| Sociology |
|---|
| Portal |
| Theory · History |
| Research methods |
| Topics · Subfields |
|
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture |
| Categories · Lists |
|
Journals · Sociologists |
In social science, the "upper class" is the group of people at the top of a social hierarchy. Members of an upper class may have great power over the allocation of resources and governmental policy in their area.
Contents |
Historically in some cultures, members of an upper class often did not have to work for a living, as they were supported by earned or inherited investments (often real estate), although members of the upper class may have had less actual money than merchants. Upper-class status commonly derived from the social position of one's family and not from one's own achievements or wealth. Much of the population that composed the upper class consisted of aristocrats, ruling families, titled people, and religious hierarchs. These people were usually born into their status and historically there was not much movement across class boundaries. This is to say that it was much harder for an individual to move up in class simply because of the structure of society.
In many countries the term "upper class" was intimately associated with hereditary land ownership. Political power was often in the hands of the landowners in many pre-industrial societies (which was one of the causes of the French Revolution), despite there being no legal barriers to land ownership for other social classes. Upper-class landowners in Europe were often also members of the titled nobility, though not necessarily: the prevalence of titles of nobility varied widely from country to country. Some upper classes were almost entirely untitled, for example, the Szlachta of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
In the United Kingdom, the "upper class" traditionally comprised the aristocracy of "noble" families with hereditary titles. The vast majority of aristocratic families originated in the merchant class, and were ennobled between the 14th and 19th century.[1] Since World War II, the term has come to encompass rich and powerful members of the managerial and professional classes as well.[2]
In the United States the upper class, also referred to simply as the rich, is often considered to consist of those with great influence and wealth. In this respect the US differs from countries such as the UK where membership of the 'upper class' is also dependent on other factors. The American upper class is estimated to constitute less than 1% of the population, while the remaining 99% of the population lies either within middle or working class. The main distinguishing feature of upper class is its ability to derive enormous incomes from wealth through techniques such as investment and money management, rather than simply engaging in wage-labor or salaried employment.[3][4][5] Successful entrepreneurs, CEOs, politicians, investment bankers, some lawyers and top flight physicians, heirs to fortunes, successful venture capitalists, stockbrokers as well as celebrities are considered members of this class by contemporary sociologists, such as James Henslin or Dennis Gilbert.[3] There may be prestige differences between different upper-class households. An A-list actor, for example, might not be accorded as much prestige as a former U.S. President,[4] yet all members of this class are so influential and wealthy as to be considered members of the upper class.[3]
| “ |
"Upper-class families... dominate corporate America and have a disproportionate influence over the nation's political, educational, religious, and other institutions. Of all social classes, members of the upper class also have a strong sense of solidarity and 'consciousness of kind' that stretches across the nation and even the globe." -William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, Society in Focus, 2005.[4] |
” |
While most sociologists define the upper class as the wealthiest 1%, sociologist Leonard Beeghley classifies all households with a net worth of $1 million or more as "rich", while classifying the wealthiest 0.9% as the "super-rich". Since the 1970s income inequality in the United States has been increasing, with the top 1% experiencing significantly larger gains in income than the rest of society.[6][7][8] Social scientists (such as Alan Greenspan) see it as a problem for society, with Greenspan calling it a "very disturbing trend."[9][10]
According to the book Who Rules America?, by Domhoff, the distribution of wealth in America is the primary highlight of the influence of the upper class. The top 1% of Americans own around 34% of the wealth in the U.S. while the bottom 80% own only approximately 16% of the wealth. This large disparity displays the unequal distribution of wealth in America in absolute terms.[11]
In Australia and the United Kingdom, the term "upper class" is now sometimes used pejoratively by the middle and lower classes (as in the stereotypical term, "upper-class twit, Rah or Toff"), and Australians and Britons may be more anxious to avoid being labelled "upper class" (or even "upper-middle class") than their American or Canadian counterparts (though the overall validity of such a comparison may be questioned). For more on this phenomenon, see reverse snobbery, Australian mateship, and class consciousness.
Social class in Canada, as an observable phenomenon (though possibly more subtle than in the United States), is not as entrenched as in Europe nor as taboo a topic of conversation as it is in Britain and Australia. The subject of social class nevertheless remains a matter of controversy in Canada (see for example, the debate over the granting of a life peerage to former Canadian citizen, Conrad Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour, and the remarks of then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about creating an aristocracy in Canada, and his insistence on upholding the Nickle Resolution).
Social classes in Mexico have remained relatively unchanged over the years. A system of social classes still exists, and it is commonly understood that the different classes, especially the first (or upper) and third (or lower), do not mix. As with much of Latin America, the "first" class comprises the rich, powerful, and celebrated, who have greatly disproportionate control over the country. The most common route for a family to join the upper class is through politics and business, but those born into the upper class tend to disregard any who try to enter the established upper class. "New rich" or "naco" is applied to nouveaux riches who still lack the customs and manners of the educated upper class.
In Japan, the term "Haiso", or in katakana as "ハイソ", is used as a reference to "High Society" and is commonly applied to luxury products, such as cars and fashion houses.
In Thailand, although in the 1980s the hierarchy of social status or prestige and the hierarchy of political and economic power in the rural community overlapped, a disjunction of sorts existed between them at the national level. A rich villager—other things being equal—wielded political and economic power and had prestige. In the national system, the hierarchy of status began with the hereditary nobility—the royal family and the holders of royal titles. None of these people were poor; the royal family owned much land and some of its members had political influence. The royal family was not part of the ruling class, however, nor did it control the economy. The ruling class consisted of several levels, the uppermost of which comprised the military and, to a lesser extent, the bureaucratic elite.
|
||||||||