This essay will base on two arguments academic controversy used currently over the occupational classification, that is not neutral and has some impacts and the way this classification system is actually applied, that is, in terms of social class as perceived by the UK. Social class can be defined as large clusters among which there exists uneven distribution of economic goods andor uneven division of political prerogatives andor prejudiced demarcation cultural values as a result of political oppression or economic exploitation (Dargin and Justin, 2007, p, 87). Social mobility hinders the class formation process (Aronowitz and Stanley, 2003, p, 14). This paper is going to examine whether the social class of a person is linked to their live chances. The paper will consider the United Kingdom of the 21st century.
The notion of social class is derived from the tax-system of the Roman-Empire whereby class signified tax bands (Aronowitz and Stanley, 2003, p. 14). In the 21st century, social class is still debated among social scientists who usually reflect the wider social struggles and political debates in the United Kingdom. The fall from grace appears to be revealed from the way bureaucrat statistics portray the British community, making it complicated to think of differences in their educational achievements (in terms of class belongings), earnings and also obscuring the duty of the greater public who are concerned with life chances and social mobility opportunities. The UK society has unrelenting inequalities between population groups that are defined by ethnicity, gender and socio economic background.
Classes in the United Kingdom
The UK has been using two classifications systems that are parallel the Socio-Economic group (SEG) and the Social Class (SC) that was based on occupation. SC favoured a view of occupations that was hierarchical, which based upon occupational skill (Archer and Louise 2003, p.16). These occupational categories related with a variety of inequalities in education, income and health. Though SC lacked theoretical coherence together with the class hierarchy it was relying upon, it was revised on several occasions. As Day and Gary (2001, p.77) examined, the landowner, lunatic, capitalist, expert (undefined), and business speculator were grouped together.
The SEG was established from the 1951 census onwards, it consisted of 17 occupational categories, and it aimed at bring together individuals with occupations of similar economic and social status (Pevalin, 2005 9). Most United Kingdom governmental departments, such as the BHPS or General Household Survey, have been using it until 2001. NS-SEC (the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification) was adopted in 2001 in UK as the main tool for categorizing the population basing on occupational groups. NS-SEC was intended to be applied in administrative registration purposes, surveys and census. The purpose of this new system was to be able to differentiate positions within production units and labour markets (prospects of economic advancement, income and economic security) in terms of their employment relations.
As Archer and Louise (2003, p.16) point out, the differences of social class is that these categories grouped people with occupation features that are similar other than according to more relational or dynamic features such as life chances. Those categories are expected to relate with several indicators of social-inequality. NS-SEC can further account for classifications that are traditional on the labour market (employee, employer and self-employed). The employer group is responsible for differences between employers in small and large organizations. The employer group can further be classified into jobs that are identified by intermediate occupations, service relations or labour contracts. Moreover, it is responsible for occupations that lie between blue-collar and white-collar jobs. According to Cohen and Elizabeth (2003, p.98) classes do exist in categories that are relational, an impact in incrementing the size of a group will simultaneously decrease the relative advantages and limitations linked to it. If the service occupation range decreases, the difference in the labour-contract class becomes less pertinent. Individuals who have never-worked would be categorized in the same group as the long-term unemployed (even by applying the 1 year rule). This is logical with the occupation-based classification. If one applies this tool as a procedure of mapping social hierarchy, serious problems might arise, since this category can include highly-heterogeneous circumstances most unpaid employees, retired and disabled individuals would be unable to apply it as a means of understanding social-exclusion patterns. Similarly, since this grouping is based on occupation other than the status of employment, labour-market situations of less-advantaged employees, such as numerous types of casual or temporary work might not be considered. NS-SEC does not give a means of a detailed-analysis of subsidiary forms of unemployment whose long-term effects on life chances are scarcely insignificant.
How Social Class Affects Life chances in the UK of 21st Century
According to Aronowitz and Stanley (2003, p. 14), social classes were derived from the overarching economic organization of capitalists communities. The bourgeoisie was identified by its exploitation of the working-class through surplus value appropriation. Class formation is as a result of attempts that are bourgeoisie to retain economic authority. Social classes have experienced criticisms that are substantial such as continued decrease in the number of working class, traditional firms and employment, and the rise of service-economy Welfare development state of 21st century and emergence of middle class emergence of analytical groups, such as ethnicity and gender as main variables competing with distortion of a class for an individual life-chances, and consequent criticisms that that classes are genderethnicity blind. Thereby, leading to continued inequalities in the life chances to the majority of individuals across the United Kingdom, basing on their social origins. As Cohen and Elizabeth (2003, p.98) puts it, not only has the share income between the poorest and richest increased, but also educational achievements or employment continues to be determined by the individuals social background.
The issue raised by social class appears different from the ideas that are promoted by most social-democratic governments in the United Kingdoms new labour and to have equal opportunities. Meritocracy legitimizes the merit-effort. Therefore, it ought to be the main driving-force behind an individuals achievement in life. Meritocracy promotes disparities that are not considered as violating opportunities that are equal and fair. Furthermore, it seems that the social class of a child is determined by his fathers occupation, and this wills often be the social-class which his career path will be placed and his level of education. Low levels of education are defined by the conditions upon which an individual works. Those with low levels of qualification are forced to accept circumstances that would be unacceptable to higher-classes, because of their financial situation. Similarly, those that are unemployed are mainly from lower classes with social backgrounds that are disadvantaged. A key factor to an individuals survival is health, but in the UK, this can be influenced by the economic factors of an individual. Those that lie in lower classes with lower income and lower levels of education can hardly afford private health cares (such as BUPA) with comparison to higher social classes. Apart from essentials, life chances can have an impact of day-to-day aspects of an individual. Though holidays are luxuries, they greatly vary according to life chances. The frequency and length of holidays also rely on life chances (Cohen and Elizabeth, 2003, p.98).
Conclusion
An individuals economic situation, power and status are often affected by social class, which in turn influence their life-chances. These life chances usually rely on each other, and can change an individuals power, status and economic situation. An individuals place in the society can be altered by these three elements. The social class that one inherits determines everything about hisher identity, and ones access to health care. Social class also determines ones accessibility to higher education and how law is applied to them. In spite of the myth that is generally accepted, everyone has to rise above their expected classes, those cases are far between and few. Most individuals stay in the class that they were born to, but with a class system that is used presently in the United Kingdom, at least there is a possibility at vertical mobility.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment