I have just read Wealth and Class Analysis: Exploitation, Closure and Exclusion by Nora Waitkus, Mike Savage and Maren Toft, newly published in Sociology in 2024. I was drawn to it by the authors’ central theme, namely, that class is a key factor in relation to wealth inequality but one that has been neglected, or at least inadequately theorised, within the sociological community. They draw especially on the theoretical approaches of Marx, Weber and Bourdieu to proffer an optimal theoretical programme for the study of contemporary wealth inequality. The final sentence in their abstract reads: ‘our intervention allows class analysis to embrace accumulation, exploitation, closure and exclusion; making it fit for purpose to address 21st century social changes.’
What intrigued me sufficiently to read this paper on my iPhone in a café with inadequate wifi was (i) my own 30 years plus interest in precisely this issue; (ii) the fact that I have written on the nature and ramifications of wealth and income inequality and their correlates and sequelae for individual and population health for 20 years plus; and (iii) a curiosity as to whether this article represented a move away from Mike Savage and his collaborators’ recent focus on the concept of ‘elites’ rather than ‘classes’; and (iv) an even greater curiosity as to whether this trio of impressive authors would stick their necks out and venture some substantive claims about the nature and potency of class relations in today’s UK.
I have no right to think they might know of my ruminations and publications, most recently in Healthy Societies (Policy Press, 2024): sociologists (and others) often function in specialist silos. As for (iii), I think this paper goes some way to make up for what I’ve long seen as problems with the LSE output on inequality. I’m thinking here of the focus on elites to the virtual exclusion of classes and the overly ready conflation of the structural and cultural in comments on class (represented most conspicuously in the Great British Class Survey). Elite analysis has its own salience in sociology, but it neither excuses nor compensates for the neglect of class analysis (theoretically and empirically, it should be ‘horses for courses’). And an analytic distinction between structure and culture needs to be maintained to enable study their effects on each other. As far as (iv) is concerned, I confess to some a degree of disappointment. I have grown progressively more impatient with contributions that outline how we should be doing what, but don’t actually do it. I return to (iv) later.
The authors give an account of what they see as the limitations of extant theories of wealth inequality and go on to offer a shrewd synthesis of the theories of Marx (‘exploitation via rents’), Weber (‘market situations and closure’) and Bourdieu (‘dispositions and practice’) which they argue is appropriate for a sociological coming to terms with today’s rentier or asset-management capitalism. They end by also commending an intersectional approach that addresses the racialised and gendered nature of wealth accumulation. All this is clearly and well presented.
Their final two paragraphs read as follows”
‘Our article’s efforts go beyond mere intellectual clarification. Sociology can engage more effectively with economists who have highlighted wealth inequality – but often in narrow ways, such as using measures like net worth or by focusing on arbitrary thresholds like the ‘1%’, overlooking the complex social relationships inherent in various sources and components of wealth, including housing, business equity, financial assets (such as savings, stocks and bonds), insurances and diverse forms of debt.’
‘A focus on wealth and debt is more subtle than a unitary ‘class’ variable towards multiplex assemblages in which differing intertwined assets combine to create distinct economic capital portfolios. We believe that this approach is further able to deal with conducting class analysis on a global scale, as its focus on property, wealth and debt does not assume the primacy of formal employment as the bedrock of class. With our platform to build from, the future for sociological analysis is bright indeed.’
Ok, so I find little to disagree with in these paragraphs. They certainly capture the sociological limitations of orthodox economists’ approach to studying wealth. And they underline the limits that using proxy measures of class like NS-SEC impose on researching class divisions in contemporary societies like the UK. They also summarise what is a conceptually clear and helpful article on class and class analysis.
But …
I return not for the first time to the old phrase, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. Setting aside an acknowledgement that class composition in post-1970s rentier capitalism differs from class composition in post WW2 welfare state capitalism, what do we learn of how and to what effect do ‘beneath-the-surface’ social structural relations like that of class (and race and gender) impact – via culture, institutions, organisations and agents – on the ‘on-the-surface’ events that characterise life for rich and poor in the 21st century? Some examples at least? It might be contended that the article contains an implicit theory of contemporary wealth accumulation, but I find myself wanting more. And what I wanted was a few specific ‘testable’ hypotheses about why class matters and how it shapes of lives. Maybe I’m being unreasonable here, but I would welcome a few more bold claims. After all, sociology has been around for a long time.