Weber and Social Closure

Traditionally, stratification has been studied in accordance with two major theoretical camps, Marxism and structural functionalism. Marxist theory focuses primarily on class conflict as a determinate of social stratification while the structural functionalist views social inequality as a central component of social life, which works to keep order and maintain an equilibrium among social groups. In contrast, the notion of social closure, described by Max Weber, provides a theoretical basis for understanding subordination, domination, inclusion, and exclusion, which form the foundation for group membership and social inequality. Group membership is often a function of credentialism and other socioeconomic indicators. The distinctions made between groups based on such criteria are further supported by state policy, which has implications for educational and employment opportunities.

Keywords Credentialism; Inequality; Exclusion; Inclusion; Social Capital; Social Closure; Social Status; Stratification; Usurpation

Stratification & Class in the US > Weber & Social Closure

Social Closure

Overview

Social Closure & Inequality

There are a multitude of approaches to the study of stratification and inequality in the United States. In contrast to economic models for the study of inequality, those who investigate social closure as a theoretical construct incorporate models that are specifically focused on the actions of social groups and how group membership can explain differentials in opportunities and rewards based on the ability of a social group to include or exclude others as a means of reinforcing norms, values, expectations, and access to desirable social benefits. More simply put, social closure is the process by which social groups restrict entry and exclude others in order to control the distribution of benefits to outsiders and maximize their own social status and advantage.

Traditionally, stratification has been studied in accordance with two major theoretical camps, conflict theory, the best known of which is Marxism, and structural functionalism. Marxist ideologies of inequality are based on the notion of class conflict and oppression by those who have ownership status in society upon those who do not. Structural functionalists argue that social inequality is a central component of social life, which works to keep order and maintain equilibrium among social groups. Both groups, to a certain extent, assert that inequality and stratification should be studied in terms of power, prestige, wealth, and class.

In contrast, the notion of social closure, described by Max Weber, provides a theoretical basis for understanding the common and essential features of subordination, inclusion, and exclusion, which distinguishes groups from one another. Weber's notion of social closure attempts to uncover processes of domination by considering the relationships between private property ownership, credentialism, status, race, and gender. These issues are of central importance to understanding the very nature of how society functions and how individuals' opportunities are restricted or expanded based on social status and group membership. They also shed light on the consequences of how group membership and solidarity can affect individuals, educational opportunities, job opportunities, and advancement in employment.

Despite the notion that social closure at first glance appears to provide a reasonable departure from the conflict and functionalist debates regarding stratification, and more seriously considers the role of sociological scholarship that investigates the relationships between individuals and groups, little work has been done in this area to examine, theoretically, the methodological and empirical findings on the mechanisms, causes, and consequences of social closure.

The following sections will provide a definition of social closure as described in the work of Max Weber and elaborated on by Raymond Murphy. These scholars are two of the most widely cited theorists regarding the mechanisms and processes of social closure. The article will then turn to the relationship between social closure and inequality. Empirical and real world examples of how social closure functions in educational and employment settings will be discussed.

What is Social Closure?

The theory of social closure was first described in the writings of Max Weber as an alternative to Marxist and functionalist theories of stratification and inequality. Weber describes social closure as a central mechanism by which commercial and property classes (the wealthy and elites) legitimize their social status while at the same time reproduce their life-chances and secure social and political domination.

Social closure functions through the process of exclusion (not letting outsiders in) and inclusion, the notion that those with shared norms, values, and status often stick together in order to maintain their advantage in society. Furthermore, the process of social closure functions as a way for some groups to maintain power and deny access to rewards and other desirable resources to outsiders. The determination of exclusion or inclusion may be based on a variety of socioeconomic indicators including educational credentials, political affiliation, race, religion, or other social factors. By determining group membership, social closure reinforces inequality and, in terms of domination, outsiders' inability to have access to the rewards of membership. This further serves to legitimize inequality by drawing socially constructed distinctions between groups, which are then used to justify the unequal distribution of rewards and status. Thus social closure facilitates outsider marginalization and group incorporation.

Social Closure in Higher Education

In 1988, Raymond Murphy attempted to expand the traditional Weberian theory of social closure and refine the mechanisms that facilitate group marginalization and incorporation. In his book, Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion, Murphy highlights the primary mechanisms for determining group membership, and while empirical studies have focused on racial and gender cleavages, a substantial amount of attention has also been given to the idea that educational credentials are a key component in determining group membership. This can be illustrated in common perceptions of elite membership and social networks that are often formed among associates to Ivy League colleges. For example, one might imagine that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have closed social networks, which are based on a relationship to the institution, either as a student, faculty member, or alumnus. Those who are not associated with the college are denied access to the benefits of group membership, and legacy policies often provide entrance to these institutions for students who otherwise would be denied entrance due to their academic record but are granted entrance based solely on their parents' previous associations.

The State & Social Closure

In addition to highlighting the central role that education credentials play in the incorporation and marginalization of individuals, Murphy also suggests that structural forces contribute to social closure and facilitate the process of distributing resources. One structural component to social closure is arguably the state. Accordingly to Murphy (1988), the state acts as a mechanism for determining access to or exclusion from power, resources, and opportunities through laws and other mechanisms of control. Moreover, in capitalist societies, access to private property, which is regulated by the state and influenced by banking practices and corporate decision-making, further influences group membership and access to wealth and social status. These structural components to social closure provide stability in the formation and recreation of group inclusion and exclusion (Murphy, 1988).

The Weberian notion of social closure and the work of Murphy provide the theoretical basis for understanding how different members of society are segregated. Some mechanisms include race, gender, credentialism, and property ownership. However, neither theorist provides a concise illustration of how social closure relates to social inequality in practice.

Further Insights

The nature of a group having the ability to determine membership that results in access to differential rewards supported by the state lays the foundation for inequality and stratification. When the determination of membership is further linked to race, class, gender, credentialism, and property ownership, it can easily be argued that social closure, by its very nature, is a mechanism of structured inequality and stratification. Recent scholarship in this area has investigated not only the nature of the relationship between social closure and inequality but also the methods for measuring social closure and its consequences for individual life chances and opportunities.

Exclusion

Exclusion from elite classes has been, and continues to be, one of predominant features of social stratification and inequality in society (Chakravarty & D'Ambrosio, 2006). Historically, exclusion from elite groups was a function of heritage. People were born into classes and stayed in them. Comparatively, this is most evident in India, where the regimented caste system ensures that each caste remains intact and static.

The process of exclusion is often used by individuals in more desirable classes or who have access to greater resources to ensure that they continue to have privilege at the expense of opening up their social networks to include a more diverse set of people and reducing the value of their resources. Frank Parkin (1974) argues that the most common ways the privileged maintain their position and exclude others is through 1) the ability to control the flow of capital and 2) credentialism, the process by which the privileged set the rules for what requirements are necessary to enter various sectors of the labor market or compete for other resources.

Each of these mechanisms for preserving access to privileged group membership increases the likelihood of the intergenerational transmission of class position, wealth, power, and prestige. In the case of property or ownership over capital, this can be transferred from generation to generation though inheritance.

Credentialism

Credentialism is passed down through social capital; it is the ability to dictate the rules of engagement by determining what value should be placed on specific credentials. Credentials, such as college degrees, certifications, and other markers of meritocracy, provide the foundation on which exclusion can take place, but not necessarily because any one particular degree or certificate has intrinsic value (Brady, 2003). Credentials also regulate the supply of potential job entrants and, therefore, justify exclusion based on the assumption that those who do not have the credentials to fill a position lack the ability to do the job.

The way in which the privileged determine the criteria for exclusion may be based on achieved or ascribed characteristics. Ascribed characteristics include race and gender. Achieved characteristics include credentialism and other forms of segregation based on characteristics that are not inherent to one's birth status but are a function of hard work and deservingness. The more society buys into the notion that credentials and other forms of segregation are based on hard work and deservingness, the less likely it is to question the status quo regarding access to jobs and other opportunities.

Arguably, exclusion as a mechanism for preserving privilege is exploitive. Collective efforts to restrict access to rewards and opportunities facilitate inequality and stratification by presenting one group as more deserving than another and thus produces and reproduces inequality, while justifying stratification based on meritocracy and credentialism.

Usurpation

Usurpation is a form of social closure advanced by outsiders in response to exclusion. Usurping actions have the aim of calling attention to and attempting to incite a redistribution or complete expropriation of the barriers to group access. A central difference between usurpation and exclusionary closure is the role of outsiders in their attempt to actively participate in the negotiation of group formation and the maintenance of the barrier to mobility.

Usurpation in modern societies generally takes the form of social disobedience, collective movements, strikes, and other forms of political and civil expression. However, the fruitfulness of such efforts is among the central concerns of scholars who study labor and social movements. One can see examples of both success and failure in modern times, including the civil rights and women's moments as well as the failure of organized efforts to change health care policy, social security, and wages.

Measuring Social Closure

Understanding the theoretical propositions of how, why, and under what conditions social closure exists is essential to understanding social stratification. Empirically though, it is also important to develop appropriate mechanisms for measuring social closure to study the consequences of exclusion on educational and employment opportunities. Satya R. Chakravarty and Conchita D'Ambrosio (2006) have developed the most compressive method for investigating social closure to date. Admittedly their multidimensional approach is complex and includes measure of population, social exclusion, group deprivation, and poverty. However, it advances our understanding of how social closure differs cross-nationally. Their data suggest that these factors contribute to the dispersion of equality in various societies.

Viewpoints

Arenas of Social Closure

There are a multitude of areas in which social closure functions. As noted in some cases the rigidity of exclusion dictates nearly every aspect of one's life as is the case in caste systems. However, there are also more subtle ways in which social closure, exclusion, and credentialism function in society to limit some groups' ability to succeed in education and in employment opportunities.

Education

Education is one of the most complex arenas in which social closure is evident. This is partially because of the complexity of credentialism and the belief in a meritocracy in education. Stephen L. Morgan and Aage B. Sorensen (1999) investigated the claim in educational sociology that more homogenous academic settings produce better educational outcomes. They test the notion that schools with greater social capital and interrogational social closure produce students who perform better than those who attend schools with greater diversity. Their findings present a unique empirical picture of education and social closure. Essentially they find that social closure is negatively associated with achievement gains; however, it is positively associated with learning. It could be the case that learning is facilitated when students are more homogenous; however, this does not necessarily translate into variation in achievement as measured by standardized testing.

Employment

Kim A. Weeden (2002) and James R. Elliott and Ryan A. Smith (2001) each describe various ways in which social closure functions in the workplace. Weeden describes how social closure based on socioeconomic indicators presents barriers to employment opportunities and explains pay differentials within various occupational sectors. Her research highlights the ways in which economic inequality can be explained as a function of social closure and individual exclusion from employment and advancement opportunities.

Elliott and Smith investigate social closure from an alternative perspective, looking at how group exclusion from the "bottom-up" can account for variations in minorities' occupational attainment. Their research suggests that a multiethnic work place with persons of color in authoritative roles can assist in the breaking though of exclusionary groups and make for a less discriminatory workplace. More simply put, when outsiders are part of the privileged few, they can create opportunities that resemble a more open and opportunistic work environment.

The empirical examples of how social closure functions in educational settings and the workplace present conflicting data on how social closure relates to inequality. However, there are some common themes. When groups are exclusionary they present an opportunity for conflict. This can result in both positive and negative consequences for social mobility. In the case where there have been minorities or other outsiders who have moved into the privileged groups there appears to be hope for a decrease in discriminatory practices. The empirical data also illustrate that largely homogenous groups, who lack exclusionary practices, may benefit under limited conditions. This could be due to variants in social interactions and have less to do with competition. Regardless, the two papers present unique insight as to how social closure as a sociological construct functions in different settings and manifests in different ways.

The concept of social closure, as described by Max Weber provides a theoretical basis for understanding subordination, domination, inclusion, and exclusion, which are the foundation for group membership and social inequality. Group membership is often a function of credentialism and other socioeconomic indicators. The distinctions made between groups based on such criteria are further supported by state or government policy which has implications for educational and employment opportunities.

Terms & Concepts

Credentialism: The reliance solely on credentials and not skill for purposes of conferring jobs or social status.

Exclusion: Multidimensional process by which individuals and subgroups are systematically excluded from membership high-status groups.

Inclusion: Multidimensional process of including members of society into elite groups based on credentialism and other socioeconomic indicators.

Inequality: The unequal distribution of rewards and opportunities in society.

Social Capital: A concept that refers to connections between social networks and desirable resources.

Social Closure: The process by which social groups restrict entry and exclude benefit to outside members of society in order to maximize their own advantage.

Social Status: Prestige attached to one's position in society.

Stratification: The division of people within a society based on a multitude of factors including power, prestige, wealth, class, and group membership.

Bibliography

Bamberry, L. (2011). The evolution of social closure in school education in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 2, 17–33. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=63020923

Borner, S. (2011). Social closure and social policy. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 2, 35–53. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=63020924

Brady, D. (2003). Rethinking the sociological measurement of poverty. Social

Fiel, J. E. (2013). Decomposing school resegregation: social closure, racial imbalance, and racial isolation. American Sociological Review, 78, 828–848. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90495283

Forces, 81 , 715-752. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9426334&site=ehost-live

Chakravarty, S., & D'Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income & Wealth, 52 , 377-398. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Primer. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=21944386&site=ehost-live.

Elliott, J. & Smith, R. (2001). Ethnic matching of supervisors to subordinate work groups: Findings on "bottom-up" ascription and social closure. Social Problems, 48 , 256-276.

Morgan, S. & Sorensen, A. (1999). Parental networks, social closure, and mathematics learning: A test of Coleman's social capital explanation of school effects. American Sociological Review, 64, , 661-681. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2557264&site=ehost-live

Murphy, R. (1988). Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion. Oxford, UK. Clarendon Press.

Parkin, F., ed. (1947). The social analysis of class structure. New York: Harper Row.

Weeden, K. (2002). Why do some occupations pay more than others? Social closure and earnings inequality in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 108 , 55-101. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9055891&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Collins, R. (1979). The credentialed society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press.

Lee, G. & Loveridge, R. (Eds.) (1987). The manufacture of disadvantage: Stigma and social closure. Manchester, UK. Open University Press.

Mangino, W. (2012). Dissecting segregation: contained at an affluent high school. International Review of Modern Sociology, 38. 25–64. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77390589

Murphy, R. (1988). Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. Oxford, UK. Clarendon Press.