Amendment to Weber's Model of Social Class
83Introduction
If you know nothing about Weber’s model of social class, don’t worry, I don’t remember it either. This essay was written in 1999 for the sociology course. I look at it as my photograph from twelve years ago. Why? Because writings show who you are, mirrors and photographs don’t.
I am trying to find the answer to the question “Who am I?” Everything I say and do is a reflection of me, yet it is very hard to recognize the image. I am…
There are two types of people:
1. Immediate cooperators (yes-people);
2. Immediate testers (no-people).
Choose your type:
See results without votingYou may conform, deviate, defy, resist or ultimately fight. I am an immediate cooperator, however, I am passive-aggressive (not good), and an implicit fighter. When provoked… it is best not to provoke me. I am against physical or any type of violence (how many types are there?), yet I am completely against unquestioned acceptance of everything or anything. No wonder I am so stuck. Between a “yes” and a “no”, there is this limbo. My personal defiance is against the advice and the paths (solutions) being suggested and thrown at me. I don’t have the answers, but I keep looking.
To conform or not to conform?
What class do I belong to? I don’t have property (I have, but strictly speaking it is not mine), I have no power and no prestige. Is there even a name for the class of property-less, powerless and prestige-less?
If there is not, should I be a trailblazer (should I put something ablaze)?
Idealists, dreamers, …
Questions and Answers
- To conform or not to conform?
Listing of the answers to the question: To conform or not to conform?What do you prefer, to conform or not to conform? Would you rather be yourself and follow your path or be like everybody else? Why? - What are the advantages of conformity?
Listing of the answers to the question: What are the advantages of conformity?
I have asked the question.
And one of the answers was:
Andy the Great :
"Start life as a conformist until you truly understand the reasoning behind conformity. It's an easier path until you're prepared for nonconformity. It's important to craft many metaphorical masks for yourself and wear them at appropriate times.
You begin life with only one mask, and if you only kept one mask your whole life, people would start hating you by the time you reached adulthood. You talk to your grandmother differently than you do a young niece of nephew. You talk to your boss differently than you talk to your close friends. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Control your bag of masks and you'll be able to open more doors in life.”
I think this is hypocrisy. I value authenticity. Why would people hate me for being me? I think I am amazing.
“Be a curveball. Do the unexpected. Surprise people. Those are the most interesting people in life. “ Andy the Great
I don’t even know what a curveball is. I do the unexpected and I surprise people, especially myself.
Publishing this essay before the series of my new articles is just one of those surprises.
Why? Because I have never been a conformist at heart. I conform on the surface, I keep appearances more often than not, and I behave. I like harmony and consensus. It does not mean I accept the idiocies of modern society. I don’t. My questioning drives people insane. I cannot conform to the rules that don’t make sense. I don’t like mindlessness. Conformity is often nothing more than mindlessness.
I am not suggesting changing social order. I suggest to think. I don’t have the answers. I only have this “photograph” and I remember that conformity for me is one of the defining characteristics. I am in the minority. It is painful, but it is my choice.
“Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants.”
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Introduction of Amendment to Weber's Model of Social Class
The political machine works because it is united minority acting against a divided majority. (Durant)
As much as I might want to disagree with Weber's model of social class, I simply cannot. The criteria that he used to distinguish one social class from another - property, power and prestige - truly describe social stratification in the most generalized way. But his classification is applicable only when the social order is maintained. What if the social order is disturbed, society is in major turmoil, and everything in society is put upside down? Even then society does not fail to be stratified, but the criteria might change dramatically.
Society has a dominant culture with its rules and norms, as well as a certain ideology that keeps social order. Do all members of society accept their position in the social hierarchy and agree unquestioningly with current social norms and ideology? In other words, do they conform or do they deviate? Moreover, how, and to what degree, do they conform or deviate? I would like to choose this as a criterion for updating Weber's model of social class. Conformity will characterize people who accept their social ranking and the dominant ideology. Deviance will characterize people who do not accept the rules of society and are either passive deviants or active deviants.
Karl Marx saw revolution as the result of the conflict between bourgeoisie, the class of exploiters, and proletariat, the class of exploited. Yet, he admitted that the proletariat had false consciousness, that is, workers did not see themselves as being exploited, and they did not have a sense of unity. I see this as a weak point in Marx's theory. Maybe workers are not educated enough to have class consciousness other than that indoctrinated by the ruling classes or others. Generally, workers accept the existing social order. Therefore, according to my new classification, workers are conformists.
On the other hand, deviants are not necessarily being exploited, but they disagree with the existing social order. For example, Decembrists, who organized an armed revolt against czarism in Russia in 1825, were noblemen. The French freethinkers, such as Voltaire and Rousseau, did not belong to the oppressed and exploited. Savva Morozov, one of the richest Russian merchants at the beginning of the 20th century, supported Revolution financially. Thus, he was acting directly against his interests as a capitalist. And surprising as it was, Russian revolutionaries in their majority were not workers, they were raznochinetz1. They were well educated and had much better chances to move up the social ladder than workers. Yet, they chose to struggle with the existing social order, to struggle against society, its norms and values.
Whereas intelligentsia in Russia has a long history of being in opposition to the ruling elite and the current regime, the majority of intellectuals did not become revolutionaries, because they had strict moral norms against violence. They were passive deviants; that is, they pretended to conform, and took no active steps towards social change. However, there was a minority of those with no moral norms and restrictions. They became active deviants. With the use of ideological cover, made up of Marx's theory, demagogy and fine words, such as "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", they killed and robbed, stepped over dead bodies, and stopped at nothing in order to bring about a new social order, and allegedly to make mankind happy. Finally, by fair means or foul, when the revolutionaries seized power in Russia, they started their struggle against deviants. The civil war was more devastating than any war with foreign enemies. Peasants, workers, and intelligentsia suffered equally if they did not accept the new order and new rules. In this unappeasable struggle, the revolutionaries, namely Bolsheviks, called for help from the criminals who had no ideology, but most importantly had no moral rules. This is where we see a perfect example of shared consciousness.
1 Raznochinetz - intellectual(s) not belonging to the gentry in 19th century Russia.
As we know, Bolsheviks won their struggle against active deviants and separated society into major classes: gaolers and prisoners. But did they eliminate deviance as a social phenomenon? No, certainly not. After the new social order was established, and the majority of people learned the true nature of so called socialism, they deviated in a new way. Workers only displayed conformity on the surface, but responded to the totalitarian regime with sabotage, alcoholism, pilfering, and absolute disdain for its slogans. Some of them sank as low as to Lumpenproletariat2. Sociologists would classify those people as declassed elements, but I think they are in fact deviants.
The other form of deviance is escapism. During the times of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, those, who had a chance to go abroad, sometimes never came back. Even knowing that their families and relatives would face severe repressions from the Soviet government. Nowadays, thousands of people flee from the former Soviet Union with its capitalism "with a human face", and totally criminalized society.
2 Lumpenproletariat - declassed strata of society, beggars, vagrants, criminals, parasites, spongers <Lumpen in German - rags>
Defense? D-fence?
In my opinion, deviance or conformity is not hereditary. The social class of your parents does not predetermine whether you will conform or deviate. There are different forms of deviance. Deviance does not have to be as drastic as deviance against social order. In Canadian society, when we see members of the lowest social classes, we can say that they deviate from the social norms. Consciously or subconsciously, they display their contempt for the social norms just by looking filthy. It does not take a great deal of money or effort to brush one's hair or tie up one's shoelaces. By doing so, they convey the message: "I could not care less about your norms".
Examples of conformity are not less astonishing than that of deviance. Over a short period of time, the majority of the population in the former Soviet Union drifted from total atheism to unprecedented religiosity. Was it because the ruling elite realized that religion is a perfect instrument of control? What happened to the principles and convictions of millions? Were there any to begin with?
In conclusion, I would like to say that Weber's model of social class seems to be correct, but I think it is not complete. I came to this conclusion because of the status inconsistency phenomenon. If a theory fails to describe certain instances or to classify some interlayers of society, it suggests that the theory is not yet perfect. Probably, we should target the weak points of the Weber's model by adding more criteria for defining a social class until status inconsistency is eliminated. I suggest that conformity - deviance should be one of these criteria.
Conformity
- Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill | Mad In America
Americans have been increasingly socialized to equate inattention, anger, anxiety, and immobilizing despair with a medical condition, and to seek medical treatment rather than political remedies. - People Fear Becoming Authentic and Independent Thinking Individuals-It Is Easier to Conform!
In many families, conformity is de rigeur. If a child possess beyond the family paradigm, parents admonish to conform to "societal norms" and if the children do not, they cry "what will my friends, associates, and neighborhood think."
Sociology
- Understanding Religion From Sociological Perspective
Sociological perspectives offer different ways to look at society and thus complement each other. Social life is too complex and has too many variables, it is impossible to give exhaustive explanations using only one perspective.
- Part 1-What is Sociology?
What Is Sociology? In the simplest terms, Sociology is the study of human societies. It is usually classed as one of the social sciences. - Part 2a -Culture and Identity
Sociology is the study of human social behaviour. More accurately however, it is the study of the way people behave in social groups and how different social groups affect the behaviour of individuals. - Part 2b-Socialisation, Norms and Values
Culture consists of two main elements; the material culture (physical objects) reflecting a societies interests and preoccupations and non-material culture consisting of the knowledge and beliefs that influence behaviour. - Part 2c-Subculture, Roles and Control
While we belong to one large culture, of more interest is the way our culture is broken down into groups of more specific norms and values. While we share many overarching norms and values there are many which we do not. - 2d-Perspectives
In this short article Ill provide a brief overview of some of three of the main sociological paradigms and discuss there characteristics.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
I have been away for several reasons. My location where I work is closing down, so I've been working 14 hours a day stepping into different positions to support the teams to move everything to a bigger existing building. I've also been working on my Narcissus hub, I'm over half way done with it. I completely understand about releasing writing that isn't ready or good enough. My Narcissus hubs require a plot and story line that I must find funny and entertaining. I will not release until I'm happy with my work. It is vexing isn't it? To require perfection from ourselves. I can't release rubbish and stand behind it. It that means I only create one hub a year, then so be it.
This is an outstanding treatise, and now I understand why I didn't recognize it before. You have a gift, a ravenous hunger to understand why. You absorb theory and research like a sponge, and are able to articulate the material with deft. I have a degree in psychology, but I'm not as sharp or as masterful in applying the models as you are. I say this to you not to impress or make you feel better, we're already friends. I say this because you have a knack for the psychology field, and I've worked with plenty of graduate students. They were impressive, but not as impressive as you.
I can already read the inside of the jacket cover for your autobiography. Degreed as an engineer, turned to buddhism to find peace, studied psychology to dissect the mind, and studio trained in Tango to demonstrate her passion for the forbidden dance.
Up to the challenge to write Narcissus? Seriously? What standard has been set that would cause you to think you couldn't write an act? All I've done is take my attributes and displaced them into the Narcissus character. I have exaggerated some attributes; I am not a God. Outside of that, I just wrote what I could to develop the character and plot line. Remember, to participate you must have fun. You know how to enjoy yourself, don't you?
I cannot write as a profession. I attempted to, but my work looked manufactured; no soul, no spirit. So I write when I feel inclined, and so far it has worked for me. I write so that I can be relaxed, and dare I say, goofy. Others are more serious, and I can be if the timeis appropriate. But I prefer goofy Augustine over serious Augustine. My goofy self is more of a charmer.
Hello kallini2010. Just got here. Sorry, I'm late. I will read this tonight. Don't want to rush.
You can write the acts as you see fit. Maggie wrote a romantic version, nikkigurl a darker version, and me, well, you know.
I write serious comments because most of your hubs are serious, even your men are busses hub. When I joke around, I feel as if you take me seriously. If I'm not mistaken, there were only two time I made you laugh. When I got my ass kicked by a rooster, and when I got donkey kicked. Were there other times?
[I value authenticity + I think I am amazing + I am in the minority + I love tango] (divided by) I HONESTLY think that I am as average as it gets = 42
I never heard of Weber or his social models. More a Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, and John Maynard Keynes person. Bolsheviks succumbed to the same thing capitalist succumbed to which is greed. They also made the mistake of trusting American politicians. Under the heading of conformity I always was amazed how much the Russian people and the American people looked alike. In photographs of families in the 50’s and 60’s around kitchen tables Americans and Russians were indistinguishable. Then late photos showed the Russians were not growing economically. The people were left behind as the money was spent on the cold war.
Your Hub travels two highways. The social order and to conform or not conform. To deviate or go with the flow. It skips along the personal level then jumps back into the Weltanschauung.
Your choice of photographs is exceptional and fit so well with the presentation. You can see that you put your heart into it. I sense this is not the Hub your were going to present but a substitute that you posted because you said you were ready.
I just listened to the song. I have to get better at music. I gave up music years ago, and now between you and Epi I feel I cheated myself.
Because of my background, my reading and my work as a glorified Buyer, I have what I think is a keen sense for when I hear a lie. I turn on TV, hear news, hear politicians, hear lie after lie. Immediate tester, well maybe.
What I think about conformity, and by-the-way, at the moment you are the only one that asks me to think, is that conformity comes in many packages. The package that we most easily fit into is the package of making a living. Raising our families. This is the package we all gravitate towards and it is a system of checks and balances. About who your connections are and who can do what for you and what you are willing to do for them. Much like comrade’s in wartime. ‘Who has your back’, is more important than what you know or what you can discern.
There is a saying that goes something like trust none of what you hear and half of what you see. I am somewhere in that saying.
What we both get for our trouble is the notion that we are different. In fact we are all different.
This is going to sound quite right. Let’s see now.. where did the thought go? We pour ourselves into the work of our Hubs, and from the comment section both you and A.A. strive for a perfection. Because I am very aware of my imperfections, I do not expect perfection to spring from my imperfection.
And in way of translation, I don’t, with some tiny exception, worry about the quality of my Hubs. Of course I am so much older than the two of you, and I have learned worrying is a waste of time.
And since you mention how grateful you are to receive advice, I advice going to a mirror, try on a thousand smiles, find one you like and wear it every chance you get. It is a key, an imprtant key. A lesson I never learned. You still have time.
I'm eating out of a bowl of pennies because I don't like to conform. They taste worse than corn flakes.
The first step in breaking free of a broken system is becoming aware that the system exists.












A.A. Zavala Level 7 Commenter 10 months ago
No comments? Mmm, maybe others are still digesting. I've read Weber's other theories, but not too familiar with his theories regarding conformity.
Why the defiance against advice and solutions? Is it the people offering advice, or the advice suggested? Just wondered.
You should have majored in psychology and linguistics, with a minor in dance. No, minor in good dancing. There, much better.