THE SOCIAL HIERARCHY 133the manner of Weber? Or as class distinctions following Marx?^4 In our view,
this is not a helpful approach to the analysis of social inequality and social
structure in the ancient world. Class analysis has suffered from the
assumption of many supporters and critics alike that it consists essentially in
the identifi cation of given social entities with a specifi c membership. Even in
the analysis of contemporary society this approach has created diffi culties.
Class membership is open to confl icting interpretations, if only because class
boundaries are inevitably in a state of fl ux.^5 The problems are compounded
when this aspect of Marx’s mode of analysis, derived from eighteenth- and
nineteenth- century society, is imported into the ancient world. Did slaves
and peasants constitute classes? If so, did they make up one heterogeneous
class or two classes? This kind of problem gives rise to endless and often
fruitless debate.
There is a way of proceeding that does not discard the useful insights that
Marx’s analysis can undoubtedly provide.^6 Marx employed specifi c class
categories – bourgeoisie, proletariat, and so on – developed in the context of
nineteenth- century industrial society, and not transferable to ancient Rome.
But he also developed conceptual tools for identifying the fundamental
processes producing and reproducing inequalities in society over time. We
can make fruitful use of this aspect of Marx’s class analysis without
committing ourselves to imposing modern categories on Roman social
divisions.
In brief: instead of focusing in the fi rst instance on the membership of
social groupings, we can begin by examining the processes giving rise to and
preserving inequalities, and then use this analysis to throw light on the
structure of the social hierarchies found in our period.
Among the processes maintaining inequality, we can follow Marx in
emphasizing those entailed by (1) the property system, (2) the legal system
and (3) the occupational system (or division of labour). The position of the
ruling groups depended on their control over productive property (the
means of production), as the ultimate source of their wealth and power.
Their domination of the legal system legitimized their control over property
through ownership rights and the use of sanctions, including coercion, to
enforce and safeguard the distribution of property in their favour. The
division of labour followed from and further reinforced the social hierarchy,
since occupational position gave individuals and groups access to (or
excluded them from) control of property and the means of production. The
operation of these interacting processes entailed exploitation. It is through
exploitation that surplus value is extracted and property becomes productive.
The system of acquisition and transmission of property was the basis of
the Roman framework of social and economic inequality. This was an
agrarian society, in which wealth was essentially in land and acquired by
inheritance through the family. In the main, only where the family had died
out and there were no adopted heirs, were outsiders able to gain control
over valued resources. It was a peculiarity of the Roman system that the