Teaching & Learning Guide for: Class Identification in Review: Past Perspectives and Future Directions
Authors: Archer Patrick , Orr Ryan 
Published: January 2012

This guide accompanies the following article: Patrick Archer and Ryan Orr, ‘Class Identification in Review: Past Perspectives and Future Directions’, Sociology Compass 5/1 (2011): 104–115, 10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2010.00352.xAuthor’s introductionHistorically, sociology has had a contentious relationship with the concept of class. At times, debates over the meaning and importance of class have defined the field. More recently, however, the notable absence or weakness of class identities in class‐oriented research has led many sociologists to abandon class as an organizing concept in society. The response of class loyalists to this class‐less re‐theorization of stratification and inequality has developed along two paths. The first path emphasizes the continued importance of class as an influential force in people’s lives, but jettisons any assumptions of subjective class identification. The second path has repackaged class as being hierarchical and relational while downplaying the existence of collective class identification. One consequence of these new developments in class theory has been a movement away from classical class theory and the assumed centrality of collective class identification in this work. The purpose of this article is to reexamine the contributions of classical class theory – particularly that of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Veblen – to the debate on collective class identification. Two questions guided this analysis. First, to what extent did Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Veblen associate class with collective identification? Second, in what ways are the contributions of these theorists relevant to the current debates on class and identification?Author recommendsBottero, Wendy. 2004. ‘Class Identities and the Identity of Class.’Sociology 38(5): 985–1003.Wendy Bottero’s article Class Identities and the Identity of Class is an excellent review of the current state of class theory, particularly as it concerns class identification. While our article focuses primarily on the contribution of classical theorists to the debate on class and identification, Bottero addresses key contemporary developments to class theory and what they represent for the future meaning of class.Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste offers readers a complex look into class identification. Bourdieu examines class identification as cultural practices and preferences that emerge through taste. On the one hand, taste operates as a method of class identification by actively distinguishing the class position to which one belongs. On the other hand, taste operates as a method of class identification by actively distinguishing class positions to which one does not belong. Bourdieu also argues that the process of (dis)identification transpires primarily on unconscious levels.Durkheim, Émile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York, NY: The Free Press.In The Division of Labor in Society, his first major work, Émile Durkheim examines how social order is possible as small, traditional societies become more advanced and industrialized. It is here that Durkheim develops the concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity and their relation to the division of labor in society. Of particular interest to this article is the Preface to the Second Edition in which Durkheim argued that professional groupings (i.e., occupations), as opposed to class locations, were emerging as important and essential organizers of social identification.Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.This book is an excellent resource for students at the undergraduate and graduate level who are engaging with the original writings of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim for the first time. For the first two‐thirds of the book, Giddens analyzes separately each of the theoretical contributions of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. The concluding chapters consider lines of comparison between the three authors, with particular emphasis on how Durkheim and Weber diverge from Marx. Of particular interest to this article is Giddens’ examination of Weber’s concepts of class and status (pp. 163–8).Grusky, David B. and Jesper B. Sørensen. 1998. ‘Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged?’American Journal of Sociology 103(5): 1187–234.Using what they called a “quasi‐Durkheimian third road,” Grusky and Sørensen advocate a disaggregate analysis of social stratification in the form of occupational groupings. Based on a number of premises, the authors argue that occupational groupings, contrary to aggregate class groupings, represent real cleavages among people in society. The result is an important addition to the debate over realist and nominalist approaches to class and identification.Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1964 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Washington Square Press.Along with being one of Marx and Engels’ most accessible writings for undergraduate students, The Communist Manifesto is the pair’s most well‐known collaboration. In the writing, Marx and Engels conceptualize class membership evolving into two general groups. Marx and Engels organize class membership with respect to an individual’s relationship to the modes of production. The bourgeoisie own the modes of production whereas the proletarians sell their labor to the owners. Marx and Engels also provide insight into cognitive and emotional aspects of class identification in their discussions of class awareness and conflict between classes.Marx, K. 1993 [1894]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3. New York: Penguin Classics.Marx offers readers a discussion of class in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3. The discussion is incomplete due to his death, but Marx conceptualizes class membership differently compared to the bourgeoisie/proletariat organization in The Communist Manifesto. Marx discusses ‘three great classes’ of wage‐laborers, capitalists, and landlords before introducing the idea of fragmentation of the classes into smaller groups. The unfinished conceptualization of smaller groups is where the manuscript stops. Subjective dimensions of class in Vol. 3 are not developed, but inferences of identification with class position may be traced to Marx’s thoughts about class awareness and class identification.Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.As the book’s title indicates, David Swartz concentrates on Pierre Bourdieu’s examination of the link between culture and power. Focusing on this central theme of Bourdieu’s sociology, Swartz gives readers a comprehensive overview of Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, including his key concepts of habitus, fields, and capitals (economic, cultural, symbolic, and social). Although discussions of class identification are present throughout the text, chapter seven (‘Social Classes and the Struggle for Power’) most highlights the topic by focusing on class practices and class position indicators. Swartz’s informative discussions represent an excellent starting‐point for learning about Bourdieu’s conceptualizations of class and class identity.Veblen, T. 1994 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Thorstein Veblen’ s The Theory of the Leisure Class represents one of the first in‐depth analyses of class identification. Veblen provides a critique of both class identification and general cultural ways of the wealthy in late 19th century America. Although often overlooked, Veblen’s focus on the acquisition of status signs as attempts to achieve social superiority captures a Darwinian train of thought. He argues that instinctual desires to dominate other individuals were shaped by industrial American life into largely symbolic battles of consumption. Veblen’s attention to the use of consumption practices as status markers, minus the emphasis on instinctual desires, continues to influence contemporary consumer studies.Weber, Max. 1978 [1921/22]. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (2 vols.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Max Weber’s Economy and Society is exceptionally significant, both in terms of volume and contribution to the field of sociology. Unfortunately, this work was incomplete at the time of Weber’s death in 1920. Weber touches on many subjects in Economy and Society, including his view on sociology and the concept of social action, which anchors much of his work. For a firsthand account of Weber’s contentious definitions of class and status see the sections “Status Groups and Classes” (1978 [1921/22], pp. 302–7) and “The Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Class, Status, and Party” (1978 [1921/22], pp. 926–39).Sample syllabusSection one: Exploring class identification: understandings, significance, and debatesBeck, U. and J. Willms. 2004. Conversations with Ulrich Beck. Cambridge: Polity Press.Pakulski, J. and M. Waters. 1996. The Death of Class. London: Sage.Reay, D. 1998. ‘Rethinking Social Class: Qualitative Perspectives on Class and Gender.’Sociology 32(2): 259–75.Reay, D. 2005. ‘Beyond Consciousness? The Psychic Landscape of Class.’Sociology 39(5): 911–28.Section two: Class identification and classical theoryGiddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Marx, K. 1978 [1932]. ‘The German Ideology: Part I.’ Pp. 146–200 in The Marx‐Engels Reader, 2nd edn, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Marx, K. 1993 [1894]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3. New York: Penguin Classics. (Chapter 52)Marx, K. and F. Engels 1964 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Washington Square Press.Weber, M. 1978 [1921/1922]. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (2 vols.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Durkheim, E. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.Veblen, T. 1994 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Section three: Class identification and contemporary theoryLukács, G. 1971 [1922]. History of Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wright, E. O. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Introduction, Chapters 1, 2, 5, and 6.)Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (Chapter 7)Baudrillard, J. 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis MO: Telos. (Chapters 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11)Grusky, David B. and Jesper B. Sørensen. 1998. ‘Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged?’American Journal of Sociology 103(5): 1187–234.Section four: Class identification and future directionsBottero, Wendy. 2004. ‘Class Identities and the Identity of Class.’Sociology 38(5): 985–1003.Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.Lockwood, D. 1996. ‘Civic Integration and Class Formation.’British Journal of Sociology 47(3): 531–50.Savage, M., G. Bagnall and B. Longhurst. 2001. ‘Ordinary, Ambivalent and Defensive: Class Identities in the Northwest of England.’Sociology 35(4): 875–92.Assignment ideas1. Class Identification: Themes and Debates
Using Section One’s readings, highlight three different debates with respect to contemporary views on the significance of class identification. For instance, do scholars believe social class has a strong influence on individual identity? In highlighting the debates, explain all positions and the points of disagreement.
2. Comparing and Contrasting Classical Theoretical Views
Provide summaries of each classical theorist’s conceptualization of class identification. Summaries must include discussions of the theorists’ understandings of class identification (What is the theorist’s understanding of class identification) and discussions of the theorists’ explanations of their understandings (How does the theorist explain his understanding of class identification?)
Provide four similarities among the theorists’ conceptualizations.
Provide four differences among the theorists’ conceptualizations.
3. Continuations and New Developments of class identity
Select three contemporary theorists. For the theorists, provide summaries of their conceptualizations of class identification.
Discuss how each theorist continues tradition(s) of classical theoretical conceptualizations of class identification.
Discuss how each theorist provides new understandings of class identifications.
4. Envisioning Future Directions and Revisiting Current Debates
Using both your personal thoughts and previously examined ideas, revisit two debates on the contemporary significance of class identification. In addition, discuss three potential directions of class identification scholarship, and explain how the potential future directions relate to past viewpoints on class identification.