Most controvers y that aris es around the concept of class is a consequence of the fact that protagonists do not differentiate the level of abstraction at which the discussions take place. Namely, the definition of the concept of class essentially depends on the analytical level at which social phenomena are analyzed. Therefore, it must be defined differently at different analytical levels. It is necessary to distinguish at least four such levels in societal analyses: social formation, historical system, concrete-historical society , and the reproduction of everyday life. At the most general level (capitalism, for example, ) classes are established on the basis of the control of overall social resources, and their relations thus appear as antagonistic (dichotomous model). At the historical system level , the totality of control branches into domination over economic, organizational , and cultural resources, and the unified body of class is broken up into strata, including also some differentiation of intraclass interests. At the level of concrete-historical society , further intra- and inter-class differentiation develops, and classes appear as internally divided and potentially conflicted entities. At the level of everyday life , the central subject of research is individuals, whose class membership must be analytically reconstructed, which is the field of operation of empirical sociology.

中文翻译：

---

类的概念：多层次的方法

围绕阶级概念产生的大多数争议是由于主角没有区分讨论发生的抽象级别这一事实的结果。也就是说，阶级概念的定义本质上取决于分析社会现象的分析层次。因此，必须在不同的分析级别对其进行不同的定义。在社会分析中，至少需要区分四个这样的层次：社会形态、历史体系、具体历史社会和日常生活的再生产。在最一般的层面上（例如资本主义），阶级建立在对整个社会资源的控制的基础上，因此它们的关系表现为对立的（二分模型）。在历史系统层面，控制的整体分支为对经济、组织和文化资源的支配，阶级的统一体被分解为各个阶层，也包括阶级内部利益的一些分化。在具体历史社会的层面上，阶级内部和阶级间的分化进一步发展，阶级表现为内部分裂和潜在冲突的实体。在日常生活层面，研究的中心对象是个体，其阶级成员必须被分析性地重建，这是经验社会学的运作领域。阶级内和阶级间的分化进一步发展，阶级表现为内部分裂和潜在冲突的实体。在日常生活层面，研究的中心对象是个体，其阶级成员必须被分析性地重建，这是经验社会学的运作领域。阶级内和阶级间的分化进一步发展，阶级表现为内部分裂和潜在冲突的实体。在日常生活层面，研究的中心对象是个体，其阶级成员必须被分析性地重建，这是经验社会学的运作领域。