Social statuses existed before the social sciences. When scholars began to develop this concept in the nineteenth century, they were drawing on the juridical writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and, more broadly, the vocabulary used by social groups to define themselves across time and space. From this moment forward, social statuses occupied a central position in the work of historians, sociologists, and anthropologists. These scholars were aiming to describe and explain the dynamics of human societies, but they also participated in framing the debates at the heart of the social sciences—as attested by the recurrent disputes between a Marxian notion of class and a Weberian conception of status groups, particularly among readers with tacit political motivations. Max Weber played a fundamental part in the success of the concept, taking the juridical aspect and the idea of society as a body, inherited from the ancien régime, and adding a specifically sociological content relating to the hierarchy of social prestige, which is neither directly inherited (as with castes) nor purely economic (as with classes). In truth, this definition was rarely applied stricto sensu by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists, but it did allow for the elaboration of a concept that could delimit groups of individuals sharing legal and symbolic characteristics within a given society, and that could incorporate the categories used by social actors themselves into historical analysis. Thus, during the 1960s, it was around the notion of status that interpretations of the ancien régime as a society of orders or a society of classes took shape, while anthropologists began to consider notions of emic and etic. From the 1980s, however, the concept of social status receded into the background as the idea of a global interpretation of society by the social sciences was called into question.

Recent scholarship has often remarked on the opposition between two conceptions of Archaic Greek societies, relating either to a legal and static definition of status or to a notion of status as personal and fluid, linked to diversified strategies for obtaining social distinction. This article seeks to move beyond this opposition by examining the history of status groups in the Archaic period. After analyzing the key stages within the complex historiography devoted to this subject, it goes on to provide a history of status groups during the formative period of the city-states. The creation of new status groups was an essential feature of the city-states’ history and was primarily linked to indebtedness and war. Although statuses were collective and often imposed from the outside, they nevertheless display a historical development that is central to the formation of city-states. In the seventh century BCE, new groups were created in response to the aristocracy’s need for a workforce. The resulting conflict led to an evolution of the systems regulating access to land and food. This reorganization of entitlement, which was how communities responded to the social and economic crisis they faced, was in turn based on the creation of new status groups. Social conflict led to the definition of a new system of status groups.

This article investigates the working identities of slaves and freedmen involved in the economies of Roman ports between the first century BCE and the second century CE. Textual evidence (from manuscripts to more diverse epigraphic productions) reveals the great diversity that predominated within these social categories. This heterogeneity was related to the level of technical difficulty involved in the tasks that were performed and thus to workers’ professional skills, as was the case in other urban economies. Nevertheless, factors specific to port economies, particularly with regard to long-distance trade, were also important. The opposition between unskilled workers and trusted agents represents only a part of this broad spectrum. The complexity that can be observed lies in the lack of correspondence—or even the dissonance—between the legal, social, and work statuses of individuals.

Philippe Bernardi’s Maître, valet et apprenti au Moyen Âge. Essai sur une production bien ordonnée, examines the traditional triptych of master craftsman, journeyman, and apprentice, considered to be characteristic of medieval production. By focusing on “work statuses,” Bernardi moves away from an overly narrow legal approach to social status, in which production tends to go largely unanalyzed or else is considered only in curtailed form—as in the model of the three orders where, applying solely to “those who work,” forms of production play only a minor role in social ordering. The originality of his approach lies in the way he constructs his object of study: work hierarchies. These are systematically addressed both in historical terms, on the basis of medieval archives (using the example of Provence in from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century), and in historiographical terms, by examining the models according to which these archives have been interpreted since the nineteenth century. Applying tools drawn from the history of science to medieval history, Bernardi thus uncovers the mechanisms that have shaped our knowledge of medieval society since the nineteenth century, showing that the master-journeyman-apprentice triptych is a representation originating in normative sources that has become a historiographical model, but which does not account for medieval production as it appears in sources relating to practice. Moving beyond this normative view, Bernardi shows that work statuses were mostly relational and functioned as a series of binary oppositions—a reality concealed behind a historiographical discourse woven not only through intellectual experience and critical thinking, but also by beliefs, values, and forms of activism.

The result of a process begun in the nineteenth century, the French system of socio-professional classification (code des catégories socio-professionnelles) was drawn up between 1951 and 1954 and has only been slightly modified since. With no strong theoretical framework and conceived according to a realist approach, it gave substance to social classes in the description of postwar society. During a period of “reworking” (1978-1981), it became an exciting topic of sociological exploration, furnishing a representation of Pierre Bourdieu’s two-dimensional social space and serving as a laboratory for the pragmatic sociology of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. In a subsequent period of “updating” (1995-2001), administrative caution regarding changes contrasted with the evolution of categories used in labor law and the goal of analytical purity underpinned by econometrics. The history of this classification details the peculiar position of a statistical tool for representing the social world, ostensibly static amidst constant changes to the institution that managed it, the actors who used it, the social categories—everyday or legal—to which it referred, and, finally, the sociological theories that gave it a conceptual grounding.

When considering status within early medieval societies, it is necessary to set aside juridical classifications in favor of concepts derived from political sociology—the notion of an “elite” can thus encompass any individual occupying an elevated social position within his or her community, be it through wealth, power, or culture. Using textual and archaeological sources, historians can seek out the processes of distinction and social recognition that were characteristic of elites throughout the early Middle Ages (from the sixth to the eleventh century). The Carolingian period shows signs of increasing hierarchization, which led both individuals and groups to devise strategies for bolstering their position and forestalling the loss of social status. Within the framework of these processes of social mobility, it becomes possible to examine elites at various levels and from different chronological and regional perspectives while avoiding an overly structural analysis.

Venetian society in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is generally described in terms of a tripartition between patricians, citizens, and popolo. This article focuses on the popolo and the popolani of Venice, combining a terminological and conceptual study of these categories with a sociological analysis of the individuals who belonged to them. The history of how these social groups developed reveals the complex definition of the popolo in Venice between the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the early modern era. A consideration of the popolani’s “condition” involves analyzing how they established who they were and the framework of their action, according to the associations, spaces, and institutions in which they interacted.

Christophe Duhamelle’s La frontière au village. Une identité catholique allemande au temps des Lumières is part of the rich field of studies devoted to confessionalization in the Holy Roman Empire. The book is, however, innovative on at least three levels. First, it moves away from macrohistorical perspectives favoring an overarching point of view, instead analyzing confessional identity as an interaction and constant tension between attempts at standardization imposed from above and appropriations by communities themselves. Its guiding thread is not the confessional norm, but an exploration of the different ways that individuals establish a sense of membership within a community. Discontinuities and areas of uncertainty persist along the frontiers between Catholics and Lutherans, and confessional identity is characterized by its specular nature, feeding off of what it borrows from its opponents. Second, Duhamelle’s study focuses on the second half of the eighteenth century, in contrast to other studies predominantly dealing with the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Lastly, Eischsfeld, an exclave of the Archbishopric-Electorate of Mainz, was a rural territory, while most studies have essentially been devoted to towns.