There has long been a bit of confusion concerning the meaning of class and socio-economic status in North America. This was more true in the U.S.A. than in Canada, since Canadians, both English and French, were more closely tied to a motherland which still differentiated between class and wealth. Even today, one can buy a dukedom in places, but it may take generations to acquire the respect that generally goes with the title.
One inherited class in the parent societies of North America, and it was based upon family and breeding, not wealth and education. Marxist theory defines class by function in society. North American capitalists tend to define class by political and social influence. None of these are based upon wealth or education. However, socio-economic status is also not based solely on wealth, but is heavily influenced by one’s ethnic origin, education and social power, while class is based upon heritage and power.
Currently in Canada, there is still a class line based upon family name, ancestral heritage and breeding. However, this can be mitigated through marriage, success in vocation or politics. However, when most people in Canada use the word “class” they mean one’s socio-economic status. This is a combination of one’s wealth, education and social standing. A person can arrive from anywhere, and still aim at the highest socio-economic status.
All that is necessary is education or success in one’s chosen profession to begin to build social power. Even those from very different ethnic backgrounds can attain high social status in Canada. It helps if the person perfects a standard English or French accent, and the English is more influential. One excellent example is David Suzuki. He is well known, well educated and highly respected, but his origins are Japanese. Still he is of very high socio-economic status and most Canadians would consider him of the higher class, right up there with MacDonald.
According to Marxist theory, David Suzuki would probably be a bourgeoisie, educated and wielding great political influence. David Suzuki blurs the line in Marxist terms, because he both owns and controls production and also works for production. It depends upon which part of his life we consider. By Marxist terms most Canadians would fall into the working class, with a lower percentage being “petit bourgeoisie” as owners of small businesses.
Only about 5-10% are actual owners of the production systems, qualifying them as the elite class. Marx believed that capitalist societies would split into two opposing factions: the people who controlled the wealth and power and those who had not control. Marx defined classes according to their relationship with the means of production and the wealth produced. He had only three classes: owners with power, owners with little or no power and workers.
Canadians may differentiate most people by socio-economic status, but there is a line drawn by some people according to whether one’s wealth is “old money” or “new money”. Old is usually judged by generations, requiring at least a century or two of inherited family name and status. The same ruler is applied in the US, based upon how one can trace his or her heritage. For example, the Kennedy’s are “old money” with a traceable respected ancestry.
Families who can trace their heritage back to the revolution can attain some social status in some political circles. Someone successful enough to marry into one of these families can eventually acquire the level of respect for his or her children, but will always be seen as “not blood”. The high class families have considerable political power in the US and Canada and generally wealth to back it. One can buy political power with enough wealth, but family class must be tested by time.
Essentially, in Canada, class is still defined by social and economic power, rather than wealth and education, though the lines blur. Porter even states that we cannot in our society determine and exact number of classes, because the lines blur between class and socio-economic status.
Most Canadians (and Americans) consider themselves to be middle class, while low class is defined as poor and uneducated and upper class is defined as rich and powerful, and generally well educated also. However, in an essentially capitalist social democracy, education, work or innovation can raise one’s status quite quickly. Our society tries to reward talent while maintaining an acceptable minimal standard of living and education for all. However, a very talented athlete who makes millions may still not attain upper class status if he or she cannot learn to behave in a manner accepted by others of the upper class. Without considerable training, a certain attitude and education this is highly unlikely.
Technically, class is not based upon wealth or power, though these generally come with one’s class. Anyone of upper class membership, as measured by heritage, family history and political and social influence will also possess high socio-economic status. The reverse is not necessarily true. In order to be considered upper class in North America one still needs education and political and social power, and these are not attained by someone who is poor and uneducated with no talent. Socio-economic status is described by wealth and social standing. Therefore, ethnic origin, education, gender and education all play a role.
Over time, ethnic origin and gender have become less important, and we have hopes they will disappear altogether as a benchmark for socio-economic status in our society. Essentially, one needs to be able to function as a peer among the class to which one attains in our society. This may require education, talent and a certain economic stability, if not outright wealth.
References
Naiman, Joanne. 2008. How Society Works: Class,power, and change in a Candian context 4th Edition.