What Do Sociologists Mean by Social Class?
People use the word class all the time, but they do not always mean the same thing by it. Sometimes class means income. Sometimes it refers to occupation, education, accent, manners, where somebody lives, the kind of food they eat, or the people they know. Someone may describe themselves as working class because of their family background even if they now have a well-paid professional job, while another person may have substantial wealth but still reject the idea that they are upper class.
This ambiguity is one reason social class remains such an interesting sociological idea. It is not simply a label that can be attached to people by looking at their salary. Class is about how people are positioned within wider systems of inequality and how that position affects their opportunities, security, status and influence. Sociologists disagree about exactly how class should be defined, but they broadly share an interest in the patterned differences that mean some people begin life with more resources and more room to manoeuvre than others.
Why class is difficult to define
A common mistake is to treat class as another word for income. Income certainly matters, but it tells only part of the story. Two people may earn similar amounts while having very different levels of wealth, job security, education, family support or social connections. One may own a home and have savings, while the other rents privately and carries significant debt. One may have relatives who can help with childcare, provide a financial safety net or open doors into employment, while another may have none of those advantages.
These differences matter because they shape what sociologists often call life chances, meaning the opportunities people have to achieve things they value, such as secure housing, good health, education, stable work or social mobility. Class is therefore not only about what someone earns at a particular moment. It is also about the resources they can draw upon, how secure those resources are, and how easily they can be converted into future opportunities.
This is why wealth matters as much as income. Income usually refers to money received over time through wages, pensions, benefits or other sources. Wealth refers to assets that have accumulated, including property, savings and investments. Wealth can be inherited, transferred between generations and used to absorb shocks, which means it can shape life chances even when two households appear to have similar incomes.
Class, money and economic power
Karl Marx placed class at the centre of his analysis of capitalism because he believed that the most important social division was between those who owned productive resources and those who had to sell their labour in order to live. In simplified terms, he distinguished between the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, and the proletariat, who worked for wages (Marx & Engels, 1848/2002).
For Marx, class was therefore not just a matter of lifestyle or status. It was rooted in economic relationships and in the distribution of power. Those who owned factories, land or businesses were able to control production and benefit from the labour of others, while workers depended on selling their ability to work. This created a structural conflict of interest because employers had an interest in controlling costs and increasing profit, while workers had an interest in better wages and conditions.
Marx’s approach remains important because it directs attention towards ownership, exploitation and the organisation of economic life. At the same time, modern societies are more complicated than a simple division between factory owners and industrial workers. Professional employment, public sector work, pensions, home ownership, large middle classes and multinational corporations all make class structures harder to describe in purely binary terms. This is where other sociological approaches become useful.
From Marx to Weber
Max Weber agreed that economic position mattered, but he argued that social inequality could not be understood through ownership alone. He distinguished between class, status and party, suggesting that people could differ not only in their economic position but also in their prestige and their ability to exercise power through organised groups (Weber, 1922/1978).
This broadens the picture considerably. Two people may have similar incomes while occupying very different social positions because one has more secure employment, greater status or stronger access to influential networks. A teacher, a skilled tradesperson and a small business owner might earn comparable amounts, yet differ in education, prestige, autonomy and job security.
Weber’s work also helps explain why class is often connected to life chances. A person with a secure professional occupation may find it easier to obtain credit, buy a home, access higher education or recover from financial setbacks than someone whose income is less predictable. Over time, those differences can accumulate and create lasting inequalities.
Taken together, Marx and Weber show why class cannot be reduced to one simple measure. Marx emphasises ownership and economic conflict, while Weber draws attention to market position, status and the different opportunities available to people because of where they are located within society.
How do sociologists measure class?
If class is real, sociologists still need some way of studying it. For much of modern sociology, occupation has been one of the most common starting points because jobs differ in authority, security, skill, autonomy and employment conditions.
In the UK, the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification, usually shortened to NS-SEC, groups occupations according to employment relations and conditions rather than simply salary (Office for National Statistics, 2010). This is more sophisticated than dividing people into broad income bands because it tries to capture differences in security, control and the nature of work.
Even so, occupational measures have limitations. They may not fully capture inherited wealth, unpaid work, household circumstances or the growing number of people whose employment is temporary, freelance or fragmented across several jobs. A person may work through digital platforms, run a small online business and also have part-time employment, making older occupational categories less straightforward to apply.
The problem is not necessarily that class has disappeared. It may simply be that the ways societies organise work have changed faster than some of the categories used to describe them.
Culture, capital and inherited advantage
Pierre Bourdieu pushed class analysis further by arguing that economic resources are only one form of advantage. He distinguished between several forms of capital, including economic, cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
Economic capital includes money, property and other financial resources. Cultural capital includes knowledge, qualifications, tastes, ways of speaking and familiarity with the expectations of institutions. Social capital refers to the resources people can access through their relationships and networks.
These forms of capital often reinforce one another. A family with more money may be able to pay for tutoring, move into an area with highly regarded schools or support a child through university. Parents who understand how educational institutions work may be better able to navigate admissions, challenge decisions or explain the unwritten rules of academic life. Social networks may provide information about internships, job opportunities or professional careers that are never advertised widely.
None of this requires somebody to deliberately block another person’s progress. Advantage can reproduce itself through ordinary practices that seem entirely normal to the people involved. This is one reason Bourdieu is so useful for understanding contemporary class. He helps explain how inequality can persist even in societies that strongly emphasise merit and individual achievement.
People may appear to compete within the same system, but they do not necessarily arrive with the same resources.
Class is cultural as well as economic
Class is also expressed through culture. Accents, clothing, food, hobbies, education and ways of speaking can all carry social meanings, even when they have little direct connection to income.
Bourdieu (1984) argued that taste can help create and maintain social boundaries. Certain forms of music, art, food or leisure may be treated as more sophisticated or respectable than others, and people who are already familiar with those cultural forms may be more comfortable in institutions that value them.
This does not mean that every working-class person has one set of tastes and every middle-class person another. Class cultures overlap, change and borrow from one another constantly. The point is that cultural preferences are not always treated equally. Some ways of speaking or behaving may be regarded as more professional, more educated or more appropriate, which can influence how people are judged.
Class therefore operates both through material resources and through the meanings attached to particular lifestyles, behaviours and forms of knowledge.
Does class still matter?
It is common to hear that class matters less than it once did. There are understandable reasons for this view. In many societies, traditional industrial employment has declined, service-sector and professional work have expanded, and consumption has become more widely shared. People from very different backgrounds may wear similar clothes, use the same phones, watch the same programmes and shop in the same places.
Yet shared consumption does not necessarily mean shared security. Two households may look equally comfortable while one owns property, has substantial savings and can rely on family support, while the other is one unexpected bill away from serious financial difficulty.
Research continues to show relationships between socio-economic background and outcomes in education, health, housing, employment and wealth. These patterns vary between countries and change over time, but they have not disappeared. Class may therefore be less visible in some aspects of everyday life while remaining deeply influential in others.
One of the most important changes is that class advantage is increasingly tied not only to occupation but also to housing, inherited wealth, educational credentials and access to secure employment. This means that older images of class built around factory work and clearly defined occupational groups do not fully capture contemporary inequality.
Class, identity and mobility
Class is not only something sociologists measure from the outside. It can also form part of how people understand themselves. Some people strongly identify as working class, middle class or upper class, while others reject class labels altogether.
These identities do not always match occupation or income. Someone may enter a professional career while continuing to identify strongly with the working-class background in which they grew up. Another person may adopt a lifestyle associated with the middle class while remaining financially insecure.
This helps explain why class can be both structural and subjective. It shapes people’s opportunities, but it can also influence belonging, identity and how people interpret their own experiences.
The question of social mobility adds another layer. Social mobility refers to movement within a system of social stratification, either during a person’s lifetime or between generations. A child from a low-income household who enters a highly paid profession may be described as upwardly mobile, while somebody whose economic position declines may experience downward mobility.
The possibility of mobility matters because it is often used to justify inequality. If everyone is believed to have a fair chance to move upwards, large differences in wealth or status can appear more acceptable. Sociology asks whether those chances are genuinely equal. Education, housing, family wealth, geography, discrimination and social networks can all influence mobility, which means that the existence of individual success stories does not necessarily prove that opportunity is evenly distributed.
Mobility may be possible without being equally likely for everyone.
Class does not look the same everywhere
Class systems are also shaped by history and culture. British class has often been associated with accent, schooling, occupation and inherited social distinctions, while public discussion in the United States tends to place greater emphasis on income, occupation and ideas of upward mobility. Other societies have different histories of land ownership, colonialism, caste, welfare provision or state employment, all of which shape the way class operates.
This is why class cannot simply be exported from one national context and applied unchanged somewhere else. The broader sociological idea remains useful, but its expression depends on the institutions and histories of particular societies.
What sociologists are trying to identify is not a universal set of class labels but the ways resources, opportunities, status and power become structured into durable social patterns.
Has class disappeared?
Probably not, although the way it operates has changed considerably.
Older models of class do not always capture the complexity of contemporary society because inequality is now shaped by a wider combination of income, wealth, housing, education, employment security, cultural knowledge, networks and inherited advantage. This is why sociologists continue to debate how class should be defined and measured rather than simply assuming the concept is no longer useful.
Class does not determine everything about a person’s life. People make choices, move between social positions and live lives that do not fit neat categories. Sociology is not suggesting that everyone can be predicted from their background.
What class analysis does is draw attention to the fact that people’s opportunities are not distributed randomly. Where someone starts in life still affects what becomes easier, harder or sometimes almost impossible later on.
The most useful question may therefore not be whether class still exists, but a more sociological one:
How does class shape the choices people are able to make, and why do some people begin with more room to choose than others?
References
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
- Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2002). The Communist manifesto. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1848)
- Office for National Statistics. (2010). The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC rebased on the SOC2010). Office for National Statistics.
- Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
Cite this article
Select a style and copy the citation into your document.
