Social stratification

Social class refers to a similarly viewed as a subset of the population of a society or a state that is based on social attributes associated with a hierarchical stratification model. Distinguishing features may be economic, professional dependent, education or even other factors that are set depending on the theoretical approach to the demarcation of the individual layers. In common parlance, for example, spoken by the upper classes of society, in industrial societies, the middle class is seen as a market economy important, while the lower layer is considered to be a disadvantage in general. In terms of education and social inequality, the population is divided into levels of education, in political contexts, is spoken by different social classes.

A sociologically universal definition of layer does not exist; some sociologists use the term as a generic term for class, caste, status and other systems of social inequality (see also social structure analysis: guiding principles ). Fundamentally, the a person belongs to a social class as open and changeable viewed ( social advancement, social mobility ), while the membership is determined to a caste or a stand by birth and thus closed. In contrast to a social class, a social class is not determined by a common relationship of dependency or sense of community.

• 2.1 Statistical determinations
• 2.2 Germany
• 2.3 Austria
• 2.4 Switzerland

Layer models

The idea that the social structure of a society in the form of a layering ( stratification ) of superimposed social strata could represent, developed by the Danish sociologist Theodor Geiger in 1932 in his work social stratification of the German people. He took the name from the miners' language where it describes layers of rock, and transferred them to the population structure within the state borders of the German Reich. Violinist layer model presented the description of the social differences in the foreground, as opposed to an explanation of social inequality, as the concept of class conflict by Karl Marx was the case yet (see also class and layer theories ). Basic stayed with violinist but economic factors such as income and property.

The assumption that companies are in principle or in stages in their current manifestations, ie a hierarchical structure is, assume that in the " social classes " each lot to be alike examinable social agents are ( actors), and that the layers themselves social for specific features can be clearly divided (see also note explanation of stratification theory). Stratification models divide the company into an indefinite number of social classes or groups that are defined by characteristics such as occupation, education, standard of living, power, religion, type of clothing, political opinion or organization. This objective and subjective criteria can be distinguished ( see below). Layer concepts are closely related to the criteria of the industrial society, but question not in principle the legitimacy or justice of the social order and stratification.

Important sociological layer models for the analysis of the West German population structure were or are:

• The " Levelled middle-class society " by Helmut Schelsky (1953 )
• The " Dahrendorfhäuschen " by Ralf Dahrendorf (1965 )
• The " Bolte Onion " by Karl Martin Bolte (1967 )
• The layer model by Rainer Geissler (1967 ) complements the Dahrendorfhäuschen with one horizontal hurrying stratification characteristics for special foreigners layers

Below the lower layer still were "social outcasts " set ( socially marginalized groups ) in the 1950s by Harriett B. Moore and Gerhard Kleining.

Methodically each layers analysis has to deal with the problem of status inconsistency because the classification features can contradict each other: A person being examined may belong with respect to a feature of an upper layer with respect to another but a lower layer (see also social status in the stratification theory). An extreme example is the long-term unemployed as a lottery millionaire. Between social classes is for the actors involved so basically an exchange as a social ascent or descent possible (social mobility).

The hierarchical layers models are used not only to a typology companies and categorize, but also as a tool to represent simplified according to a few criteria complex societies and explore, compare and explain them so. The research has focussed in particular for the description of the (power) relations between the layers and their families, for the emergence and reproduction of these hierarchical structures, but also for their change ( social change ). Also often examines the impact of social stratification on the actors involved.

Contrasting stratification characteristics

The individual stratification characteristics often make contradictory, but stepped social contrasts from, for example, income, education levels, social prestige and standard of living, risks and opportunities or satisfaction - populations have quantitatively more or less of it. Other features are seen as competing, but divided into two parts, especially ownership and domination - populations they either have or not. Modern layer models take greater social mobility and social differentiation among social milieu. The weighting of these individual features raises difficult methodological issues, a model if desired with a few layers. A way out here form environmental studies.

Prehistoric and protohistoric stratification characteristics such as beauty, fertility, body size, strength, endurance or courage are not usually collected for the determination of the social structure, appear to date, however, particularly in the Western world as an increasingly important and influential particulars of " celebrities ", such as in show business or sports. But go such features in some other layering features a not uncommon to not yet decoded how the Swiss sociologist Thomas Gautschi 2006 proved on the basis of body size.

Objective - subjective stratification

Many stratification models create the impression that social stratification is objectively present in a society. However, Karl Marx already pointed with his conceptual notion of " class consciousness " and the separation of " class in itself " and "class for itself " on the subjective aspect of social stratification.

Regardless of whether hierarchies exist objectively or not, individuals always have the need to organize their social environment and structure ( categorization ). A portion of the sociological research therefore focuses on the social representations of social layers. Myths and religious texts provide a focus of the analysis dar. Thus, the Polish sociologist Stanislaw Ossowski has pointed out that myths are a simplified representation of our view of the social space in most cases and have this amazingly simple often opposing dichotomies.

The difficulties to examine the objective social stratification of a society, the U.S. American sociologist William Lloyd Warner has pointed out. Warner's goal was to create a typology of social space in American cities. However, it did instead provided an overview of the subjective perceptions of Americans about their social space. Warner concluded that class / layer may be present only if the individuals feel you belong to and identify with other members of the same class / layer. This identification is based on the idea that the individual has of the existing social structure. There, each social actor assigns a himself and others and has social positions.

Pierre Bourdieu linked the concept of objective social classification with the subjective classification. He examined on the basis of an extensive empirical study with newly developed theoretical tools, such as this classification is to be made. The Court stated that the balance of power between individuals and classes or layers are subject to constant change and have to be readjusted. This operation enables that gets " hierarchical social order within a social formation an objective existence ." This in turn is internalized by the individuals and the " social order burns with time in the brains. Thus, social differences as the basis of social distinction, which organizes the perception of the social world ".

Criticism of the stratification model

The German sociologist Erhard Wiehn referred in 1968 to a circular argument in the stratification theories: they explain higher incomes of members of the upper class so that they fulfill an important function for society - determine the other way around but the social importance of a function by the level of income of the "service providers ".

There was criticism and especially the fixation on economic circumstances that represents the profession in the center. As a result, many populations were not considered, such as children, students, the unemployed and pensioners. Even excluding and horizontal differences within a social class, as well as similarities between the layers, in the assumption that the people of a layer have the same nature and in their other characteristics or factors. For all studies be stratified models relate in their application usually only on the population individual states. The resulting as a consequence further developments dissolved out of this concentration on professional groups and the assumption of similarity within the layers. As alternatives developed sociological models of social situation.

The stratification model was originally created from a definition of the theory of two-class society and wanted to emphasize that it is fine stepped segments of the population that are attributable to neither the capitalists nor the proletariat. However, the Marxist theory on the edge of their two classes had distinguished the " urban middle class ", the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants, also divides the working class in the labor aristocracy and lumpenproletariat. Moreover, to explain basic dependency relationships between social groups Marxism tried and regardless of state borders.

Middle class

Under the collective term middle class those groups are understood primarily in macroeconomics, can be assigned in relation to their income or their possession, neither the wealthy upper class nor the landless and low-income sub- layer. It is sometimes further divided into an upper, middle, lower middle class. Within sociology, the simple division into three upper, middle and lower classes is analytically only rarely used. However, they appear in everyday language and occasionally in the daily policy (see "New underclass" ). American sociologists developed the other hand, in the 1960s refined 8 - and 9 -layer models.

The middle class is seen in politics and business as a supporting and stabilizing social force. No agreement as to what extent the middle class is increasingly thins by a concomitant of globalization gain the income gap, which leads to growing social inequalities.

In today's society of Germany, a clear separation into three " worlds " particularly with regard to the concern of parents is to look at their children's education: lower class, middle class and upper class. Parents of the middle class will attempt to keep their children from children of the underclass. Delineated, the backsheet of the very broad middle class essentially in the parents can barely take care or worry in the lower layer to the educational needs of their children. This is about 5 percent of the data collected in a study parents. Even sharper than the separation between the middle class and lower class is the separation between the middle class and upper class. This separation is largely insurmountable. Children who are classified in the upper class, learn a largely detached from material limitations promotion by their parents, helpers and private schools.

Statistical determinations

It is based on the so-called " equivalent income " as income that each member of a household - when it grown up and living alone would be - would be the same ( equivalent ) enable standard of living, as it has it within the household community. The population, which has a net equivalent income in a narrow or wide range around the mean is called the average earners or middle class; the upper class has more, the lower layer over less.

The limits referred to above and below are defined differently by different institutions. As a lower limit, the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW ) called 70 percent, the European Union, 60 percent ( corresponding to the relative poverty line ), the World Health Organization, 50 percent ( corresponding to the relative poverty line). As an upper limit, the DIW called 150 percent of the average equivalent income.

Germany

Between the years 2000 and 2006 fluctuated in Germany the average of the annual net equivalent income of an individual to 16,000 euros.

According to research conducted by the DIW, the middle class gets back since the 2000s. In the 1980s, about two-thirds of the population belonged to the middle income group. Since the 1990s, the extremes have in income distribution in Germany in a " period of relative polarization" (1993 to 1999) initially increased slightly, especially in economically unfavorable times. This was followed by a " period of absolute polarization" (2000 to 2009): the proportion of middle income earners went from 62 percent in 2000 to 54 percent in 2006.

Austria

In Austria, the average annual net equivalent income of a single person was just over 18,000 euros in 2007.

Switzerland

The middle class - referred to as Swiss SMEs - is by far the largest class of society; it has around 60 percent of the population. This includes, who earns between 70 and 150 percent of average equivalised disposable income. The equivalent income is the net household income, of which 20 percent will be deducted for fixed fees. For a single-person household it corresponded to 42,000 Swiss francs in 2010.