Karl Marx

Max Weber

Talcott Parsons

사회계층/계급, 사회적 불평등의 이해를 위해

– Sociologic Tradition 의 검토

The Marxian tradition presents a view of society stratified into “classes”

that are determined by the nature of exploitative production relations.

The Weberian tradition views society as stratified in multiple ways-by class,

status and political power- and this stratification leads to the unequal

distribution of economic resources and skills.

The Functionalist tradition in US sociology views the stratification of

society as a natural and necessary feature of complex modern societies.

The Marxist View of the World

Karl Marx believed that an understanding of social class:

“. . . reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis, of the entire social structure” (Marx, 1894)

For Marx, class was defined by the relationship to the means of production, or in other words, relationship to productive processes.

The whole basis of general social development arose from the productive interaction of humans and nature. This productive activity was common to all societies and each system of production established particular social relations between individuals and the productive process.

“Classes” emerged from this set of social relations of production when a

differentiated division of labor allowed any accumulated surplus of production to

be appropriated by a small number of people.

Capitalism is a system of commodity production in which people engage in a

process which not only meets their needs and the needs of their immediate others

but is meant to produce surplus commodities which can be exchanged in a

market.

These people then stood in exploitative relations to those whose labor produced

the surplus. Under capitalism this exploitation was an inherently structural

element of the capitalist system.

According to this view, domination and exploitation are not an inherent part

of the human condition, but are processes which arise from concrete features of

particular modes of production and the social relations they impose - thus, in

Marxist terms, exploitation and domination are “social relations”

• Classes were constituted in the relationship between groups who owned

“property” (resources) in the means of production (factories, financial

institutions, etc.) and those who did not. This yielded a dichotomous model of

class relations, an exploiting “owning” class and a subordinate “non-owning”

class who were of necessity in conflict - all they owned was their labor.

The Weberian View of the World

• In Weberian sociology, the focus was not on the structural relations imposed by

capitalism, per se, but rather that this system created groups, such as a working

class who were at a competitive disadvantage in the market place because they

had fewer goods, abilities and skills that they might exchange for income.

• Weber placed much more emphasis on the role of individual social actors

engaging in volitional activity in a competitive marketplace. Classes could be

seen as groups of people who shared common beliefs, values and circumstances,

or to use Weber’s famous term, “life chances”.

• Weber suggested that while there are clearly economic determinants to social

stratification, any individual’s fate - their life chances, should be understood in

terms of the distributive forces of the market which were subject to social and

political as well as economic power.

• In contrast to classes, groups defined by their social status were usually

composed of communities of people whose situation could be understood by

their “social honor”. Social honor was associated with a particular “style of life”

which these communities shared and was not necessarily coincident with their

economic circumstances.

• While the status order and the purely functional order of class were not

contingent upon one another, Weber recognized that having social honor (status)

and economic advantage produced more power than having social honor alone.

(Social status + money = power)

• Weber suggested that not all power differentials could be understood by

reference to purely economic distinctions. Weber’s point was that there are other

elements related to the distribution of power that lie in some sense of social

privilege unaccounted for by the naked possession of wealth.

Productive Process

Owners Workers

dominationexploitation

conflict

alienation

Marx

Productive Process

OwningClass

WorkingClass

Weber

themarket

resourcesskills

abilitiesdistribution

social relations of production

“life chances”

The Functionalist View of the World

• The Functionalist approach to social stratification that developed in the United

States, built on and altered aspects developed by Weber and to a much lesser

extent by Marx. The contributions made by Davis and Moore (1945), Warner

(1960), and Parsons (1970) represented a “naturalist” conception of social

stratification which has often been implicit in justifications for differences in

health status between sectors of the society

• In general, Functionalists argued that complex societies, of necessity, require

stratification into sectors which are more or less valuable to the progress of that

society - this is an almost uniquely US sociological view

• This rationale continues to be used as a reason to intervene or to not intervene

in the health of some part of the social hierarchy. In fact, the implicit rationale for

many public health interventions has been to ensure a healthy, functional

workforce which would play its role in the accumulation of wealth and the

progress of society as a whole.

• While the functionalists follow a more Weberian approach to social

stratification, they share the Marxist view of the importance of structural features

such as authority, position in the division of labor and property relations in

determining social position. Social stratification was related to a system of

positions, not to the characteristics of individuals who occupied the positions.

• The primary driving forces of stratification were hard-wired into the structure of

a bureaucratically managed capitalist system, so that the values, motives and

aspirations of the social actors involved were secondary in determining the nature

of stratification. (“person-environment fit” theory)

• However, in stark contrast to Marx, the Functionalist position implied a certain

acquiescence over the existence of social inequality, so that Davis and Moore

(1945) argued meritocratically that social stratification was an “unconsciously

evolved device” which ensured that those most qualified occupied the positions

of power.

사회적 불평등에 대한 용인 : Warner (1960)

“The lives of many are destroyed because they do not

understand the workings of social class. It is the hope of the

authors that this book will provide a corrective instrument which

will permit men and women better to evaluate their social

situations and thereby better adapt themselves to social reality

and fit their dreams and aspirations to what is possible.”

Warner. Social Class in America.

New York: Harper and Rowe, 1960, p.5

Measurement of Socioeconomic Position

Socioeconomic Status Social Class

Individual

Area

• Education• Income• Occupation• Wealth• Combined “SES”• Rank Perceptions

• Occupation

• Average education, income, % white collar• Unemployment• Poverty• Income inequality• Economic segregation

• Exploitation rate - wage to profit ratio

Lynch and Kaplan (2000)

• Employment relations• # Subordinates• Policy making opportunities (E.O.Wright)

Social Class Schema – British Registrar General

R-G class I Professionals

R-G class II Managers

R-G class IIIN Skilled non-manual

R-G class IIIM Skilled manual

R-G class IV Semi-skilled manual

R-G class V Unskilled manual

Started in 1851. Based on this classification, mortality rates were routinely reported

around the time of each decennial census. Renamed in 1990 as “Social Class based on

Occupation”

“standing within the community”, “culture”

Application of the social class to health indicators (Stevenson THC, 1928)

• Birth rates per 1000 married men: 70, 74, 101, 116, 127

• Adult mortality: 81, 94, 95, 101, 126

• Infant mortality: 48, 70, 97, 113, 123

Its correlation with mortality rates was used to assess the correctness of the

classification, which was then used as evidence of a social gradient in mortality rates.

British Registrar General’s Social Class, RGSC

Neo-Marxian Social Class Typology - Erik Olin Wright

Social class

Owning enoughcapital to hirepeople and notwork

1. Bourgeoisie

Own enoughcapital to hireworkers butneeding to workthemselves also

2. Self employed

Owning enoughcapital to workfor themselvesbut not to hireother workers

3.Pettybourgeoisie

Skill/credential assets(기술/학력재)

Organisational assets(조직재)

High Some None

High 4. Expert managers

7. Semi-credentialled managers

10. Uncredentialled managers

Some 5. Expert supervisors

8. Semi-credentialled supervisors

11. Uncredentialled supervisors

None 6. Experts: non-managers

9. Semi-credentialled workers

12. Workers

Own Assets in theMeans of Production

Do Not Own Assets in theMeans of Production

통제 (노동시장)

유 무

생산수단소유

유 자본가계급 자본가계급/중간지위

무 자본가계급/중간지위 노동자계급

Neo-Marxian View on Class

Social Class Schema – Erikson & Goldthorpe

1. Higher level professionals, administrators and officials; proprietors and managers in large firms

2. Lower level professionals, administrators and officials; higher level technicians; managers of small firms; non-manual supervisors

3.a. Higher level routine non-manual workers

3.b. Lower level routine non-manual and service workers

4.a. Small proprietors and self employed with employees

4.b. Small employers and self employed without employees

4.c. Farmers and self employed workers in primary production

5. Lower level technicians and manual supervisors

6. Skilled manual workers

7.a. Semi and unskilled manual workers

7.b. Agricultural and primary production workers

Social Class Schema – National Statistics Socio-economic classification or NS-SEC

1. Higher managerial and professional occupations, including employers in large firms,

higher managers, professionals whether they are employees or self employed.

2. Lower managerial and professional occupations and higher technical occupations.

3. Intermediate occupations (clerical, administrative, sales workers with no

involvement in general planning or supervision but high levels of job secureity,

some career prospects and some autonomy over their own work schedule)

4. Small employers and self employed workers

5. Lower technical occupations (with little responsibility for planning own work), lower

supervisory occupations (with supervisory responsibility but no overall planning

role and less autonomy over own work schedule)

6. Semi-routine occupations (moderate levels of job security; little career prospects; no

pay increments; some degree of autonomy over their own work)

7. Routine occupations (low job security; no career prospects; closely supervised

routine work).

우리 나라에서의 사회계급/계층 분류

구해근 김석준

김영모 서관모

신광영 홍두승

서관모의 한국사회 계급 구조 모형

부 르 조 아 지

프 롤 레 타 리 아 트

쁘 띠 부 르 조 아 층

반 프 롤 레 타 리 아 층

임 금 취 득 중 간 층

신 중 간 제 계 층

( 인 텔 리 층 )

자 본 주 의 생 산 양 식 소 상 품 생 산 형 태

계 급 계 층

구해근의 계급 모형

사회계급 기업부문 국가관료제 비공식부문 농업부문

상층계급 자본가 정치엘리트 - -

중간계급 화이트칼라 노동자 일반관리 쁘띠부르조아지 중/부농

하층계급 공장노동자 - 주변적 노동자 소작농/농업노동자

홍두승의 계급 모형

사회적 자원의통제수준

부문간의 구분

조직 부문 자영업 부문 농업부문

상 중상계급 상류계급 -

중 신 중간계급 구 중간계급 독립자영농계급

하 근로계급 도시 하류계급 농촌 하류계급

김영모의 계급 모형

고용주 자영자 피용자

전문기술직 자본가계급 구중산층 신중산층

행정관리직 자본가계급 구중산층 신중산층

사무직 자본가계급 구중산층 신중산층

판매직 자본가계급 구중산층 노동자계급

서비스직 자본가계급 구중산층 노동자계급

농/축/수산직 자본가계급 구중산층 노동자계급

기능공/노동자 구중산층 노동자계급 노동자계급

Self-employer Employer

Formal employee (full-time)

Formal employee

(part-time)

Non-formal employee Others

Legislator, senior officials and manager

Professionals CLASS I

Technicians and associate professionals

Clerks CLASS III CLASS II

Service and sales workers CLASS IV

Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers CLASS VI CLASS VI

Craft and related trades workers

CLASS III CLASS IIPlant, machine operators and assemblers CLASS IV

Elementary occupations CLASS VI CLASS VI

Unemployed CLASS VI

윤태호 등, 예방의학회지 (2000)

여성의 사회경제적 위치

Intellectual sexism?• 사회계급의 분석단위 : Household vs. Individual

• 경제활동(생산<소비)의 기본 단위는 가구로 인식되어 옴.

• 사회계급 분류 : 일반적으로 가구의 가장인 남성의 직업에 의존

• 무심코 사용해온 가구 단위 계급 연구 풍토는 intellectual sexism (Acker, 1973) 이 아닌가?

상황의 변화

• 여성의 경제활동 참여 증가남자 가장에만 의존한 사회계급 분류

의 정확성에 대한 의문이 증가

• 맞벌이 부부로 부부가 모두 경제활동에 참여하는 경우, 남성 가장의

계급적 위치에만 의존한 계급분류가 가구 단위 계급분류의 시각에

서도 정확한 것인가?

사회학 전통에서의 여성의 SEP 결정

미국 전통의 사회계층론(기능주의)• 핵가족 내에서 성에 따라 기능적 분업이 이루어지고 있으며, 이 때, 성인 남

자가 경제적 활동을 담당하게 되므로, 한 가족의 구성원들은 같은 성인 남자

에 의해 대표되는 사회적 지위를 공유한다.

• 사회계층의 단위는 가족이며, 가족을 대표하는 남자 가장의 직업이 주요 분

석대상이다.

유럽 전통의 사회계급론(베버주의, 맑스주의)• 계급이란 개인이나 집단이 내리는 주관적 평가에 의한 것이 아니라 사회적

관계 social relationship에 의한 것이므로, 계급분류는 기본적인 고용관계와

고용조건에 의해 이뤄져야 한다.

• 계급의 기본단위는 가족으로, 가구원 중 한 명(주로 남성)의 노동시장 참여

의 결과에 의해 직접 결정된 지위 directly determined position 를 갖게 되며, 부인을 포함한 나머지 가구원들은 가장과 같은 노동 참여의 기회를 갖지 못

하므로, 가장의 지위에 의해 간접적으로 결정된 지위 indirectly determined position을 갖게 된다.

사회계층연구에서의 Intellectual Sexism

Acker, 1973(1) 계층체계의 단위는 가족

(2) 가족의 사회적 지위는 남자 가장의 지위에 의해 결정

(3) 여성은 가족 내에 존재하므로 여성의 지위는 그가 소속된 남자에의해 결정

(4) 여성의 지위는 적어도 계층구조상의 위치 면에서 남편의 지위와같게 되는데, 이는 평가의 단위가 바로 가족이 되기 때문

(5) 여성은 그가 남성에게 속해 있지 않을 경우에만 자신의 사회적 지위를 갖게 되는데,

(6) 여성은 부, 권력, 위신 등 여러 가지 면에서 남성에 비해 불이익을당하고 있으나 이러한 사실은 계층체계에 관한 연구에서는 관계가없는 것처럼 여겨지고 있음.

• 기존의 기능주의나 맑스주의 모두에서 이러한 경향을 보이고 있다.

여전히 남는 문제들

여성 고용과 사회계급

• 여성 고용이 늘고는 있지만, 여성 고용의 특성은 단절적(취업 중단, 재취업등)임.

• 특정 시점에서 여성 자신의 직장을 토대로 한 사회계급을 갖고 있다가, 취업을 중단하면 남편의 사회계급으로 반복적으로 변경되어야 하는가?

• 한 가구내에 다양한 사회계급이 존재하는 것(계급불일치 가구)이 가능한가? (계급과 사회적 행동과의 연관성 문제)

• 실제로 “계급 불일치 가구”가 있다고 하더라도 실제 내용을 분석하면, 부부의 고용관계가 계급 분류상 그리 달라지지 않는 상태에 존재하게 된다. 즉, 결혼이라는 것이 계급구조를 복잡하게 만들기보다는 오히려 동류혼(homogamy)에 의해 계급을 계속 유지, 온존시키는 역할을 한다.

• 기혼 여성의 취업이 증가한다는 사실만으로는 계급 분석의 단위를 가구로하고 남성 가장의 계급적 지위에 의존하는 방법이 결정적으로 잘못되었다는평가를 내리기 힘들다.

여성 고용 문제를 고려하더라도… 주부는 어떻게?• 기존의 계급 이론에 의한다면, 경제활동 또는 생산활동에 참여하고 있는 인

구라야만 계급적 위치의 분류가 가능(홍두승, 1990)

여성에서의 SEP 분류 방법:가구단위 접근법

Conventional approach• 미혼의 여성, 남성 본인(혼인 여부에 상관없이)은 각자 자신의 SEP,

기혼 여성의 경우 남편의 SEP를 따름.• Registrar-General’s scheme

Dominance approach• 한 가구 내에서 가장 높은 사회계층을 갖는 사람의 SEP를 가구원

모두가 공유하는 방법

Cross-class approach• 직업이 있는 부인의 경우, 남편과 부인의 SEP를 비교하여 불일치

할 경우, 부인 본인의 SEP를 따르는 방법

어떤 SEP가 여성에게 적절한가?

Sacker et al, BMJ (2000)