The concept of social class is among the most fundamental yet persistently contested notions in sociology, occupying a central place in theoretical and methodological debates since the emergence of the discipline. Georges Gurvitch, the Russian-born French sociologist, is one of the key thinkers who sought, through a critical and synthetic approach, to move beyond the dominant dichotomies in class theory—most notably the oppositions between economism and culturalism, and between structuralist and action-oriented perspectives. His book Studies on Social Classes (1966), based on lectures delivered at the Sorbonne, represents a systematic attempt to re-examine both Marxist and non-Marxist theories of class and to propose an alternative conceptual framework for understanding class dynamics in industrial societies.
Focusing on this work, the present article aims to reconstruct Gurvitch’s theoretical logic and to assess the strengths and limitations of his framework for the analysis of contemporary social classes. The importance of such an inquiry lies in the fact that Gurvitch combines Durkheimian sociology of social totality, the sociology of knowledge, and a strong emphasis on collective consciousness and historical memory to produce a multidimensional conception of class. Despite its theoretical richness, this perspective has received relatively limited independent scrutiny in Iranian sociological literature. The central question guiding the article is therefore how Gurvitch redefines the concept of class, how this redefinition differs from classical theories, and to what extent it can be mobilized for analyzing present-day inequalities and social conflicts.
Materials & Methods
Methodologically, the study adopts an analytical–critical approach grounded in systematic textual analysis. Its primary source is Gurvitch’s Studies on Social Classes, in which Marxist perspectives (Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, and Lukács) and non-Marxist approaches (Schmoller, Pareto, Weber, Schumpeter, Halbwachs, and Sorokin) are examined comparatively. In addition to close reading of Gurvitch’s arguments, the article draws on secondary theoretical literature to evaluate the conceptual coherence and methodological implications of his framework.
The methodological orientation of the article is itself inspired by Gurvitch’s own logic, particularly his use of the typological method and his insistence on distinguishing different levels of depth within social reality. Accordingly, theories are analyzed not merely in terms of their propositional content, but with reference to the level of social reality on which they primarily focus—economic, legal, cultural, symbolic, or cognitive. This strategy allows for a comparative assessment of each approach in terms of explanatory power, conceptual consistency, and its capacity to be connected with empirical research. On this basis, the article proceeds to a critical evaluation of Gurvitch’s synthetic theory of class and the degree to which its core concepts are operationalizable.
Discussion & Result
The findings indicate that, in his critique of Marxist theories, Gurvitch fully acknowledges Marx’s foundational role in linking social classes to relations of production, while simultaneously emphasizing the conceptual ambiguities and analytical fluctuations within the Marxist tradition. From Gurvitch’s perspective, Marxist definitions of class are often either negative (defined by opposition) or overly dependent on the factor of production, thereby marginalizing the cultural, legal, and cognitive dimensions of class experience. Through a historical reading of Marx’s works—from the early philosophical writings to the historical texts and Capital—Gurvitch demonstrates that the concept of class is not fixed but undergoes significant transformations. This variability is, in his view, both a strength, reflecting historical sensitivity, and a source of theoretical indeterminacy. In engaging with non-Marxist theories, Gurvitch shows that their emphasis on factors such as occupation, status, collective psychology, or life chances contributes to the analytical enrichment of the concept of class. Nevertheless, these approaches frequently suffer from a lack of totality and an inability to account for structural conflicts. In theories such as those of Weber or Pareto, class is reduced to a set of individual positions or elite configurations and thus fails to appear as a social totality capable of resisting the global (or total) society. Gurvitch’s principal contribution lies in his formulation of a synthetic definition of social classes. He conceives classes as phenomenal and diffuse groupings characterized by overfunctional (transfunctional) character, fundamental non-convergence, resistance to the total society, and a strong tendency toward intensive structuration. Within this framework, class is not merely an economic location but a multilayered phenomenon constituted simultaneously at material and cognitive levels. However, the analysis also shows that this very holism and multiplicity of criteria lead to diminished conceptual clarity and considerable difficulties in operationalizing Gurvitch’s key notions. The article further highlights shortcomings in Gurvitch’s theory, including limited attention to gender relations, intermediate groups, the state, social movements, and processes of globalization.
Conclusion
Overall, the study concludes that Gurvitch’s theory of social classes, despite its limitations, offers a rich and innovative framework for overcoming reductionist tendencies in class analysis. His emphasis on the dialectical linkage between objective structures, collective consciousness, and cultural productions enables a more complex understanding of social inequalities and conflicts. At the same time, the absence of a clear operational definition, the difficulty of empirical testing, and insufficient engagement with certain contemporary transformations underscore the need for critical revision and extension. The article ultimately argues that effective use of Gurvitch’s framework requires translating his key concepts into measurable indicators, paying closer attention to gendered and transnational dimensions of class, and employing mixed methodological strategies in empirical research. Under these conditions, a Gurvitchian perspective can possess not only historical significance but also substantial analytical relevance for the study of social classes in contemporary societies, including the Iranian context.