to the CEO of the company. This is the social relations of production. “the people that participate in production have different kinds of rights and powers over the use of the inputs and over the results of their use.” (Wright, 2009). This illustrates how the application of the Marxist concept of class to the 21st century can, in some ways, fit well. However, just as some ways gel, others do not. The element of the Marxist concept of class which does not fit well into the 21st century is the simple classification of classes. Marx allows for tow social classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In the era when Marx created this theory, these may well have fit, however in the 21st century, they are less fitting. The structure of society can change drastically over the course of just a decade, so considering that Marx died over a century ago, it is easy to consider how when applied to modern society, the concept of class does not fit as well as it may have. “Class inequalities have to be seen in the context of dramatic shifts in class structure across the twentieth century” (Platt, 2010) Whilst the presence of class inequality in society is endemic, the intricacies of these inequalities have changed greatly, and society can no longer be classed into two broad groups. This means that in terms of being applied to 21st century society, the Marxist concept of class is not necessarily the best fit.

The Weberist concept of class views class in different terms to that of Marxism; whilst Marxism views class as purely based on economics, Weberism views class in terms of life chances, more specifically, two members of the same social class will have the same life chances as one another, as compared to two members of two different social classes, who will have two separate groups of life chances. “Their possession of goods and opportunities for income as well as conditions of the labour market were relevant to class groupings” (Platt, 2010) This statement illustrates the viewpoint of Weber, in that class is not necessarily strictly based on whether the individual owned the means of production or not, but more so on the opportunities that the individual has, which brings in the idea of social mobility, which is the change in social position of an individual. This also introduces the idea of social closure, which is where the holders of social positions exclude others from these positions, and so keep these opportunities to themselves, therefore making themselves socially mobile and excluding others from becoming so too. Life chances can be defined as “the chances an individual has for sharing in the socially created economic or cultural ‘goods’ that typically exist in any given society” (Breen, 2009) The Weberist concept of class fits well into the 21st century society, as it allows for the changing structure of society. The position of an individual within the class structure depends on multiple things, including the ownership of any wealth, the level of authority within employment, and any skills or education, these of which can be affected by social closure preventing these from being accessible to all members of society. “It is well known that Weber saw class only as one aspect of the distribution of power in society.” (Breen, 2009). For Weber, class and status are among the most important ways power is distributed within society. Weberism often uses the Goldthorpe class schema to categorise members of society into different social classes. The Goldthorpe schema is based off of the type of employment an individual has, rather than the income brought in from it. (Platt, 2010) This is much more suited to Weberism than an income based system, due to the fact that Weber defines class as groups with similar life chances, and two members of society in similar lines of employment are much more likely to have the same life chances than two members of society with the same income and completely different types of employment. This lends itself nicely to 21st century society, as it allows for the changing social structure of employment and also allows for more than two broad classes, meaning that Weberism is more specific in terms of classes. This is good for practical applications of social class, for example in creating social policy, having multiple, more specific classes allows for the policy to be targeted specifically to those it needs to help, rather than having two broad general social classes. This means that the Weberist concept of class is better suited to society within the 21st century.

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of class views society in a similar manner to the Weberist concept of class, in that Bourdieu’s concept of class “takes as its object the relation between social classes and status groups” (Weininger, 2009). Bourdieu works off of Weber’s acknowledgement of the separation of status and class. Bourdieu’s concept of class has three parts – the economic capital, cultural capital, and the social capital. Cultural capital refers to the patterns of behaviour that are associated with elite culture. However, “the notion of a class structure encompasses the entirety of the occupational division of labor” (Weininger, 2009). This is a broader view than that of the Marxist concept of class, in that Marxism restricts itself to two very broad class groups as defined by whether or not an individual has ownership over the means or control of production or not. This allows Bourdieu to avoid the problems encountered by the Marxist concept of class, which is that there are simply too many different groups to be categorised, that the two class system of Marxism does not work, as there is too much disparity between two individuals of the same supposed social class. Bourdieu’s concept of class applies well to the 21st century, as there are multiple classes, rather than just two broad general classes. The class of the petit-bourgeoisie is brought in, allowing for individuals that have gained social mobility to be classed more specifically to their position within society. Bourdieu also uses cultural capital as a measure of class, again allowing for social mobility to be taken into account, and specifically allowing for the observation of intergenerational and intragenerational social mobility over a number of years. Using cultural capital illustrates the changing nature of society. Bourdieu also uses social capital in his concept of class, which whilst cultural capital is about the dispositions you have, social capital is made up of bonding social capital, which is to have access to support networks, and bridging social capital, which is to have access to multiple societal groups. This lends itself well to the 21st century as it allows for changes within society, whilst also making allowances for social mobility.

To conclude, depending on the viewpoint taken, there are multiple definitions of social class. The Marxist concept of class would say that class is based on purely economic divides, with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the two broad general social classes, with the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production and so exploiting the proletariat for their own gain. The Marxist concept of class does not necessarily fit in well with 21st century society, as due to the changing nature of society, members of society can no longer be generalised into two broad groups. This leads on to the Weberist concept of class, which would say that class is based on life chances; that being classes consist of people with the same life chances, these life chances being the chances that individuals have of gaining access to opportunities not available to everyone. This concept is well suited to society, as it allows for the changing face of society. The position of an individual does not just rely on material goods, but on the status within society of the individual, and takes into account, other factors, such as social and cultural factors. This allows it to be well suited to 21st century society. Bourdieu’s concept of class would say that class is based off cultural and social capital, and due to this, avoids many of the problems encountered by Marx, as there are more than two broad social classes, allowing the class system to be more specific. To conclude, the Weberist concept of class is best fitted to the 21st century society, for many reasons but not limited to the fact that it is adaptable to a changing society, takes into account multiple factors, and allows class to fit society.

In Willy Russell’s Blood Brothers, the Johnstones are portrayed as a lower social class in comparison to the Lyons. Russell does this by expressing the importance of money, even just to get basic items such as milk. This is shown through Mrs. Johnstone being told “no money, no milk” even though she has seven children. As Mrs. Johnstone is a single parent in the patriarchal society, she has less money than many other families, leaving her unavailable to afford necessities for her and her children. This displays that lower social class people found it harder to make a living for themselves and their families. This is similar to Carol Ann Duffy’s poem Brothers, as the protagonist talks about how they had to share a bed with their four older brothers. This was common in the lower social class as they were unable to afford and buy beds for each person in a household due to lack of a disposable income. A bed per person may have even been seen as a luxury as it was out of their reach with just their household income and they can still live without it, albeit, it would feel cramped and uncomfortable; this could represent both the physical and emotional effect of not having enough money.

Similarly, in Duffy’s poem Room, the room is scarce, with near to no furniture and is all of poor quality. Once again, money is displayed as a key issue as the owner of the room only has a second-hand bed. Both Mrs. Johnstone and the protagonist in Brothers are alike the owner of the room and are all trying to stretch out their money as much as possible. As the room is also costing the owner £90 a week, there is a constant reminder looming over the owner that even the most basic of items such as a safe place to sleep; a home, cost money; money that is extremely difficult for the lower social class to earn, no matter how hard or how long they work due to only menial tasks, such as cleaning, are available for them to complete for the upper social class families that have the money but only give small amounts to them.

Furthermore, in Duffy’s Like Earning a Living, the reader can infer that the school is one for lower social class students. This is due to both the names and the language used throughout. Names such as “Darren. Paul. Kelly. Marie… Mike” are all common and are more relaxed songs, similar to Mickey from Blood Brothers. Higher social class children would have more sophisticated and formal names, such as Edward. However, Mickey then goes on to nickname and repeatedly call Edward “Eddie”, a more relaxed name that would be seemingly more common in the lower social class in comparison to the higher social classes. This is used to link Edward back to his biological family, the Johnstones, and their lower social class’ poorer ways of life.

In addition to this, the teacher is displaying how some succumb to the use of filler words such as “like” due to the act of imitation. This represents how the lower social class may not have much power, but they are still able to manipulate the upper social classes through something as simplistic as language. Russell shows this too through mickey teaching Edward more vulgar words such as profanities leading to Edward’s advanced and formal vocabulary being enhanced by coarse language.

In addition to this, Russell presents the lower social class as superstitious. He has done this through Mrs. Johnstone’s early on interaction with Mrs. Lyons regarding her new shoes. When Mrs. Lyons places her new shoes on the table, Mrs. Johnstone exclaims in disagreement and demands that she “take them off”, however then goes on to deny that she is superstitious. After this interaction, later in the play, Mrs. Lyons goes on to become superstitious herself even though at the beginning she thought that Mrs. Johnstone was acting ridiculous in her superstitious actions. This is another example of how the lower social class are able to manipulate the upper social classes easily without much, if any power, similar to Like Earning a Living.

One main link between all social classes is maybe one that wouldn’t typically be thought of as it is Marilyn Monroe. She started off as a female amongst the lower social class however she did what was never expected and became a well-known name. she became the idol for many women, and this has been represented through Blood Brothers and Before You Were Mine. The protagonist in Duffy’s poem describes her mother as stylish with her “polka dot dress”, similar to Marilyn Monroe’s style. Monroe is continuously mentioned in Blood Brothers as she is the motif. She has managed to be the idol of nearly everyone, regardless of social class, and brings everyone together, bringing together groups of juxtaposing social classes; groups of people that wouldn’t usually interact. By becoming famous after being a woman from the lower social class, she has proven that you should never let anything hold you back from completing your dreams although this may also cause issues mentally for other women in this social class as they contemplate as to why they cannot accomplish the same as Monroe at such a young age.

Additionally, people with money or less children are seen to have more freedom than some. This is due to the lack of concern regarding money, entertainment, etcetera. Russell portrays this sense of freedom through Mrs Johnstone and her husband frequently “[going] dancing”, but then when Mr Johnstone met a new woman, who looked like Marilyn Monroe, after Mrs. Johnstone had seven children, her freedom is stripped away from her and she can no longer “[go] dancing”. In Duffy’s Before You Were Mine, the protagonist mentions her mother dancing. This entails that before children, women have more freedom and can relax which was more common in the lower social class. This is a result of single-parent families being much more common in this social class and so there is no other parent around to be responsible for the children and so the mothers will be expected to care for their children day and night with near to no breaks. This then leads to the lack of the chance to relax and feel a sense of freedom as well as fun.

When Blood Brothers was set, Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister of Britain as she was in this role from 1979 until 1990 and Blood Brothers was set in the 1980’s. Social class is a key theme in this play as Thatcher had increased levels of unemployment and made the division between social classes more evident than before and so she is a key reason that the working class had such a low household and disposable income. When James Callaghan was prime minister unemployment rates were at one million, however, in July 1986, the number of people to be unemployed hit over three million. This is because coal mines, factories, shipyards and steel mills were all closed down; whether this be done due to political vindictiveness or disastrous neo-liberal industrial policies. This mostly effected the working class as they were the main people who were expected to work menial jobs that contain hard work and long hours with not much pay. Due to this, Willy Russell has tried to emphasise the difference between the classes and how much more severe they became during the time in which Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister through the Lyons family and the Johnstone family and how the difference between the both of them is rather accentuated

In Willy Russell’s Blood Brothers, the Johnstones are portrayed as a lower social class in comparison to the Lyons. Russell does this by expressing the importance of money, even just to get basic items such as milk. This is shown through Mrs. Johnstone being told “no money, no milk” even though she has seven children. As Mrs. Johnstone is a single parent in the patriarchal society, she has less money than many other families, leaving her unavailable to afford necessities for her and her children. This displays that lower social class people found it harder to make a living for themselves and their families. This is similar to Carol Ann Duffy’s poem Brothers, as the protagonist talks about how they had to share a bed with their four older brothers. This was common in the lower social class as they were unable to afford and buy beds for each person in a household due to lack of a disposable income. A bed per person may have even been seen as a luxury as it was out of their reach with just their household income and they can still live without it, albeit, it would feel cramped and uncomfortable; this could represent both the physical and emotional effect of not having enough money.

Similarly, in Duffy’s poem Room, the room is scarce, with near to no furniture and is all of poor quality. Once again, money is displayed as a key issue as the owner of the room only has a second-hand bed. Both Mrs. Johnstone and the protagonist in Brothers are alike the owner of the room and are all trying to stretch out their money as much as possible. As the room is also costing the owner £90 a week, there is a constant reminder looming over the owner that even the most basic of items such as a safe place to sleep; a home, cost money; money that is extremely difficult for the lower social class to earn, no matter how hard or how long they work due to only menial tasks, such as cleaning, are available for them to complete for the upper social class families that have the money but only give small amounts to them.

Furthermore, in Duffy’s Like Earning a Living, the reader can infer that the school is one for lower social class students. This is due to both the names and the language used throughout. Names such as “Darren. Paul. Kelly. Marie… Mike” are all common and are more relaxed songs, similar to Mickey from Blood Brothers. Higher social class children would have more sophisticated and formal names, such as Edward. However, Mickey then goes on to nickname and repeatedly call Edward “Eddie”, a more relaxed name that would be seemingly more common in the lower social class in comparison to the higher social classes. This is used to link Edward back to his biological family, the Johnstones, and their lower social class’ poorer ways of life.

In addition to this, the teacher is displaying how some succumb to the use of filler words such as “like” due to the act of imitation. This represents how the lower social class may not have much power, but they are still able to manipulate the upper social classes through something as simplistic as language. Russell shows this too through mickey teaching Edward more vulgar words such as profanities leading to Edward’s advanced and formal vocabulary being enhanced by coarse language.

In addition to this, Russell presents the lower social class as superstitious. He has done this through Mrs. Johnstone’s early on interaction with Mrs. Lyons regarding her new shoes. When Mrs. Lyons places her new shoes on the table, Mrs. Johnstone exclaims in disagreement and demands that she “take them off”, however then goes on to deny that she is superstitious. After this interaction, later in the play, Mrs. Lyons goes on to become superstitious herself even though at the beginning she thought that Mrs. Johnstone was acting ridiculous in her superstitious actions. This is another example of how the lower social class are able to manipulate the upper social classes easily without much, if any power, similar to Like Earning a Living.

One main link between all social classes is maybe one that wouldn’t typically be thought of as it is Marilyn Monroe. She started off as a female amongst the lower social class however she did what was never expected and became a well-known name. she became the idol for many women, and this has been represented through Blood Brothers and Before You Were Mine. The protagonist in Duffy’s poem describes her mother as stylish with her “polka dot dress”, similar to Marilyn Monroe’s style. Monroe is continuously mentioned in Blood Brothers as she is the motif. She has managed to be the idol of nearly everyone, regardless of social class, and brings everyone together, bringing together groups of juxtaposing social classes; groups of people that wouldn’t usually interact. By becoming famous after being a woman from the lower social class, she has proven that you should never let anything hold you back from completing your dreams although this may also cause issues mentally for other women in this social class as they contemplate as to why they cannot accomplish the same as Monroe at such a young age.

Additionally, people with money or less children are seen to have more freedom than some. This is due to the lack of concern regarding money, entertainment, etcetera. Russell portrays this sense of freedom through Mrs Johnstone and her husband frequently “[going] dancing”, but then when Mr Johnstone met a new woman, who looked like Marilyn Monroe, after Mrs. Johnstone had seven children, her freedom is stripped away from her and she can no longer “[go] dancing”. In Duffy’s Before You Were Mine, the protagonist mentions her mother dancing. This entails that before children, women have more freedom and can relax which was more common in the lower social class. This is a result of single-parent families being much more common in this social class and so there is no other parent around to be responsible for the children and so the mothers will be expected to care for their children day and night with near to no breaks. This then leads to the lack of the chance to relax and feel a sense of freedom as well as fun.

When Blood Brothers was set, Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister of Britain as she was in this role from 1979 until 1990 and Blood Brothers was set in the 1980’s. Social class is a key theme in this play as Thatcher had increased levels of unemployment and made the division between social classes more evident than before and so she is a key reason that the working class had such a low household and disposable income. When James Callaghan was prime minister unemployment rates were at one million, however, in July 1986, the number of people to be unemployed hit over three million. This is because coal mines, factories, shipyards and steel mills were all closed down; whether this be done due to political vindictiveness or disastrous neo-liberal industrial policies. This mostly effected the working class as they were the main people who were expected to work menial jobs that contain hard work and long hours with not much pay. Due to this, Willy Russell has tried to emphasise the difference between the classes and how much more severe they became during the time in which Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister through the Lyons family and the Johnstone family and how the difference between the both of them is rather accentuated

Abstract

The article of Thomas C. Wilson (2002) will be critically analyzed in this thesis. The study in that article was to establish the role of sports involvement in the creation of social classes within the society. The author opined that high educational level or the income distribution of participants increases people’s tendency of involving in sports.

However, the higher these elements are, the more of a deterrent it is for them to engage in ‘prole’ sports. This, according to the writer is a paradox and which the writer has to a great extent helped us to understand except for a few limitations.

This article will try to analyze the various strong points formulated by the author, the weaknesses as well as the limitations of the study.

Introduction and review

The author presents a case study of the relationship where he argues that social classes of individuals plays a big part in shaping the pattern of sports involvement and participation.

This may have been true in the past, where, “sport [was] analyzed as a reflection of the way of life. Social inequalities are reflected in the use of sports and they are also a means of group and class values affirmation,” (Ohl 1999, Pp. 148).

The author, however, did not make any reference to recent study. The current trends shows that: ‘individuals of higher managerial and professional occupations attend cycling in larger numbers as opposed to people of lower supervisory and technical occupations, semi-routine occupations, routine occupations and unemployed individuals” (Sports England 2010 P. 5).

Further, the classification between the so-called ‘prole’ sports and high-class sports is not clear. He does not tell us how he reaches to the conclusion that golf is higher class than football. The Gallup polls conducted between December 11th and 14th 2006, shows that football is Americans favorite sport (43%) while golf is relatively less preferred (3%) but such games as boxing receive the list popularity (2%), (Carroll, 2007).

This seems to differ with the writer’s conclusion that middle class people are more likely to attend boxing than golf. It also casts doubt to his conviction that the reason why people do not attend such games as golf is solely because of resources.

The statement of the problem is not very clear, for example the effect of education on sports. There is ambiguity on how exactly education affects sports participation.

For example, in a study conducted in Scandinavia institute of education, “showed no effect to sport spectatorship in Denmark, slightly positive effect in Norway and a negative effect in Sweden” (Thrane 2001, Pp. 158). Further, the writer himself agrees that economic capital itself is not an effective method of supporting this argument.

The author’s argues that the cultural and economic capital settings deter individuals from engaging in other lower class sports. This argument does not explain why participants continue being in such lower class sports long after they have gained enough wealth and worldwide recognition and quite evidently acquired a higher social milieu from their previous one.

The most logical thing for them to do, according to the author’s argument, would be to abandon their current sports they are involved in and join the ones matching with their current social standing in the society, but this does not happen.

Further the author overlooked on the role of other demographic factors, such as age and gender, to sports involvement. For example, there are sports which are more likely to attract young people as opposed to the aged.

Sports such as car racing are most common with the youths while golf playing is more prevalent among the older generation. This is so even for sports like football where players retire from their teams at their early 30’s.

Further few women are associated with sports like wrestling and rugby, which involve physical strength, as compared to sports such as swimming and tennis playing. Failure to take into consideration of these factors leads to a denial of their significant contribution to sports involvement, a fact that is very obvious.

Methodology used

The writer uses a representative sample of people who attend certain specified sports. While this shows some evidence of positive relationship between economic capital and sports participation, the research has relied on a very small proportion thus compromised on generalization of the outcomes.

Further, the research only considered the duration of one year only. Such a short span does not warrant the writer to jump to the conclusion that “education transmits class-based culture intergenerationally…” (Thomas 2002, P.3).

There should be a range of sports dealt with by the research to facilitate conclusive decision without bias. In his research on participation on ‘prole’ activities, the writer only deals with auto racing, which according to him is a middle class sport. This gives a very narrow basis to make any general conclusion.

Further, there is no big difference in participation in this sport between the middle class people and the upper class participants. The writer only analyses the those elements confined to his argument and simply ignoring the other aspects which are equally important to the outcome of the discussion.

Results

It is in fact true that income and education bears on an individual’s tendency to participate in sports, and the writer research has in a way, depicted this principle. But there is no major difference in frequency of sports involvement between people who attend such high class games as golf, skiing, tennis etc and those that attend such prole sports as auto racing etc for both men and women (2.3% for men and 3.0% for women) (Tb. 1). Thus the research is not based on convincing grounds.

The writer does not explain why individuals earning $30000-39999 participate in sports more than those earning $40000-49999 if the economic capital principle applies, (Tb. 2) and generally there is no major difference in sports participation for respondents earning $30000-3999, which is a middle class, to those earning $60000-74999, which can be classified as a high class, (Tb. 3).

Discussion

The writer explains the results by arguing that the reason why there are less people with high income attending auto-racing is because tastes and preferences are determined by social class. This is a bit farfetched and there is no evidence on it. The researcher did not ask the respondents why their attendance of sports was that way.

Probably this would have enlightened us on other matters that affect their decisions which the writer has overlooked. With these defects in the writers research, to say that sports participation creates social stratifications would be wrong and inappropriate, but to say that income distribution causes individuals to attend some sports and not others would be indeed, very true.

One can adopt Bourdieu’s concept of habitus; which he explained as ‘‘a set of basic, deeply internalized master-patterns which may govern and regulate mental processes without being consciously apprehended and controlled’’ (Bourdieu 1984)

Conclusion

The analyses by the writer of the relationship between education and income on one side and how different groups engage in sports on the other side helps us to understand why various sports involve more people such as football, while others have relatively few spectators.

However, the analogy on how sports involvement contributes to social inequality did not come out clearly. All in all, the author’s ideologies and arguments are fairly practical and relate to real life and portray a brilliant mind.

References

Bourdieu, P. D. (1979) A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrol, J. (2007), Football Reaches Historic Popularity Levels in Gallup Poll: Gallup News Service. Web.

Ohl, F. (1999) Are social classes still relevant to analyse sports groupings in‘‘postmodern’’ Society? An analysis referring to P. Bourdieu’s theory: Lab. APS et Sciences Sociales, Universite´ Marc Bloch, Strasbourg.

France Thomas C. W. (2002) The Paradox of Social Class and Sports Involvement: The Roles of Cultural and Economic Capital: International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Web.

Thrane. C. (1999) Sports Spectatorship in Scandinavia: A Class Phenomenon? Norway Lillehammer College.

Sport England (2010), Active People Survey (APS) Results for Cycling. Web.

Social class is an integral parameter especially in regard to access to important resources as well as various opportunities in life. People who are presumably from high social class seem to control most resources in our society today. Hence, they determine what people from lower social classes should get. I strongly believe that those who belong in higher social class control myriad means of both basic and secondary production which is heavily relied upon by those in lower social class.

In most cases, individuals of high social class tend to have no barrier in social mobility in comparison to their counterparts in lower social ladder. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that social mobility of an individual is highly likely to be influenced by social status in society. For instance, it takes spans of generations for one to change his or her social class particularly with people of disadvantaged background, wealthy parents tend to have wealthy children’s as poor parent continues to have poor children.

This trend continues for indefinitely long period of time.
Social class will also affect the way individuals perceive things within their environment. Different social classes affect people’s perception. For instance, people from high social class will probably perceive those who are suffering as poor people since they feel poverty is connected with suffering.

A person from low social class may perceive suffering to be caused by emotional and physical problems which are not connected with poverty. Hence, different perceptions arise depending on individual’s social class owing to the fact that different problems are experienced by people from different social classes which later influences their attitude and perception towards life.

Social class diversity also creates differences on people relate with each other. Different component of social class determines relationship of individuals from different social classes. For instance, I am of the view that class diversity at workplace has always influenced the way promotions and demotions are determined in organizations.

Different diversions of social classes determines the way top management relates to individuals who are at the lower social ladder and it is what determines placement in organizations. When there is absence of management strategies to evaluate and monitor performances of different social classes, majority of the low class will be perceived different in organizations. Your assigned social class determines your role and position in society which on the overall makes a difference in your achievement.

I am of the opinion that social class affects an individual’s work and determines his role in the religion. Most individuals choose religions and work depending on their social status, certain works are meant for people of certain social class. In our everyday life, jobs like cleaning and gardening may be meant for people of low social class as some executive jobs like management positions are meant for people of high social class.

This has been enhanced by several factors such as discrimination and perception that people have on different types of jobs. The association of different social classes to certain types of employment depending on technical knowledge has enhanced the application of social class in determining the nature of work place.

It is only religion which tends to unite both social classes irrespective of one’s county of origin. Individuals from both classes share religion with different denominations regardless of one’s social class.

Introduction

Social classes within communities are mostly as a result of differences in major areas of life for example the level of education, the amount of wealth or income one earns and the position that one holds in the society among other factors.

In any given society, it is common to find the upper class, the upper middle class, the lower middle class, the working class and the poor. This paper will explore the topic of class and will specifically seek to prove that it is possible for one to achieve their dreams in life regardless of the social class that they belong to.

Summary of the articles

How class affects one’s education

The relationship between class and education can be evident in the article by Leonhardt and Scott (p 8), who observe that the number of students who belong to the upper class in around 250 colleges has significantly risen compared to that of students from the lower class income. This has led to some colleges looking for intervention measures that will favor the lower income earners.

This is because; they have noticed that a lot of talent is being lost because of the inability by the students from lower income families to access education. Leonhardt (p 1) further gives an example of how class can affect ones education using Andy Blevins, who decides to quit college in order to continue working. His decision is motivated by his poor background. He is an example of the many young people who decide to quit school and prefer to work because of their class.

How class affects health care

Leonhardt and Scottt (p 8) state that there is an observable difference between one class and another in terms of health care. The upper class is better placed in accessing health care and consequently has a higher life expectancy compared to the middle and the lower classes. On the other hand, the middle class is better off compared to the lower class, which is the worst hit in the area of health care and hence, a lower life expectancy compared to the other classes.

How class affects marriage

In terms of marriage, Leonhardt and Scottt (p 8) say that class determines the choice of the place where one lives and the people who one associates with. Those in the high class tend to have their children at a time in their life when they are stable financially and also due to the delay in getting married, they are able to have fewer children.

Children from the upper class therefore have more privileges in life compared to their counterparts in the lower and middle classes. Some of the effects of class on marriages are shown through the lives of Mr. Croteau and Ms Woolner. Married and from two extremes in terms of their classes, they try very hard to reconcile their differences to build up a stable family. Their differences are so pronounced until they are evident even to their children (Lewin p 4).

Determination and motivation regardless of one’s class

The story of James in the book ‘The Color of Water by James McBride’ is a perfect illustration of how one can succeed in life against all odds. James goes through a series of difficulties in life for example, the death of his biological father and also his step father, a background whereby the mother was abused by her father and also the race of his mother. He turns to drugs to escape from reality but later reforms and is able to have great achievements in life, which is also a source of joy to the mother (SparkNotes p1).

The story of Mr. Croteau and Ms Woolner is also one of determination and how it can help one overcome every barrier and achieve what one desires. In their marriage, they have to overcome insurmountable odds in order for it to succeed, the class difference being the greatest. By the end of the story, they are still together and have a guiding philosophy that they must press on regardless of their obstacles.

Conclusion

Although class plays a significant role in the kind of life that one leads, it should not be seen as if one has to remain in one class forever. With determination and motivation, one can achieve anything, including moving up from a lower class to upper class.

Works Cited

Leonhardt, David. The College Dropout Boom. New York: New York Times, 2005

Lewin, Tamar. When Richer Weds Poorer, Money Isn’t the Only Difference. New York: New York Times, 2005

Scott, Janny and Leonhardt, David. Shadowy Lines That Still Divide. New York: New York Times, 2005

SparkNotes. The color of water: plot overview. SparkNotes LLC. 2011. Web.

Introduction

The contemporary concept of class is as old as the socioeconomic and political system known as capitalism. Within the modern Western societies such as the US, social stratification of people is organized into three principal stratums namely: upper class, middle class, and lower class.

In essence, social stratification of people into the above named layers entails categorization of people into groups founded on common socioeconomic circumstances and, a relational set of disparities that has social, political, ideological, and economic perspectives (Pine Forge, 2006, p.2). Americans have a weak sense of class consciousness, and in addition, this class consciousness is not the same for the upper class and the middle class.

Americans sense of class consciousness

Literary, consciousness refers to an individual’s notion of being; self-awareness. For Marxists, class consciousness is an individual’s political sense of self (Little, 2009, Para. 2). It is believed that Americans, at best, have an exceptionally weak sense of class consciousness. From a comparative viewpoint, Americans have a weak or no class consciousness particularly among the working class (Shortell, 1999, Para 1).

Scholars opine that, the American workers have not had the sense of consciousness manifested by their European counterparts. However, even though there is an evident weakness of class consciousness among the American workers, labor historians assert that, American workers have a sense of their interests as workers and that they comprehend methods used by the powerful in order to ensure that they remain powerless (Shortell, 1999, Para. 3).

When persons understand their life experiences as shaped and constrained by their social position, then their sense of being is literary class-based. Shortell points out that, class consciousness is not limited to occupational unity and labor activism. In a way, he tends to imply that class consciousness is wrongly associated with labor activism because of its perceived origins in the European labor movements of 19th century (1999, Para. 4).

Class consciousness for the upper class and the middle class

Class consciousness is certainly not the same for the upper class and the middle class. The available evidence shows that, even though, people do not think about their class position every moment of their lives, if asked about who they are, they readily identify with a given class position (Shortell, 1999, Para. 4). For example, statistics from recent General Social Surveys show that, most Americans identify with the middle class or the working class (Pine Forge, 2006, p.20). This data confirm that Americans are also capable of thinking about themselves in terms of a class position.

Class is slowly becoming part and parcel of the American language. According to Davos (2011), the American middle and upper-class people are aware of the class position within the American society particularly on the basis of income disparity. The upper class is defined as having unlimited purchasing power irrespective of the harsh economic conditions.

They are characterized by a sense of gentle optimism (Davos, 2011). On the other hand, the middle-income earners are characterized by fear because; if they have not lost their jobs, they are worried they might lose them sooner or later. Their spending is described as being a “pay-packet to pay-packet” sort of living (Davos, 2011, Para. 3).

Conclusion

It is evident from the available statistics that Americans are capable of thinking about themselves in terms of class. The only difference between the Americans and others like Europeans is that, class consciousness has not, albeit in a revolutionary manner, made them mount the form of labor movements witnessed in the European labor history. In a recap, Americans have a weak sense of class consciousness which is not the same for the upper class and the middle class.

References

Davos, J. M. (2011). Class consciousness comes to Davos. The Economist. Web.

Little, D. (2009). Understanding society: Marx’s theory of political behavior. Web.

Pine Forge. (2006). Social Class in America. Web.

Shortell, T. (1999). Class Consciousness. Web.