Practice question · Select all that apply
Weber divided stratification into class, status and party. Which claims about that scheme are correct?
Hints
- Three of these describe a multi-dimensional scheme; one confuses a Weberian term with a Marxist one.
- Ask what a poorly paid priest has a great deal of and a rich scrap dealer may lack.
Show the answer
- A. The three dimensions need not coincide in any given person or group
- C. Class refers to a shared position in the market for goods, skills and labour
- D. Status refers to social honour, which may be high where market position is weak
Why
The point of splitting the concept is that the dimensions can move independently: an impoverished aristocrat has status without class position, a wealthy outsider the reverse, and an organised group can pursue power without either. The second option smuggles Marx’s single axis back in under a Weberian label.
Practise Class, Mobility and Its Myths
The app has 6 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Sociology I is free to start.
More questions on Class, Mobility and Its Myths
- After 1945 a far larger share of people in western Europe ended up in a higher class than their fathers. Why…
- Erikson and Goldthorpe found in The Constant Flux that relative mobility rates were broadly similar across…
- Complete the vocabulary of mobility analysis.
- Arrange the steps of reading a mobility table properly, in order.
- In the mobility table in this lesson, 150 of the 500 men of working-class origin reached the service class.…
- An odds ratio is the standard measure of relative mobility. How does it strip out the effect of a changing…
- Because the service class expanded so much after 1945, sons of working-class fathers came to face the same…
- Erik Olin Wright analyses classes through exploitation and contradictory locations, whilst John Goldthorpe…