Modern France

Society in Transition

Malcolm Cook, Grace Davie

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN: 9780415154314
• eBook ISBN: 9781134734757
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Modern France is an up-to-date and accessible introduction to the nature of French society at the end of the twentieth century. The book examines the transition of France and French life as the nation moves from an industrial to a post-industrial economy, and the cultural and social dislocations that such an evoltuion implies.
Sociological concepts and categories of class, race, gender, age and region are discussed as well as how they combine together to produce inequalities and identities. These concepts are then applied to a range of issues such as work, politics, education, health, religion and leisure.
Modern France reveals the nature of French society at a critical moment in her evolution and how a member of the European Union reflects distinctiveness and commonality in the development of Europe as a whole.

Part I
Categories of analysis

Chapter 1

Class and status

Howard Davis

The image of a modern society reflects its historical origins, its stage of economic development, the organization of work and employment, and how it deals with the problems of distributing wealth, income, health, education and other social benefits. At its core are social structures which provide the substantial framework of constraints within which individuals, groups and institutions lead their lives. The distinctive cultural features of a society—its language, customs and characteristic ways of representing the world—are closely linked with the development of its social structures. In this sense, modern France is an industrial society with a well developed economic system, a modern state, and complex social organization which has essential similarities with other west European and industrialized societies. However, to begin to understand the distinctiveness of French society and how it differs from others of the same general type, we need more detailed knowledge of its social structure as well as categories to describe it. In this chapter I describe how the structure of social classes developed as a result of industrialization in France; I then set out the key evidence concerning the recent and present French system of class and status. The chapter concludes with some comments on how the social structure is likely to change and develop, reflecting certain current lively debates among French social scientists concerning new forms of social division, inequality and social change.

The problem of defining social distinctions—especially in terms of social class—has arguably generated more debate than any other issue in the history of sociology. The technicalities of the problem need not detain us here but we do need a working definition of social categories and relations. Traditionally, such a definition has rested on the key concepts of class structure and status distinction in industrial societies—the tradition being represented by the theories of the founders of sociology as well as more than a century of social mapping through censuses and surveys (Crompton 1993). Theories of class were a response to economic and social changes which occurred during the nineteenth century and were intrinsic to the emerging consciousness of industrial capitalism as a hierarchical system prone to crisis and conflict. The vocabulary of class and class structure therefore applies to the system of relations between social categories (for example, the confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in Marxist theory), not to individuals as such. Developed versions of the concept of social class are still used to describe the relative position of groups within a system of classes, usually with an emphasis on the potential for conflict or cohesion. In practice, class differences are measured by distribution of wealth, income, occupation and other indicators of social condition such as employment, education and housing. Most of these are continuous variables which means that the measures of social inequality do not precisely match the categories of class. For example, a self-employed plumber, a teacher and a retired business person may all have a similar annual income but according to most theories they would relate to different class positions because of the differences in their wealth, education, life chances and status.

The concept of ‘status’ refers to the ways in which inequalities and social differences are interpreted in a society. Judgements about status, prestige and relative standing are important for justifying differences and making them legitimate within a moral framework. Thus one society may tolerate a higher level of inequality than another because of a general belief that inequality is the natural outcome of personal abilities or that it is necessary as an incentive to effort. Status differences have to be studied by methods including surveys of occupational prestige, attitudes to wealth and success, or cultural tastes, as well as through interviews. It is not surprising that evidence of the social status in France, as elsewhere, is less systematic than for most other types of social distinction, although the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has been a pioneer in this field (Bourdieu 1979).

Foundations of the modern class structure

The foundations of modern French society were established through historical events and processes which lasted several centuries but especially important were those which occurred at the time of the French Revolution. They created the political conditions from which the modern French state could emerge. This history is a combination of developments which were common to all industrialized countries in western Europe and circumstances which were unique to the French case. The first point is that France was not in the first rank of European countries to industrialize, thus important elements of the pre-French Revolution social structures persisted well into the nineteenth century. The naming of social categories was even then according to métiers, essentially the artisan and commercial ‘trades’. In the censuses of 1866 and 1872, for example, individuals were allocated to categories according to their dependency on a type of activity—whether as a worker, dependent relative or servant. The data therefore reflected an occupational system which was still largely based on family and household production, and concepts of social organization and solidarity inherited from the ancien régime (Desrosières and Thévenot 1996:10). The concept of métier still has currency as a way of describing a form of identification with an occupational culture. However, as the impact of the industrial production and modern state organization came to be felt in the latter part of the nineteenth century, social distinctions based on the hierarchy of capitalist entrepreneurs, non-manual employees, skilled manual and unskilled labourers became more apparent. Eventually these social changes were reflected in the categories used for census and survey data as well as collective bargaining over wages and working conditions.

Thus a system of social classification was adopted which was more hierarchical and based on socio-economic criteria (type of income and employment relationship) and less concerned with the collective culture of occupations. It was linked with the trend towards the ‘scientific management’ of production and the detailed division of labour between tasks. This view was consolidated by national agreements (the Matignon Accords of 1936) between large employers and trade unions designed to standardize categories of work, skill and remuneration. The system of socio-occupational categories (known since 1982 as PCS, the system of professions et catégories socioprofessionelles) which emerged out of this process is the basis for most data and discussion of the class structure and related questions (such as the shape of public opinion) in modern France. While many of the terms are recognizable to an international audience, there are certain distinctions and nuances which mean that it is useful to take a closer look at the vocabulary. The following account is based on the post-1982 classification which uses a hierarchical scheme of 489 occupations, which can be combined into simpler categories. A summary of the data for the year 1982 (the first year of the current classification) and 1993 is shown in Table 1.1.

The ‘economically active’ population consists of employees, those in employment, and those seeking employment. The economically inactive population in France includes the retired, children, students and those who are not seeking work.

The first category of farmers (agriculteurs exploitants) comprises those working the land on a small as well as large scale but excludes agricultural workers on a wage. The decline in numbers over the decade is part of the long-term shift towards industrialized agriculture, although it is interesting to note that this category of occupation remained larger than either industry or the tertiary sector until the late 1930s, showing that France has been a relatively late developer in this respect—more like Italy than the UK or Germany (see also Chapter 6). The category of artisans, shopkeepers and owners of businesses with ten or more employees consists of occupations which are based on the use of small or large amounts or capital for production and commerce, not salaries or wages from employment. Its size, though in decline, is considerable and it reflects the continuing importance of the small entrepreneur in the French economic and social system (see the discussion of the petite bourgeoisie, p. 26). This category, like the first, does not fit easily into the hierarchical system of salaries and wages nor into a system of formal educational qualifications. It is more closely associated with the older system of métiers and family production. Thus many small firms and businesses depend on family participation, especially the work of spouses. The category is less stable than those based on higher qualifications and salaried employment. Shopkeepers, self-employed artisans and small business owners move in and out of this category according to their stage in the life-cycle and as economic conditions change.

Table 1.1 Distribution of the economically active population

The net effect of these movements, however, has been contraction at the expense of paid employment. The ethos of independence (from ‘big’ business, the state or the indignities of wage labour) is the most important legacy which this somewhat anomalous category has bestowed on French society and culture (Mayer 1987).

The third category, cadres and higher professions, is based on a concept of occupations with a high level of qualification and experience. The skills of this group may be exercised in the public or private sector (or both) but they typically involve grande école higher education and a significant amount of managerial responsibility. The term ‘cadre’ has no direct equivalent in English and many writers on French society leave it untranslated. Indeed, one of the leading French writers on the emergence of the cadres declines to give a definition on the ground that it is not a neutral descriptive term but, rather, a social construction which came out of a specific middle-class movement in the 1930s (Boltanski 1987:37ff.). The category has a social identity and status which brings together elements of executive responsibility, managerial power, public authority and professionalism. The cadre concept is an interesting indication of the coherence and importance of the élite of French occupations. The numbers in this category have grown rapidly as the functions of co-ordination and control of the economy and society of advanced capitalism have become more complex. Of course, occupations such as the professions of law, medicine and science have roots which go back well before the emergence of the cadres but they are increasingly incorporated into the system of public administration and services. This category is the summit of French society—the technocratic managerial class—and its role has provoked much debate. Some of the themes from this debate will be examined below.

The category of intermediate professions displays similar growth, and for similar reasons. These are the public sector occupations in health, education, social work and public administration which require professional training, as well as technical and supervisory occupations in private commerce and industry. Sometimes known as the cadres moyens, these occupations form the core of the middle class. Their incomes, career structure and systems of qualification are superior to those of the next category, the white-collar workers (employés). The groups in this sector are engaged in service or clerical occupations in a wide variety of settings: offices, shops, hotels, nurseries, the police, etc. The most distinctive feature of this category is that more than three quarters are women (Desrosières and Thévenot 1996:84). This points to the significant differences between male and female employment opportunities and is a reminder that occupations and class are not the only source of structural divisions in society. The final category of occupations is the manual workers (ouvriers) subdivided by sector and level of skill. The boundaries are relatively well defined: they correspond more or less directly to the manual working class which emerged in the nineteenth century as a social and political movement associated with the conditions of industrial wage labour. Many of the internal divisions are the outcome of the systems of industrial bargaining between employers and workers. Finally, the PCS has a residual category for the unemployed who cannot be assigned to any other category because they have never had employment.

Thus, the occupational system in France is distinct in several ways from its neighbours in Europe: it is the product of relatively late industrialization, it has a strongly centralized system of élite occupations closely linked with the state sector, an active tradition of small-scale entrepreneurs, and a working class with a historically strong attachment to socialism.

Class and social inequalities

The division of the economically active population into occupational categories is an important basis for understanding social structure because work and productive activity are the backbone of the organization of a society in pursuit of its economic goals. However, the occupational classification is not a class structure as such; it is simply a set of categories which are described according to standard attributes. It does not explain how the social relations of class are formed, how the boundaries are constructed, or the movement between them. In reality, the main divisions between social groups are defined by their relative power and their differential access to wealth, income and ‘cultural capital’, as well as the ways in which they pursue their collective interests (Bertaux 1977). The categories of the French class structure in the twentieth century recognized by the majority of French sociologists are described in the following sections. The most fundamental distinction, between the bourgeoisie and the working class, derives from Marxist class theory which gives priority to the position of social groups in relation to the capitalist system of production. Some of the key French terms in current use are listed alongside the main class categories.

I Owners of capital, higher level cadres and professions (class dirigeante, classe dominante, classe supérieure, grande bourgeoisie)

The differences in terminology reflect the alternative interpretations of the class’s role. Together, these categories constitute the uppermost political, economic and cultural stratum. They are not exactly coterminous with the ‘ruling’ class in the classic Marxist sense that they either own or control the means of reproducing economic wealth. Such a definition would exclude the higher level professions and state employees who exercise power and influence by virtue of their public office. These groups are included in the present definition because the state is the pre-eminent means of economic and social control in modern societies and the highest offices are as important as those in the private sector. However, all of these groups have privileged access to cultural capital including education, and they are most influential in establishing political and social priorities for the society as a whole. The class is very small in numbers compared with others. How much wealth and income do the members of this class receive compared with other groups? National statistics and detailed analyses of wealth and income in France confirm that in the post-war period inequalities have been higher than the average for other western European countries (Marceau 1977:39–50). In the 1960s the share of income received by the top 20 per cent of the French population was 53.7 per cent compared with 52.9 per cent in West Germany, 44.2 per cent in the United Kingdom and 44 per cent in Sweden (Atkinson 1983:26). These differences reflect the degree to which wealth and income inequalities are modified by taxation and welfare policies designed to bring about a more even distribution. These results are confirmed in subsequent comparative data based on the index of wealth and income distribution known as the Gini Coefficient.¹ In a ranking produced by Lane and Ersson, France had the highest level of inequality of all the European countries with the exception of Greece (1987:83). The measurement of wealth and income is notoriously difficult because it involves many types of assets. Using wealth (patrimoine) to mean ownership of land, property, stocks and shares, material goods and equipment, plus non-material assets such as rights and intellectual property, data from the standard occupational categories produced by INSEE shows the average pattern of distribution (Table 1.2). The table is based on the pre-1982 classification which separates out the category of business owners with significant capital (industriels and gros commerçants) from the category of artisans and small business owners. The data are therefore more revealing than t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Tables
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Categories of analysis
• Part II: Areas of enquiry