3

Analysing Classification and its Implications:
Inequality, Ideology and Power

Suraj Beri
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology

Central University of Nagaland, Lumami HQRS;
Email: criticalsun@gmail.com

Abstract: The present paper endeavours to delve into the concept of
classification and its pertinence within the realm of social sciences.
Through an exploration of existing social science literature in
anthropology, and sociology, this analysis undertakes a critical
examination of the social and political processes involved in the
classification of individuals, identities, groups, categories, and,
ultimately, moral and cultural discourses. The potential exists for an
ideological “misrecognition” of the historical context, whereby certain
categories and concepts are emphasised over others, resulting in the
eulogising of specific identities while rendering the articulation of
certain forms of inequality impossible. The utility and ramifications of
categorization are being discussed.

Keywords: classification, inequality, ideology, subject, power.

Introduction

Sociologists have wrestled to make sense of disorienting transformations
in the power structure effected by capitalist development. Invariably,
sociological literature gravitates towards the fundamental inquiry of
discerning the nature of power and inequality. A more suitable inquiry would
entail elucidating the issue that the term “inequality” denotes. The scholarly
examination of inequality is aptly focused on the intricate workings of caste
dynamics, gender-based subjugation, perpetuation of class-based
advantages, ethnic hegemony, as well as the systematic deprivation and
marginalisation resulting from categorization. It is incumbent upon us to
engage in a rigorous analysis of the societal and governmental mechanisms
for categorisation and classification of persons, groups, communities. The

SOCIAL TRENDS
Journal of the Department of Sociology of North Bengal University

Vol. 10, 31 March 2023; ISSN: 2348-6538
Peer-reviewed National Journal



Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 35

process of categorization involves the allocation of objects, relations, and
concepts to a specific class, while the act of classification is the underlying
cognitive mechanism. Classification may be seen as an object of intellectual
scrutiny, not the ones that sociologists themselves use to order their data.

The discipline of sociology has long been preoccupied with comprehending
the intricacies of social disparities and their evolution over time. As
exemplified, the individual responsible for this notion was none other than
Karl Marx, who presented a highly discerning and politically impactful
examination of the mechanics of capitalism and its ramifications, specifically
in terms of estrangement, subjugation, and the exacerbation of social
stratification. In a similar vein, Max Weber endeavoured to explicate the
mechanics of capitalism through the advent of “rational enterprise,” namely
bureaucracy. Contemporary sociologists, including Mike Savage, Charles
Tilly, David Graeber, Richard Sennett, and Goran Therborn, have undertaken
a thorough examination of the operational dynamics of social inequality
within present-day societies. In addition, scholars in the field of economics,
such as Simon Kuznets, Joseph Stiglitz, and Amartya Sen, have devoted
their attention to analysing the intricacies of the capitalist economy, including
economic disparities, the impact of globalisation, market regulations, and
the evolving role of the state. The issue of inequality holds a pivotal position
in the realm of social science, encompassing various facets such as the
financial crisis of 2007-8, the rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street
movement (“We are the 99 pr cent, who is the one per cent?”), and the
emergence of social movements, particularly in the Global South, that resist
the neoliberal dismantling of collectivities.

This paper tries to interrogate the concept of classification and its pertinence
within the realm of social sciences. Through an exploration of existing
theoretical works on classification in anthropology, and sociology, this
analysis undertakes a critical examination of the social and political processes
involved in the classification of individuals, identities, groups, categories,
and, ultimately, moral and cultural discourses. The potential exists for an
ideological “misrecognition” of the historical context, whereby certain
categories and concepts are emphasised over others, resulting in the
eulogising of specific identities while rendering the articulation of certain
forms of inequality impossible. The utility and ramifications of categorization
are being discussed.

Inequality as the process of classification, domination, and exclusion

The issue of inequality stands as a pivotal challenge within modern-day
societies. Each societal construct possesses distinct methods of arranging



Suraj Beri36

individuals, classes, and groups within a particular framework. The
configuration of disparities exhibits a diverse array of manifestations
contingent upon the particular social and political milieu. Academics from
various fields have delved into the inquiry of social stratification, disparities
based on race, gender, caste, and class. The field of social sciences has
undertaken various approaches to investigate the essence and attributes of
disparate structures of inequality. Economists tend to rely heavily on
quantitative equations and abstract conceptualizations of societal
phenomena, whereas anthropologists and sociologists prioritise the
experiential and processual dimensions of social inequalities. The inflexible
structure of discipline has constricted our potential elucidations regarding
the presence of disparities. Therefore, it is imperative to scrutinise the
ideological foundations of these disciplinary frameworks in the realm of
social sciences, in light of the economic and political obstacles that confront
the current manifestation of democratic existence.

As of late, it has become customary to obscure the modalities and
apparatuses of societal marginalisation and subjugation. In light of the cultural
shift and postmodern dialogue, the material circumstances have become
incomprehensible, fragmented, and resistant to analytical interpretation. They
remain elusive and abstract when viewed through a sociological perspective.
The societal repercussion of this particular practice has been to assign
designations and categorizations to certain notions, principles, and
viewpoints, deeming them obsolete and archaic. Social inequalities have
similarly suffered a comparable destiny. In the mid-twentieth century, the
concept of modernization theory gained significant traction within both
academic and political spheres. The modernization theory’s evolutionary
and linear tenets have entrenched certain social and political concepts as
axiomatic. The notion of social mobility has been entrenched in the discourse
of a laudatory narrative of contemporary nation-states and the corresponding
economic enterprise of capitalist markets that endeavour to establish an
unobstructed and liberated social sphere, wherein individuals from all walks
of life can ascend to the pinnacle of success. The concept of the “mobility
narrative” was deliberately adopted by the socioeconomic and political upper
echelons of both the Western and Eastern hemispheres, in light of the
expanding global markets. The notion of social mobility has gained
prominence as an academic discourse, in tandem with political discourse,
as a means of negating the systemic perpetuation of class-based inequities
within capitalist labour markets. Through the promotion of the concept of
upward social mobility for the impoverished and the middle-class desire to
ascend to the upper echelons of society, a clever strategy was employed to



Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 37

entice the masses to embrace the ostensibly democratic and inclusive nature
of the capitalist system. However, it is important to note that this system
actually perpetuates and reinforces pre-existing social hierarchies, including
those based on race, gender, and caste. Put simply, the classification of
social and cultural spheres was utilised to gain popular legitimacy and
maintain an unequal order while simultaneously denouncing the possibility
of revolution.

Over the course of the last thirty years, scholars have rekindled their
fascination with scrutinising the patterns of disparity both in the northern
and southern hemispheres of the world. Upon closer examination of a
specific academic discipline, it has been noted that endeavours have been
made to chart and scrutinise the configuration of disparities. Interestingly,
the classification of class has been relegated to the periphery and even
deemed obsolete or extinct. Can it be primarily repudiated as a matter of
representation or empirical evidence? In the event that such concepts as
“class” or “elite” are not employed, it becomes imperative to inquire as to
the means by which contemporary manifestations of inequality may be
comprehended and scrutinised. The demise of the social construct of class,
as a representation of reality, has been declared by esteemed scholars
such as Malcolm Waters and Jan Pakulski in 1995. However, it is important
to note that the objective reality of class inequality persists and flourishes
even in Western societies. Recent empirical studies conducted by sociologists
such as Mike Savage, Goran Therborn, and Erik Olin Wright have
demonstrated the persistent importance of both material and social
disparities, as exemplified by social class, in various contexts including those
of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The persistence of
material disparities has posed a persistent challenge to the liberal ideals of
a socially equitable and unrestricted world.  As per the views of numerous
postmodern intellectuals, the conclusion of the Soviet regime marked the
anticipated termination of history. The aforementioned transition has been
denoted as a novel stage of capitalism, albeit one that lacks the traditional
stratification of societal classes. The contemporary upsurge in the
examination of inequality and elite analyses indicates that the absence of
attention given to elites in academic and political discourse can be traced
back to fundamental historical, theoretical, and ideological inconsistencies
concerning the essence of socio-economic changes (Savage & Williams
2008; Piketty 2020; Beri 2020). It may be prudent to delve into the incongruity
present in the theoretical discourses concerning inequality and categorization
as a fundamental tenet. The potential exists for the recognition of ideological
misinterpretation of historical context and the imposition of specific



categories and concepts, which may result in the glorification of certain
identities while neglecting others, ultimately hindering the ability to address
certain forms of inequality.

Against this historical context, Piketty’s seminal work, Capital in the
Twenty-First Century (2014) emerged. The work in question has garnered
significant attention and acclaim for its cogent and discerning examination
of the issues of disparity, the apportionment of resources, and the economic
system of capitalism as it exists in the present day.  Piketty posits that to
engage in discourse and unveil the intricacies of disparity, one must first
grasp its fundamental ideological composition. In his recent publication,
Capital and Ideology (2020), Thomas Piketty methodically contests
numerous theoretical postulations of economists regarding the issue of
inequality. The author’s extensive inquiry into the perpetuation of disparities
across various societies posits the necessity of a novel, all-encompassing
egalitarian discourse to effectively counteract the prevailing ideology of
inequity. As per Piketty’s assertion, disparities are not solely rooted in
economic or technical factors, but rather are fundamentally shaped by
ideological and political forces (Piketty 2020: 7-8). Ideological frameworks
serve as essential rationalisations to render the experience of inequality
tolerable. The phenomenon of naturalising inequality has been the focal
point of sociological investigation. To elucidate, sociology reveals how
particular manifestations of power dynamics and imbalanced relationships
are deemed as inherently innate, as though there exists no ideological
underpinning to this purported “naturalness.” Piketty posits that the
justification of inequalities is a necessary component for any given society
to validate its existence. His work offers a thorough analysis of the diverse
approaches employed by different societies in achieving this objective,
spanning a range of what he refers to as “inequality regimes.”

Classification as a Principle of Vision: Producing & Legitimizing
Inequalities

The popular description of the classification suggests that it is the inherent
inclination of the human mind is to engage in the act of classification or
categorization. It is worth noting that certain classifications within the realm
of commerce and public administration lack a prescribed structure or
conform to uniform benchmarks. Throughout our professional endeavours,
a considerable amount of time is dedicated to the categorization of various
entities, often employing surreptitious methods, and necessitating the creation
and execution of a diverse array of impromptu classifications. Humans

Suraj Beri38



tend to categorise various entities based on their chromaticity, dimensions,
calibre, utility, and other distinguishing features. The categorization of groups
is accomplished through the application of various criteria such as
nomenclature, gender, social hierarchy, cultural heritage, linguistic affiliation,
geographical location, religious affiliation, and socioeconomic status. As
individuals, we are subject to classification by various entities such as other
individuals, groups, institutions, markets, and the state. In the realm of
commerce, individuals are bestowed with novel appellations such as
“premium customer,” “cheap buyer,” “rentier,” “shopkeeper,” “client,” and
the like. Our classification encompasses the religious affiliations of Hinduism,
Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. We are additionally categorised as either
local, non-local, citizen, illegal migrant, or other such classifications. As
human beings, we possess the innate ability to categorise and classify various
entities that surround us, ranging from residential abodes to material
possessions, urban metropolises to rural hamlets, and even entire nations.
However, what are these classifications and categories exactly? If they
are social construct or product, what is the process of their formation and
maintenance? By whom are they authored and vested with the power to
effectuate alterations? At what point do these phenomena manifest
themselves, and which variables are implicated in their emergence? What
is the mechanism behind their widespread prevalence? What is the
correlation, per se, between categories that are formed locally and tailored
to the spatial constraints of a bathroom cabinet, and those that are
commodified, intricate, and exorbitant, as developed by medical diagnoses,
government regulatory bodies, and pharmaceutical companies? It is indeed
remarkable that despite the profound impact that these feeble yet ubiquitous
entities have on our existence, a great many of us remain oblivious to the
social and ethical framework that they have established. The undeniable
impact of their influence, as cogently expounded by Foucault, is inescapable.
As a rudimentary investigation, try by disregarding your gender classification
and utilising the lavatories in closest proximity; endeavour to locate a book
that has been misfiled under an erroneous library catalogue number; queue
up for immigration at a bustling airport in a foreign nation san the appropriate
passport, and so forth. These instances serve as illustrations of how easily
mistakes can be made when one is not exercising attentiveness. The
inherent potency of categorical constructs shall invariably and expeditiously
manifest. From a public policy standpoint, it is imperative to acknowledge
the equal significance of categorizations such as regional distinctions, types
of activities, and natural resources. The designation of a territory as
environmentally significant and the classification of another location as

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 39



industrial or residential hold considerable sway over forthcoming economic
determinations. Whilst the fundamental principles of decision-making in
this domain are often the topic of fervent political discourse, they are seldom
discernible. The process of altering established categories is generally a
laborious and intricate bureaucratic undertaking.

Tracing Durkheim, Bourdieu, and Foucault one can argue to reflect upon
and understand the mode of classification that defines certain individuals,
groups and communities as such and how the former indulge in struggles
against definition and classification. This politics of classification is crucial
to make sense of inequalities in neoliberal contexts where new categories
are constructed and certain old categories are deemed unfit to explain
inequality, the class being one of them. Only categorization makes social
life conceivable, or it exemplifies the execution of continual classifications.
This means that we continually make assumptions regarding the group into
which we categorize the individual with whom we interact. In order to live
a social life, social agents categorize common objects. Social science
analyses society that classifies everything. Simultaneously, we must relook
at the politics of classification and struggling groups against the classification
as a linked process that keeps renewing itself in different times. That would
require a renewed social science interest in politics of knowledge. We
must ask in clear philosophical and empirical terms:

i. What is the problem that classification addresses?

ii. How to address inequality in the midst of individuation of life, and

iii. How do social groups challenge the classification imposed on them?

Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists shifted their focus
from epistemological problems regarding the “truth” of classes to ontological
ones regarding how classifications and their associated categories establish
and maintain social interactions. Durkheim and Mauss, in their seminal
work “Primitive Classification” of 1903, posited the notion that the social
derivation of our world’s organisational and categorical forms is a concept
of paramount importance. In a manner akin to Durkheim’s earlier critique
of the psychologists of his era, who attributed the causes of suicide to the
individual psyche, they contend in this treatise on classification that the
ability to classify is not inherent to human nature, but rather arises externally
from society. Durkheim and Mauss have arrived at the conclusion that
social categories were the fundamental categories of human thought, based
on their examination of three distinct societies: Australian tribes, North
American Indians, and Chinese society. The phenomenon of social

Suraj Beri40



differentiation, wherein entities and collectives are categorised based on
their unique characteristics, is indicative of the intricate social dynamics
that exist between them. The process of classification is predicated upon
the demarcations that exist among various societal cohorts.

As per Bourdieu’s scholarly work titled Classificatory Struggles the
classification of individuals cannot be restricted within the bounds of
objective measurement techniques. Rather, it is a product of the ongoing
conflicts that take place over and against these classification systems as
they are manifested in the real world. As per Bourdieu’s theoretical
framework, the concept of class is inherently relational in nature, and the
emergence of social classes is contingent upon the struggles waged against
systemic exploitation and injustice. Pierre Bourdieu’s critical scrutiny of
the epistemological foundations of various classification systems stands as
a significant contribution to the early sociological analysis.  One of the
fundamental duties of sociology is to observe and analyse the divisive
principles that operate within a given social context. The task at hand
necessitates the cultivation of a certain level of self-control in regards to
acknowledging the significance of nomenclature, the injurious nature of
categorizations, and the consequential outcomes of classification procedures.
Bourdieu’s contribution to the sociology of classification lies in his elucidation
of the persistence of social class hierarchies in ostensibly less stratified
contexts of liberal democratic welfare states in post-War II Europe. Through
his work, he offers a comprehensive and nuanced account of the underlying
mechanisms that sustain these hierarchies. It has been observed that class
hierarchies manifest not only in the realm of labour and capital disputes,
but also in the domain of “cultural struggles,” wherein the assimilation of
unique symbols and expressions of authority, as well as the attainment of
cultural proficiencies, play a significant role.

According to Beverley Skeggs (2004), the process of categorising and
recording social disparities operates via corporeal means, institutional
mechanisms, and evaluative frameworks. As an illustration, the concept of
inscription pertains to the physical marking of the body, as well as the
attribution of qualities and signs. Institutionalisation, on the other hand,
involves the establishment of positions, designations, and domains. A positive
institutional act involves the assignment of worth, while a negative
institutional act entails the deprivation of dignity. Additionally, the notion of
exchange involves the attribution of value to a particular behaviour, act, or
point of view. The middle class’s ability to establish a system for evaluating
the worth of individuals, actions, and items is a key method of justifying
their authority. This is exemplified by the current discourse surrounding

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 41



those who rely on complimentary resources and the potential risks this
practise may pose in the long run. The middle class tends to criticise the
state’s welfare initiatives aimed at providing fundamental necessities to
underprivileged segments of society through the pejorative labels.

The classification of objects and the correlation of such categories with
social structure has been a prominent subject of inquiry in the fields of
anthropology, sociology, and cognitive sciences. The scholarly work
conducted by Bowker and Star (2000) delves into the intricacies of
classification systems within the realm of information systems, examining
both their design and utilisation. Their inquiries pertain to fundamental
inquiries regarding the diverse facets of categorization. In the quotidian
sphere, bureaucratic regulations, ontological perspectives, communal
structures, financial frameworks, and cultural paradigms persist within the
realm of textual categorization, albeit in an implicit manner. As one delves
into the narratives surrounding conflicts and compromises among groups
vying for recognition of their community identity, work lives, or administrative
categorization, a delicate balance must be struck between the formal and
informal aspects of classification. Upon scrutinising the progression or
metamorphosis of classification systems employed in any domain of societal
existence, one can peruse and investigate a significant quantity of social,
political, and economic contexts inherent in these classifications and
categorizations.

Mary Douglas highlights a salient characteristic of classification systems,
namely their emergence from and perpetuation by social arrangements
(Douglas 1986). The act of classification pertains to the systematic
arrangement of the social realm, taking into account its spatial, temporal, or
spatial-temporal dimensions. A classification is a hierarchical arrangement
of entities, encompassing objects, occurrences, connections, persons, and
undertakings, that serves the purpose of fulfilling bureaucratic obligations
for territorial delineation or organisation, or for the generation of knowledge.
Standards are integral constituents of the modes of categorization.
Frequently, the systems under consideration undergo a process of
standardisation. Moreover, a standard can be viewed as a mechanism for
categorising the universe. The concepts of classification and standards are
inextricably linked. A “standard” refers to a collection of mutually accepted
regulations that govern the creation of either written rules or physical criteria.

Bowker & Starr (2000) stress the pivotal role of standards in facilitating
and sustaining industrial manufacturing. Simultaneously, akin to
classifications, these standards’ dimensions are, to some extent,

Suraj Beri42



conceptualised as idealised. They encapsulate objectives of praxis and
manufacturing that are invariably imperfectly actualized. The categorization
and benchmarks are two interrelated aspects of a single entity. The
standardisation of classifications is contingent upon various factors and
may not necessarily come to fruition. In the event that such actions are not
undertaken, they shall be deemed ad hoc, confined to a singular entity or a
regional populace, and/or of restricted longevity. Simultaneously, each
triumphant norm establishes a system of categorization, at minimum,
distinguishing between efficacious and ineffectual methods of arranging
actions or objects. The pragmatic implementation of standards often
necessitates the utilisation of impromptu, nonconforming classifications.
The aforementioned were established as official, standardised categorizations
and benchmarks, encompassing both empirical and economic aspects.
Individuals have historically engaged in the categorization, quantification,
and normalisation of a vast array of subjects, including but not limited to
fauna, human ethnicities, literature, medicinal substances, fiscal obligations,
vocations, and illnesses. The aforementioned categories were established
and existed within the domains of industry, medicine, science, education,
and government.

The categorization and standardisation of systems represent a convergence
of societal structure, ethical principles, and intricate levels of technological
assimilation. The primary overarching concept pertains to the omnipresence
of categorization and normalisation. The ubiquitous presence of classification
schemes and standards pervades our surroundings. Within the constructed
environment in which we reside, myriad standards are ubiquitously employed,
ranging from the installation of plumbing fixtures in a domicile to the
construction of an automobile engine to the transmission of digital data
between computing devices.

The fundamental premise of our methodology is that classifications and
standards possess both tangible and intangible properties. In what manner
do we apprehend this intricately enriched, categorised, and tactually diverse
realm? When one is under the influence of cognitive idealism, it becomes
effortless to perceive classifications as attributes of the intellect and
standards as abstract numerical concepts or cultural legacies that are not
firmly grounded. However, their presence exerts a tangible influence within
the realm of reality. These entities are inherently integrated and ingrained
within each aspect of the constructed milieu. It is evident that a singular
classification system cannot be universally applicable to all individuals. A
prime example of this is the traffic light system, which utilises the colours
red, yellow, and green to convey information. However, this system is not

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 43



effective for individuals with visual impairments, as they require an auditory
coding system. An additional prominent motif pertains to the revelation of
the pragmatic politics that underlie the processes of classification and
standardisation.

Episteme and Classification

Foucault’s discourse analysis offers valuable insights into the ways in which
our institutions and modes of communication are structured and classified.
Foucault’s classifications are instrumental in unlocking the evolution of the
human sciences, a term he employs to denote the pursuit of contemporary
human knowledge, encompassing fields such as medicine, linguistics,
ethnology, and psychiatry. The advent of a novel or modified hierarchy of
social strata signifies a cognitive shift for him. Foucault notes a transition
from the structural and all-encompassing interpretation of organic nature,
as exemplified by the classificatory medicine of the 18th century, to a more
patient-centric approach in the following century. This shift is reflected in
the typologies of diseases developed during the 19th century, which were
informed by insights gained from clinical observation and dissection of
pathological tissues. As per his analysis, the act of isolating knowledge
objects through classification not only constructs but also imposes limitations
on discourses.

According to Foucault’s perspective, classifications transcend beyond being
mere conceptual frameworks. Rather he perceives classifications as societal
tools imbued with powerful signifiers that are often utilised to ostracise,
restrict, or detain individuals deemed “abnormal,” due to their tendency to
arise from or manifest within institutional procedures, as is evident from his
work on prison, and hospitals. Foucault’s historical works are abundant
with instances that demonstrate the capacity of categories to exert a
profound impact on both intellectual and societal domains.

Foucault’s seminal historical work, Madness and Civilization, traces the
trajectory of “the great exclusion” that transpired during the mid-17th century,
whereby the mentally ill, the destitute, and the jobless were collectively
deemed “idle” and subsequently relegated to asylums. He showcases how
the confinement of mentally ill individuals within psychiatric institutions
facilitated the regulation and examination of insanity. Over time, the
development of innovative methodologies for managing the mentally ill gave
rise to a novel discipline of inquiry, namely psychology. In The Order of
Things, Foucault (1970) compels us to investigate the emergence and
function of any given system of specification, with regard to the historical

Suraj Beri44



and institutional contexts in which it is situated. Foucault’s principles and
inquiries, when applied to the subject of inquiry, can aid in identifying the
profound and nearly imperceptible structures that underlie discursive and
social transactions. This approach emphasises the importance of
classification in understanding the influence of these structures. Pursuant
to his reasoning, it could be contended that categorizations serve as both a
manifestation and a compass for our cognitive faculties. The manner in
which we arrange and prioritise our preferences and desires can be indicative
of our cognitive and emotional conditions and conditioning. Foucault’s work
posits that classifications possess the ability to dispose of the entities they
contain. The act of categorization often leads to the subsequent isolation of
the object in question. He argues that in the process of isolating objects of
knowledge, institutions employ a regulatory framework that involves
assigning them to distinct and compartmentalised spaces, such as hospital
wards, classrooms, and prison cells, as they undertake the classification of
their human subjects (Foucault 1970).

How to study Classification?

Drawing insights from the discussion above, we are sharing some key
concerns in relations to the classification. When scrutinising any subject
matter pertaining to categorization and classification, it is imperative for a
researcher to consider the following paramount concerns. To determining
the object of the classification is very important. One should ask does the
categorization have an impact on individuals? If so, how? In this particular
instance, it is imperative to discern and designate not only the explicit entity
being classified, but also the individual subject involved in said classification.
Then, one may ask whom or what is excluded by this classification? Does
the act of categorising individuals, objects, or concepts into this particular
classification confer any advantages or disadvantages upon any particular
group? Analyse the distinctions between entities that conform to the
established categorization and those that do not. One must inquire as to
what the specific inclusion criteria are for the purpose of classification?
Upon what basis are particular entities or concepts deemed ineligible for
consideration or inclusion. In additional, one can inquire the entity or
individual responsible for the development of this particular classification
system? By whom is it utilised or adopted? Also to inquire who possess the
authorization to utilise or alter this classification? What are the origins of
the authoritative basis utilised by the individuals responsible for devising
the classification system or those who presently utilise it? Is there any

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 45



individual or collective entity that challenges the legitimacy of this
categorization or scrutinises its ramifications? Why, what are the implications
of this challenges to the new classifications. What was the impact of this
classification on the object’s understanding or administration? Historical
inquiries regarding classification may be undertaken to ascertain the genesis
of a given classification system and its subsequent evolution over time.

Determine the spatial classification. In which location was it originally
fashioned or modified? It is important to bear in mind that certain
categorizations are rooted in societal or institutional customs and are
subsequently codified in language. In which social and institutional domains
is it presently employed? What is the manner in which it is comprehended
or administered in these geographical regions? The implementation of
institutional protocols engenders a plethora of classifications that exist in
practise. The educational establishments in our society tend to stratify
individuals based on a variety of factors such as age, gender, social status,
and caste. As a customary practice, students are allocated designated areas
based on their age and gender, a convention so ubiquitous that it scarcely
warrants acknowledgement.

Sociologists encounter things that are already classified: individuals, groups,
institutions. For instance, when we look at administrative classification of
Indian population into categories such as SC, ST, OBC, General etc. one
can ask the question whether classification is just a bureaucratic construct
or it represents community identity. And how over a period of time, a
bureaucratic administrative category acquires identity of a social group or
even develops group consciousness. We study of classification of people
who classify themselves and others. Classification based struggles in popular
media have intensified in recent times, e.g. “poor” are defined by the
mainstream market norm as lazy, and careless people who are a burden on
society and the country because they refuse to contribute anything of value
to either society or economy. Politicians keep distributing free-bies for the
poor. This burden of moral classification by elites and middle class, attaches
negative moral stigma on poor people. Similarly, the recent farmers’
movement, where one of the dominant section of rich farmers expressed
their anxieties of altering identity. With the acquisition of land by state and
corporate agencies, these proud dominant landowning castes feel threatened
as this policy might completely change their community identity.

Actively rejecting the judgements of the middle class, subalterns instead
engage in revalourization strategies, such as forms of class solidarity in
which links forged via local, familial sociality are seen as supportive

Suraj Beri46



connectivities rather than sources of self-accumulation. It is possible to
construct a model of class as a struggle that details the ways in which
people draw on other values in their fight against class prejudice, something
that empirical studies can find out.

Classification and misrecognition as Ideologically constituted

To move ahead to the question of ideology, one can understand the organic
link between classification, inequality regimes and ideological frames by
asking the question, why and how inequality is “tolerated” and not “resisted”
or “challenged”. One needs to probe how unequal positions and locations
become or termed as questions of “difference” and not hierarchy or
exclusion. For many decades, sociologists have been demonstrating the
relevance of the ideological justification of unequal relations among different
sections of the society. For example, think of the discourse of meritocracy,
and social mobility. Michael Young (1958) in his classic, The Rise of
Meritocracy argued quite authoritatively that individuals are sorted into
different occupational positions based on their skills, self-worth, merit and
talent, where the later are considered as given and “natural”. It has become
a very well-organized way of hereditary transfers of privileges, power and
resources across generations. Merit and talent have today become the
leading social ideals. In Indian context it also gels very well with Brahminical
caste and gendered form of hierarchy and exclusion. The discourse has
been a medium through which politics of inequality is concealed. It blocks
social and economic opportunities for the marginalized via the very category
of “mobility” and “openness”. In other words, the discourse of meritocracy
and entrepreneurship strengthens the production and reproduction of
inequality regimes by providing ideological legitimation, justification and
rendering it as natural. It ends up blaming the deprived of lacking merit,
talent and skills.

Piketty (2014) has explained the dynamics of contemporary capitalism while
tracing the patterns of the distribution of income & wealth between and
within countries e.g. France, Germany, Britain and also America over the
past two centuries. He presents quantitative data collected from tax-records
(which allow long-term perspective), historical data provided by World Top
Income Database (WTID) and builds on Kuznets’ pioneering work evolution
of income inequality in America. Also interesting is his usage of distribution
tables to analyze inequalities instead of economists’ conventional tool, i.e.,
Gini coefficient. One of the strength of his work is aggregation of national
statistics from various sources and their depiction through large time-series.

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 47



He demolishes the myth of “meritocratic values” and “principles of justice”
usually attributed to American society, by showing that top decile owns 72
per cent of wealth, whereas the bottom half just two per cent, and hence is
becoming a society of “supermanagers”. The sharp increase in concentration
of income is due to rapid increase in “supersalaries” of the top decile.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept, “misrecognition” helps us to
understand how one form of asset or capital is utilized for gains in different
domain without recognizing it as such. Explained through the category of
“symbolic capital”, Bourdieu points that this process makes inequalities
appear natural/just for everyone while the doxic world of neoliberal economy
continues its triumphant march across the globe. Thus, it becomes relevant
to make sense of how ideology and misrecognition about inequality structures
displace our analytical focus of a problem and blocks any politicization of
inequality. In recent times it has been observed that many of our social
problems portrayed as the problems of “intolerance” and not as issues of
power, domination, exclusion, inequality and injustice and the remedy is
proposed via the language of “tolerance”, and not political struggle, social
movement or resistance (Zizek 2001). Slavoj Zizek succinctly captures
this ideological formulation of the problem. According to him, social
inequalities, class relations of exploitation resulting from capitalist mode of
production, are neutralized and termed as “different ways of living” which
cannot be overcome but be adjusted with (Zizek 2001).

Throughout the 1960s, when C. W. Mills was conducting study on American
power elites at a period when the idea of “elite” was recovering from its
link with “fascism” during the Pareto and Mosca eras. In the post-World
War II era, the political tensions of the previous conflict affected the practise
of social sciences. The emphasis was on the “rise of the middle classes” in
Western Europe. The objective was to delegitimize the “polarisation of
class” narrative associated with Marxism. The “embourgeoisement thesis”
was ascendant, so the academic focus shifted from studying powerful elites
to what was seen as the slow but steady movement of people into the
middle class in West Europe and North America. This was related to the
narrative of “upward social mobility” of the poor and an understanding of
the political and economic ramifications of the “democratization processes”.

In the aftermath of these societal upheavals, the empirical criticism of “class
analysis” disputed the legitimacy of concepts such as “ruling class” and
“power elite.” The vast literature demonstrating that the working class is
no longer a revolutionary force in England and, subsequently, in European
contexts, contributed to the dilution of any critical discussion on who
dominates, who monopolizes, and what the social and cultural characteristics

Suraj Beri48



of elites are. The sixth and last blow, in my opinion, was the increasing
Foucauldian viewpoint and the notion of a decentred nature of power, an
insistence on capillary power that supported the new practices of neoliberal
government. All these social, political, and intellectual advancements have
led to the evasion of sociological examination by elites. In recent years,
sociologists have revived elite studies and resumed their examination of
the dynamics of power and inequality in the modern world. (Savage &
Williams 2009). Growing privatisation and neoliberal policies have prompted
doubts about the character of elites and their aversion to democracies and
welfare states. Any academician who attempts to map elite advantages
and their social practises is called “leftist” or Maoist as an indication of the
narrowing room for critique of economic elites.

In a related vein, the vigorous campaign for the demolition of all democratic
institutions worldwide and in India is currently referred to as a “revolt of
elites” (Appadurai 2020). The current social and political turmoil provides
the opportunity to reject elites’ discourse of’ meritocracy’ and examine
critically how they conceal their mechanisms of exclusions and
monopolisation of resources, thereby undermining the fundamental principles
of democracy-liberty, equality, and fraternity. We have been experiencing
a certain stagnancy and dullness in the mainstream political narratives.
With the growing implementation of neoliberal economic policies in the
country the tenor, language, agenda setting, campaigns related to “market”
have acquired a depoliticized character. This brings us to the three major
social characteristics of “neoliberal politics” itself as Harvey discussed.
Firstly, the neoliberal project is primarily a political project to establish the
supremacy of the corporate class over the labour, state and other social
groups (Harvey, 2016). It aims to commodify all aspects of human life and
put a price tag i.e. monetize everything. In the sphere of politics, neoliberal
project silences any critical discussion of economic alternatives and primarily
reduces everything to ideological and political manipulations. That’s why
we see political parties might differ in term of their social and cultural
agenda but stand united in their economic policies. The second important
element of this neoliberal politics is to reduce all politico-economic problems
as the problem of bureaucratic management. In this way no ideological
critique is allowed of the mainstream economic planning either of welfarist
or socialist kind. This becomes very clear with the tactical slogan of “there
is no alternative” popularized globally. Third important element is systematic
individualization, fragmentation or generation of cracks in the resistance
against neoliberal market model, while the ruling class remains united.

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 49



According to Bourdieu, the goal of sociological imagination has always
been to reveal the processes of dominance and the rhetoric of power that
undermine human freedom and dignity. With the increasing dominance of a
neoliberal security state, the true problem is to comprehend, evaluate, and
experience how academic research responds to anti-democratic
authoritarian conditions, and to revive/resurrect the “critique” from its
paralysis. Only by conducting a sociology of privilege and focusing on the
engines of inequality, i.e., elites, can we better comprehend how inequality
is built and organised. We must comprehend the ramifications of making
them invisible. The task of critical social science is to critique the
consequences of classificatory systems and the forms of value, judgments
and norms they establish in human societies. Social and ideological processes
of exploitation, domination, dispossession and devaluation, enable us to see
how classificatory practices are not just about the production of differences,
but about legitimating power and exploitation.

Conclusion

This paper has mapped the conceptual discussions around classification
and inequality. It suggests that the underlying mechanisms of the functioning
of classifications need to be systematically examined rather than assuming
them in advance. In other words, we need to be reflexive about how we
understand and examine mechanisms of inequality and power without
questioning of the classificatory cum ideological framework that permeates
beneath and hides the mechanisms of inequality. Only a creative sociological
imagination can help us in formulating relevant questions to probe into the
production of the “stability” and “invisibility” of the mechanisms that lie at
the heart of an unequal socio-economic order. The task of demystification
of the ideological frameworks of classification and inequality is necessary
to lay bare the structures of inequality and to throw a critical reflection on
what has become invisible and almost forbidden to talk about.

References

Appadurai, Arjun. 2020. ‘We Are Witnessing the Revolt of Elites’. The
Wire,

URL: https://thewire.in/politics/populism-elite-narendra-modi-donald-trump,
accessed on 4th April, 2023.

Beri, Suraj. 2020. ‘Sociology of Privilege: Inequality Studies and the curious
‘Invisibility of Elites’. Doing Sociology Blog, 4th June 2020.

Suraj Beri50



Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Oxford: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2018. Classificatory Struggles. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bowker, G. & S. L. Star. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and
its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. New York: Syracuse
University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1965. Madness and Civilisation. New York:
Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1970. The Order of Things. New York: Pantheon
Books.

Hardt, Michael & Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. London: Harvard University
Press.

Harvey, David. 2016. ‘Neoliberalism is a Political Project’. Jacobin
Magazine.

Mills, C. W. 1959. The Power Elite. New York: OUP.

Pakulski, Jan & M. Waters. 1995. The Death of Class. London: Sage.

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap
Press - Harvard University Press.

Piketty, Thomas. 2020. Capital and Ideology. Cambridge: Belknap Press
- Harvard University Press.

Savage, M. & Karol Williams. 2009. Remembering Elites. London: Wiley
Blackwell.

Schwatrz, Barry. 1981. Vertical Classification. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.

Skeggs, B. 2004. Class, Self and Culture. London: Routledge.

Young, Michael. 1958. The Rise of Meritocracy. London: Hudson Press.

Zizek, Slavoj. 2001. Did Somebody say Totalitarianism. London: Verso
Books

Analysing Classification and its Implications: Inequality, ... 51