I agree with Piper.

An individual's status
usually depends on the occupation and income of the
family breadwinner, so people sometimes move up or
down the class system as their economic circumstances
improve or decline. For example, in times of economic
recession there is a general downward trend in mobility
as incomes shrink and workers are laid off. College
graduates, no matter how keen they are to get good jobs,
may find themselves driving cabs or collecting unemployment
benefits.

In times of economic growth, there is an upward trend in
mobility as incomes rise and new jobs are created. The amount
of mobility depends on economic conditions. In a static
economy there is little structural mobility, but in times of
economic change there may be a great deal.

Over the past century the mechanization of agriculture and
the automation of industry has steadily eliminated millions
of low-status blue-collar jobs, no matter how hard those
who occupied them worked. Also the growth of service
industries and of government and corporate bureaucracies
have created heaps of new, higher-status white-collar jobs.
Huge numbers of people are therefore
forced out of a lower status and pulled into a higher status
by factors that have little to do with them as individuals.

However, mobility from one stratum to another is the exception
rather than the rule according to Ian Robertson, "Sociology,"
who tells us
that most people tend to remain in the same social class
as their parents.

Piper, the word you're looking for is "status", which is probably a more useful concept when looking at social hierarchy in Australia.

I think that class, while it has never been as evident in Australia as it is in England, is still more salient than most Australians would like to admit. While we pride ourselves on our egalitarian ethos, there are certain areas of social life that are still quite rigidly stratified - you wouldn't find too many butchers at the opera, for example, nor miners at the ballet, for example.

While there is increasing social mobility related to wealth and status, members of our upper crust tend to marry within each others' families and bequeath their inherited wealth to each other to a much greater extent than we hoi polloi do. In the district where I live, members of the remnant squattocracy still talk about "old" and "new" money, for example.

As I said in my first comment, the notions of "class" and "hierarchy" are very complex when applied to Australian society. For a high school level assignment that aims to "deconstruct" (heaven forbid) such social phenomena, I still think that the OP is best advised to head to a good library in order to work out what it is that s/he is going to "deconstruct".

The various renditions of "class" that have been offered here remind me of the old tale of the blind men and the elephant...

And Pericles, two words: Alan Bond.

Dear E nox
Your questions;
1. Why are there class differences? What does this serve?

Well, in my opinion, it is often due to our welfare system.

You see we have generations who have become 'welfare dependent'. We have situations where young women become single mothers, again and again, why? because they can and the system not only allows it, but it pays them to do so.

We also have a system that allows many to choose between working longer hours or staying home as the family assistance on offer often outweighs the atraction to work.

If there is a family involved, they often live on the same amount of money as a sigle person who works 60odd hours per week.

Now I don't begrudge anyone having children. But hey, if you can't aford them then what gives you the right to expect someone else to provide for them. After all, they're 'your kids'!

In fact, almost half of Australian families are welfare dependant. This is why you have class destinction. The workers who pay (positive) taxes often object to thoses who don't.

Now the real problem is that we also have the 'tall poppies'. Now these are the ones who hate the fact that the workers are well off and, rather than be thankfull for their contributions, prefer to shoot them down.

I recon you will see a few of them shortly.

There is also some confusion between 'wants' and 'needs' and this happens on both sides of the equation.

*There is little left of that system today, and money does seem to play a more important role, but that simply means that Class is being eliminated as a factor, not that it is changing into something else.*

I am going to agree to disagree on that one Pericles. I've just
checked my dictionary and it states "Class is used to talk about
the division of people in society according to their social status".

Now AFAIK, the really rich and famous do classify themselves
according to their money and hang out together, the working class
see themselves as just that. So in a way it has changed into
something else. It certainly fits the definition of my dictionary.

Hey Foxy, so with different classes there is a kind of fluidity depending on the times you live in? This changes the people but not the actual classes involved? Like members of different classes drop in and out?

The ones who do believe it has nothing to do with money have confused me, I don’t see how anyone without the financial backing can be anything but a pretender in a higher class. Like that English Mrs Bucket series.

But you and CJ have now both suggested “status” a better word. Where does this leave Mr Knox and his thesis? He’ll be pointing out there isn’t one but that we try hard…?

… Maybe we’re playing at it, no class system in Oz just subsets like; Sweet, Wannbe, and Outta Luck.

What elephants?

what Sociology books are reluctant to say
because the fashion has been to minimise gender difference
in the transition from patriarchy to equal rights,
and what a student needs to know to thrive,
is that women and men class social inclusion differently.
men tend to view society as hierarchical
women view society as more clustered.

for instance, in organisational behaviour
sociologists have noted a transition over the past half century
from hierarchical corporate structures
to more lateral structures, without drawing comparison
between the primary change in corporate composition,
the massive influx of women.

similarly, the strict hierarchical class structures
of a century ago are now more fluid.

the challenge is to celebrate
women's and men's proclivities
with an equal rights Republic.