Part One of this essays details the relationship in practice between Class and Employment in Britain since 1970:
Since 1970, both employment and the social class system have changed greatly in the United Kingdom, but the firm relationship between the two has continued (Crompton 2010). Deindustrialisation has led to wholesale decreases in manufacturing and the opening of new markets. The class debate has continued, with the ‘Registrar General’s” method of grouping classes being replaced with the modern “NS-SEC Scheme” in response to changes in society, notably the type of jobs British citizens fulfil.
The decline of British industry, notably following the election of the Conservative government in 1979 had both immediate and lasting effects. Stephen Moore (1993, p51) suggests the changes made between 1978 &1993 in the British economy:
“seem likely to maintain a permanently high level of unemployment. The main changes include increasing automation in industry and related increasing productivity so that fewer workers are required, and the general decline of British manufacturing because of foreign competition.”
Moore goes on to suggest particular groups in society are more likely to suffer unemployment than others; the least skilled, those living away from the south-east & ethnic minority groups. Here, inequality is evident. Using the “Registrar General’s Social Class Scheme” in use at the time, we understand that then, as now, unskilled workers are considered to be working class. Moore explains that ethnic minorities are too more likely to suffer unemployment, as a large majority fill the unskilled or semiskilled worker category. Finally, those living away from the south east. This raises the issue of the north-south divide in the UK, on which Moore suggests the south east offers a more highly skilled work force than the north and a more affluent population. Again, discriminating against low-skilled, modestly paid, working class citizens.
Cuts to working class industrial jobs, saw high levels of not only unemployment, peaking at 13.1% in 1986, but high levels of social unrest, such as the miners strikes between 1984 & 1985 (Trading Economics, 2010). Such activities were seen as a response to the structural unemployment of millions of people being implemented by the government. Structural unemployment by nature reduces jobs in response to changes in the economy which should simultaneously open new positions for skilled workers. In this case, in order to enter an open market and tackle inflation, a policy of monetarism was introduced, with the belief that high levels of unemployment would eventually solve themselves as Britain moved into a new market. A change described by David J. Lee & Bryan S. Turner (1996, p184) as “the switch from manufacturing to services”.
In October 1986, the newly reformed British Stock Exchange reopened with national unemployment at a post-industrial high. The “big bang” that ensued managed to tackle much of Britain’s deficit with only 330,000 people working in City jobs (Marr, 2007). Meanwhile, those made redundant by the deindustrialisation and privatisation of Britain seemingly remained unemployed, struggling to find jobs in the new economy, particularly in areas with strong histories of manufacturing and production. The workers filling Classes 1 & 2 of the NS-SEC scheme were not only generating the majority of wealth in the nation, but wreaking most of the reward.
In an article for The Journal, William Green (2009) describes how the Conservative government, and in particular the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, left “communities devastated, mass unemployment, huge social unrest and a generation condemned to poverty”. The “generation” mentioned were not those in professional roles benefiting from the new “boom”, but the working classes. Phil Wilson MP says “she [Thatcher] left a lot of broken communities and that was the primary thing, but it was also the way she treated people who were unemployed…. there was nothing done to help them”. However, in contrast Peter Atkinson MP suggests that “Sensible and dispassionate people will realise there was no prospect of keeping coal mines or inefficient industries going” and that without such policies, regeneration would never have happened.
Eventually, as the initial reforms in the British financial and business sector began to grow, increasing numbers of jobs were created and a large number of the working classes went back to work, but even at the peak of the economic boom in 1989, 1.6 million remained unemployed. And on 16th September 1992, Black Wednesday, Britain’s next “bust” occurred. Between the low of 1989 and Black Wednesday, unemployment had again risen and was around 3 million, continuing to rise into the following year (Trading Economics, 2010).
The cycle of boom and bust then began again. Unemployment dropped sharply through the mid to late nineties and continued to do so into the 21st century, meanwhile Gross Domestic Productivity grew and Britain appeared richer than ever under a new-New Labour government. But once again the bubble burst, this time in 2007. A worldwide financial crisis rooted in over-lending and deregulated banks, resulting in the biggest recession in Britain for nearly 30 years. Similarly to the manufacturing decline of the 1980’s this resulted in huge levels of blue-collar unemployment, although this time it wasn’t being purposefully implemented by the government. Further comparisons can also be drawn; the unemployment rate amongst those filling “elementary occupations” was at 12% in the first quarter of 2009, whilst unemployment amongst “managers and senior officials” was at 3% during the same period. In sum, for every four elementary employees out of work, there was one manager or senior official: a display of inequality in class and unemployment, similar to 30 years previous (Hopkins, 2009).
In beginning to conclude the debate on the relationship between class and employment inequalities in the Britain, we must consider many contributing factors. Geography, community and family have all been discussed but most prominent is the link between education and class, and the variations it produces (Reid 1998, Scott, 2002). Through both the Registrar General and NS-SEC scheme, class is determined by occupation, and occupation is largely determined by educational attainment (Reiss Jr. 1961).
Finally, looking back over the last 40 years of British employment, it is clear to see the unskilled and semi-skilled workers have traditionally been those to suffer worse at the hands of their white-collared counterparts. This has been the case in both of the major recessions detailed; however a main difference in inequality levels would be the aforementioned contributor, education. In 2010 more people than ever before are accessing higher education and obtaining the skills needed to survive in a new jobs market. Meaning that though the unskilled workers still suffer most, there are many fewer than there were 40 years ago.
Part Two of this essay details classic sociological ideologies in relation to Part One:
In many ways, employment can be said to define us. As a way of providing for ourselves, Michael Argyle (1992, p72) suggests that “work is a central, and essential, part of life”. However, as suggested there is much more to employment than the basic principles of providing food, shelter and protection; occupation has a close correlation with social status and class. Richard R. Hall (1975, p239-240) suggests that “In the absence of hereditary castes or feudal estates, class differences come to rest primarily on occupational position”. These notions have a place in a universal discussion, but in relation to Britain, the social division of class, and the research dimension of employment, they can begin to give an explanation of inequalities that exist.
“‘Class’ and employment have been sociologically linked from the ‘founding fathers’ onwards” suggests Rosemary Crompton (2010, p11). She summarises Karl Marx’s analogy of class as:
“The emergence, with capitalism, of a proletariat who had only their labour power to sell, exploited by the bourgeoisie who bought and controlled this labour” (Crompton 2010, p11)
Crompton goes on to identify basic similarities and differences between this point of view, and that of Max Weber:
“Like Marx, Weber identified the selling of labour as crucial to the definition of ‘class’, but specified a range of ‘market situations’ with which the sale of this differentiated labour was associated, associated with different levels of rewards and giving rise to different classes.” (Crompton 2010, p11)
When comparing these two “conflict” theories, we see that while both Marx and Weber consider employment to determine class, they do so by varying degrees. Marx describes a simple divide of those selling their labour, and those exploiting those selling their labour. Whereas Weber suggests that differing labours are rewarded with differing financial rewards, and that this is key in deciding whether people are nearer to being exploited, or exploiting others.
Finally, Crompton (2010) explains how these “academic and political commentaries” have led to official statisticians dividing up the occupational structure to create “employment aggregate class schemes”, such as the Registrar General or NS-SEC classifications.
Conversely to these conflict theories are the perspectives of sociologists such as Emile Durkheim, known as functionalists, who support the notion of “social meritocracy”. The idea that those with “merit” or the greatest skills rise to the top of the social ladder, and are appropriately rewarded, while those with the least will move down in a system known as “social mobility”. This view clearly relates to the Weberian notion of class stratification, but also links heavily with other aspects of class such as education: as those with the highest skills or merits are likely to have had the privilege of a good education, unlike many others. This is why Marxists would argue against social meritocracy and the social mobility theory, instead suggesting that such ideas are a fallacy implemented by capitalism with the aim of making the proletariat think they can become “embourgeoisied”, when really inequality is inherent within communities and families, and so the ability to move up through society is restrained by our ancestry.
In an article named “Social Mobility, not security” (2010) John Bird suggests that social mobility is “the only one cure for poverty” in the UK, rather than proletariat revolution Marx advocates. He agrees with Marx that a culture of poverty is bred into groups of society and that the welfare state confines them to remaining in these such groups, but says by giving these people “the encouragement to become independent … they can choose to live their lives the way they wish, rather than the way it has been foisted upon them”, suggesting that by cutting the working classes dependence on the state, it will increase their social mobility. The best example of this in action within the timeframe at hand would be the Conservative initiative of selling government owned social housing to tenants, in order to place them onto the property ladder and into the new free market; one of the few benefits felt by the working classes in the early days of Britain’s new economy.
Unemployment is of course key to the issue in hand. Many Marxists believe that unemployment is a constant feature of capitalism, benefitting the ruling class (bourgeois) and condemning the working classes (proletariats). Shane Jones of In Defence of Marxism (2004) writes: “There is no “natural” need for unemployment other than the need for greater profits to be made by the capitalist class.” This clearly relates to the period of structural unemployment in Britain through the 1980’s whilst large amounts of the working classes found themselves unemployed, as the “capitalist” class enjoyed the riches of the new open market.
Although Marx spoke of a “lumpenproletariat” or “rag proletariat”, the notion of an “underclass” is more in sync with the Weberian idea of class stratification. The lowest class on the NS-SEC system, Class 8, describes its members as either: Never Worked, Long-term Unemployed or Long-term Sick. And although this category potentially contains contradictions ( for example, a long-term unemployed worker who for the 30 years previous has earned £100,000 a year), it is the proposed “underclass” which has suffered worst in terms of employment in Britain over the last 40 years. The fact that national unemployment in Britain has only dropped below 5% on a couple of occasions between 1979 and 2010 (Trading Economics 2010), displays how the notion of an underclass can be supported. Those who failed to find reemployment following Britain’s deindustrialisation, particularly in areas with strong traditions of manufacturing and production can be seen, in large numbers, to have never returned to work. From a Marxist point of view, they have passed this trend on to generations to come, geographically concentrated, particularly in the north of England, displaying ancestral class inequalities (Crompton 2006, 2010; Bourdieu 1996; Erikson and Goldthorpe 1993). Again this subject could be related to other sociological perspectives, with the functionalist notion of social mobility arguing that this group of people (the underclass), previously hard working and industrious, have been “suffering labour market disadvantage” (Lee and Turner 1996, p189) and as a result have sunk to the bottom of society, finally ending up “heavily stigmatised” and “live[ing] on the margins of society” (Macionis and Plummer 2008, p310).
When concluding the sociological theories and perspectives related to class and employment inequalities in Britain, it has been clear that the Marxist and Weberian ideologies have been most useful. In particular, Marx’s position on employment and Weber’s stance on class categories have led us to explore other avenues, such as structural unemployment and the development of an underclass in Britain. In relation to both of these conflict theories, the functionalist perspective has introduced opposing concepts such as social meritocracy and mobility.
Finally, the importance of the relationship between class and employment is summarised by Mike Savage (2000, p52) who complies with Weberian suggestions that broad class divisions can be related to income inequalities, but most importantly suggests that “this division is more marked than other possible categorical divisions”, ethnicity for example.
Bibliography
ARGYLE, Michael (1992). The Social Psychology of Everday Life. London, Routledge.
BIRD, John (2010). Social Mobility, not Social Security. [online]. The Guardian, 26 April. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/social-mobility-not-social-security
BOURDIEU, P (1996). On the Family as a Realised Category. Theory, Culture and Society, 13(3), 19-26
CROMPTON, R (2006). Class and Family. Sociological Review, 54(4), 658–76.
CROMPTON, R (2010). Class and Employment. Work, Employment and Society, 24(1), 9-26
DAVIS, Evan (2007). Blair’s economic legay. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/05/tony_blairs_economic_legacy_1.html
ELLIOT, Larry (2002). How Thatcher stumbled on her Big Idea. [online]. The Guardian, 20 March. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/mar/20/5
ERIKSON, R and Goldthorpe, J.H. (1993). The Constant Flux. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
GREEN, William (2009). After 30 years, the big debate rages on. [online]. The Journal, 4 May. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-198980576.html
HALL, Richard H. (1975). Occupations and the Social Structure. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics, 3rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HOPKINS, K (2009). Blue-collar workers ‘bear brunt’ of recession. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/14/unemployment-blue-collar-workers
JONES, Shane (2004). Unemployment: An Organic Feature of Capitalism. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.marxist.com/unemployment-feature-capitalism.html
LEE, David J. and TURNER, Bryan S. (1996). Conflicts about Class: Debating Inequality in late Industrialisation. New York, Longman Group.
MACIONIS, John J. and PLUMMER, Ken (2008). Sociology, 4th Edition. London, Pearson Education.
MARR, Andrew (2007). A History of Modern Britain. Oxford, Pan Books.
MARX, Karl and ENGELS, Friedrich (1998). The Communist Manifesto. New York, Signet Classics.
MONAGHAN, Angela (2009). UK recession in 1980: What was it like? [online]. The Telegraph, 23 January. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4323064/UK-recession-in-1980-What-was-it-like.html
MOORE, Stephen (1993) Social Welfare Alive. Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes.
OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2008). Analytical classes and operational categories and sub-categories of NS-SEC. [online]. Last accseed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/current/ns-sec/cats-and-classes/analytic-classes/index.html
PETTINGER, T (2007). UK Economy under Mrs Thatcher 1979-1984. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/uk-economy-under-mrs-thatcher-1979-1984.html
REID, I. (1998) Class in Britain. Cambridge, Polity.
REISS, Albert J. Jr (1961). Occupations and Social Status. New York, Free Post Glencoe.
ROSE, David (1995). Official Social Classifications in the UK. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU9.SAVAGE, Mike (2000). Class Analysis and Social Transformation. Buckingham, Open University Press.
SCOTT, J (2002). Social Class and Stratification. Acta Sociologica, 45(1), 23-35
THE TELEGRAPH (2008). Have we really never had it so bad? [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2652771/UK-recession-timeline.html
TRADING ECONOMICS (2010). United Kingdom Unemployment Rate. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=GBP
No comments:
Post a Comment