The part that never made it to print

A hasty definition of class, by citing Marx, Weber, or prominent class theorists, give an impression of ipse dixit, which in Latin means ‘he himself said it’. It can be argued that this is a logical fallacy because the truth-value of an assertion stems from an appeal to authority. It is, however, not in the interest of this researcher to make such an argument. I want to highlight the fact that the infallibility of theoretical authority cannot be taken-for-granted for and ‘class’ should, in the element of sociology, be problematized and contextualized.

Class is usually understood vis-à-vis stratification. Social stratification is an institutionalized system of social relationships that determines who gets what and why (Kerbo 2006:10). Class is often defined as a grouping of individuals with similar positions and economic interests within the stratification system. Definitions of class focus on the characteristics of a group of individuals. Yet, class is not merely a category, class is a term that carries with it the philosophical baggage of inequality whether intended or not. In essence, when one uses the term class, it implies there is inequality - there is a group of individuals that have more or less access to resources, services and positions. The question of ‘what is class’ is tacitly and necessarily informed by the question of ‘what causes class’. To answer ‘what is class’ without answering the ‘what causes class’ is to assume class is axiomatic; and consequently imply that inequality exists ipso facto. Yet, we cannot know ‘what causes class’ unless we first know ‘what is class’. Any class-based study has to have a working conception of class before knowing what can cause it. This as much is inevitable. Therefore, to understand class, it is important to answer both questions.