Preface to the First (German) Edition

In the middle of the twentieth century, the sociologist finds himself in an awkward position. While he is just beginning to lay and
secure the foundations of his discipline, an impatient public demands
with increasing urgency both immediately applicable and comprehensive solutions from him. Following almost every sociological conference, confident journalists charge sociologists with being either igno-

rant of practical problems or incapable of solving them. Like an angry

creditor, the public pursues the sociologist's every

lay

its

hands on every penny he

may

produce.

Is

move
it

in

order to

surprising that

under these conditions many a sociologist has begun to forge currency.?

The public deserves no better but unfortunately the false currency,
j

the overly rapid as well as the all-embracing solutions

ress of sociology as well.

They remove

the sphere of scholarly criticism which inspires ever

that of a sterile quarrel of opinions. It

is

harm

the prog-

sociological discussion

new

from

efforts to

therefore necessary to

make

a decision.

in a

The sociologist certainly is a debtor of the society in which he lives

way unparalleled in most other disciplines of scholarship. But

this debt

merely forces him

way

to choose the subjects of his research in

any might contribute to informing

In developing his theories, methods,
and techniques, the sociologist is bound exclusively by the rules of
all scholarship, which demand from him accuracy and adherence to
that pedestrian path of science which nobody else can take for him
and which no magic force can abridge. Inevitably, this path involves
byways and detours it is a long way, and its destination may disappoint his and others' expectations perhaps somebody else soon shows
that the path chosen was altogether wrong. But if an ill-advised
public does not understand the process of scientific inquiry and demands more, the sociologist may and must be sufficiently proud and
confident to defend his scholarly responsibility in face of a misconceived obligation to society which is all too often informed by little
more than a desire to please. Htc RhoduSy hie salta!

such a

that

its

society about itself.

results

This

if

is all.

Preface to the First (German) Edition

viii

These remarks are

beginning of a study, the subresults are tentative, modest, and

in place at the

which is as extensive as its

need of supplementation. The attempt is made here to tackle a
problem, which has for a long time been strangely neglected, with
partly new and partly more refined means. To many it may sound
surprising if I call a problem neglected about which the present
study lists more than two hundred bibliographical references which
could easily be doubled and trebled. Probably the word "class"
belongs to the most frequently used words of sociology. But I am not
concerned here with the word. I should not hesitate to replace it by
a better one if I could find such} moreover, it will appear less frequently in the present investigation than might be expected. I am
concerned with a problem, namely, with the puzzling fact that social
structures as distinct from most other structures are capable of producing within themselves the elements of their supersession and
change. Social structures not only are subject to change but create
permanently and systematically some of the determinant forces of
their change within themselves. Among these forces certain groups
are paramount, the conflict of which may lead to modifications of
existing values and institutions. I shall attempt to show in the present
study how these groups and the processes to which they contribute
can be identified theoretically and analyzed empirically.
Perhaps a word of explanation is necessary as to why I have given
a study of this problem the title Class and Class Conflict. At least
one great sociologist, Karl Marx, has used the concept of class in
the context intimated by the foregoing remarks. It is undeniable
that not very many have followed Marx in this. Little more than
a dozen (if important) sociologists who understand Marx's and our
problem as one of class will be mentioned in the course of this study.
Moreover, we shall have to subject the approaches of Marx and
most later sociologists to severe criticism which often leads to the
conclusion that they are vague, imprecise, incomplete, or even untenable and erroneous. The overwhelming majority of sociologists since
Sombart and Max Weber have associated the concept of class with
ject of
in

other types of problems, especially with those of social stratification.

regrettable chain of circumstances seems to have committed both

the original meaning of the concept of class and the problem of

first

its

use to oblivion. All these factors can hardly serve to justify the

attempts to revive both the problem and the concept of class in their
original definition.
justification

is

However,

necessary,

so far as the

and with respect

problem

is

concerned, no

to the concept I shall try

Preface to the First (German) Edition

to point out that the situation

To

is

not quite as hopeless as

ix
it

may seem

one argument here: There is, in sociological terminology, a useful alternative for the misunderstood
concept of class, i.e., the term "stratum," whereas for the wellunderstood concept of class a substitute has not yet been found.
For two reasons one can predict with some confidence that the
present study will be misunderstood. One of these rests with the
strict distinction of "class" and "stratum" and their respective heuristic purposes. By stratum I shall understand a category of persons
who occupy a similar position on a hierarchical scale of certain situational characteristics such as income, prestige, style of life. "Stratum"
is a descriptive category. By contrast, the concept of class is an analytical category which has meaning only in the context of a theory
of class. "Classes" are interest groupings emerging from certain
structural conditions which operate as such and effect structure
changes. The confusion of these two concepts and spheres of analysis is so complete that I cannot hope to eliminate it entirely by this
first attempt at clarification, even if I should have succeeded in separating class and stratum convincingly and consistently. I must accept
the misunderstanding which is possible, even probable here, just like
another one which goes even deeper and touches upon the pathetically preliminary discussion of the possibility of a sociological science.
I ask the reader's indulgence if I refrain here from a general conat first sight.

anticipate but

sideration of this subject

itself as a

testimony to

it is

to the present study

my conception

problem which

aspect of the

even as

and instead refer

I

of sociology. There is but one

should like to mention in advance,

going to increase rather than mitigate misunderstand-

ings: If in this study I speak of "theory," "hypothesis," "empirical

test," "refutation,"

and "science,"

use these terms in the

strict

sense of the methodological characteristics of an empirical discipline.

At

least logically, physics, physiology,

the same laws

and sociology are subject

whatever may render one

ciplines empirically preferable in

to

or the other of these dis-

terms of exactness.

I cannot see
should not be at least desirable to try to free sociology of
the double fetters of an idiographic historical and a meta-empirical

why

it

philosophical orientation and weld

precisely

it

into an exact social science with

ideally, of course, mathematically

formulated postumodels, and testable laws. The attempt must be

made; and although the present study remains far removed from
its satisfactory completion, I want it to be understood in terms of
such an attempt.
lates, theoretical

Preface to the First (German) Edition

Generalizing theoretical formulation and

its

empirical test are

With R. K. Merton

balanced in the present investigation.

regard

"theories of the middle range" as the immediate task of sociological

research: generalizations that are inspired by or oriented towards

concrete observations.

However, the

exposition of the theory of

and class conflict stands in the center of this investigation. The resume of Marx's theory of class, the largely descriptive
account of some historical changes of the past century, and the critisocial classes

examination of some earlier theories of

cal

Marx, lead up

class,

of post-capitalist society in terms of class theory a

of

my

mains

theoretical position
in the

including that of

to the central theoretical chapters j with the analysis

intended.

is

"middle range"

first

The whole

also in that

it is,

empirical test

investigation re-

as its title indicates,

confined to industrial society.

Many

suggestions and stimulations which have gone into the

present study originated in discussions in a small informal group of

younger sociologists from diverse countries at the London School of

Economics in the years 1952-54. This group, which called itself the
"Thursday Evening Seminar," although it often continued its discussions until Friday morning and met on other days as well, not
only occupied itself with many of the specific questions of this study
such as Marx, Parsons, the whole problem of interest groups
but displayed a conception of sociology and its task which I hope
to have upheld throughout this study. Within the "Thursday Evening Seminar" and since, the stimulation of numerous conversations
with Dr. D. Lockwood, Lecturer in Sociology at the London School
of Economics, has, above all, furthered the progress of my own investigation into class theory. In the hope that the provisional result

of these investigations

may

provide a useful basis for

cussion I dedicate this study to

our

common

friends of the

critical dis-

David Lockwood and with him

London

years.

R.D.
Scheint (Saar)
S-pring

igs7

to

Preface to the Revised (English) Edition

In every sense but one, this study is an essay even in its revised
It is tentative, incomplete, open to criticism at many points,
and, I hope, stimulating^ but it is also longer than the rules of
essay writing would permit. Despite its length, I wish to emphasize the exploratory nature of my attempt to tackle problems of
social conflict concerning total societies. By and large, recent develversion.

opments of sociology have been characterized by two related

features.

Firstly, there has been a strong concern for the conditions of "equilibrium" in "social systems." Stimulated by anthropological research,

an image of society has gained prevalence in sociological thinking

which emphasizes the elements of functional coordination, integration, and consensus in units of social organization. The attempt to
evolve testable theories and applicable conclusions has led, secondly,
to an ever-growing interest in comparatively small "social systems"
such as communities, enterprises, and, above all, small groups. Both
these concerns of contemporary sociological analysis are, to be sure,
important, and have proved fruitful. At the same time, however,
they have led many to abandon completely such other subjects of

seem to fit in with the general trend.

today a considerable need for reorienting socio-

sociological analysis as did not

As

a result, there

logical analysis to
structures,

is

problems of change,

and especially

in those

conflict,

of total

and coercion

societies.

The

total societies, as well as in their historical dimension,

as old as sociology itself.

Yet

is

in social

interest in

of course

their neglect in recent decades

a study like this one a venture into

unmapped

makes

areas of inquiry

guided not so much by the hope of comprehensive

and final results as by the intention of challenging others to follow,
criticize, and explore other avenues of discovery.
venture which

From

is

the reviews of the original

German

version of this study

have learned with some pride that it has in fact achieved at least
one of its ends: it has stimulated critical discussion. It seems to me
that few things are more deadly to the progress of knowledge than
I