PALESTINIAN SOCIETY - Fafo

There is, however, little common agreement as to which elements
or aspects of a soeiety that reflect this structure of soeial "Iayers", nor
as to which explanations that are important concerning mobility
between them. Likewise, some societies will be charactenzed by more
or less clear-cut and stable differentiation between the layers, while in
others the borderlines will be more blurred or changing.'
The concept of "class" is highly contentious in Middle Eastern
societies; some would deny the salience of cIasses, while others would
argue that although cIasses may exist, ownership relations are sec ondary
to relationships of political power.2 This latter view may partly be
supported by the historic experiences from the feudal state under the
Ottoman rule. It has been argued that "state monopoly, particularly
over land, hindered the development of soeial cIasses, and in a sen se
prevented the crystaIlization of class conflict". Stratification has,
consequently, "tended to be variegated, and unlike the Western
societies to be group-based along tribal, familial, sectarian and ethnic
lines, where primordial attachment rather than class conseiousness
typified these societies".3
We will not attempt to solve this problem here by superimposing
absolutely consistent class divisions or by defining any kind of
broadly accepted "poverty line". Nonetheless, in order to describe
socioeconomic variations within contemporary Palestinian society in
a coherent fashion, some indicators need to be decided upon.
Proceeding from the assumption that the family-based Palestinian
household con sti tutes a strong network of soeial and economic
obligations and privileges, the status ofthe (acknowledged) Household
Head may provide us with adequate information as to the soeial
stratification of the Palestinians.4 First, four different indicators -
education, occupation, housing conditions and economic wealth -are
selected. Reflecting various aspects of the HH and his household,
taken together they are assumed to have vital relevanee to the
identification of soeioeconomic differences. Secondly, we suggest a
division into four main socioeconomic status categories along each
indicator - high, upper- and lower middle and low - which are
assumed to reflect general IeveIs of status differences. The latter
category ("low") is crudely considered as referring to living conditions
below the "deprivation line".
To avoid the difficulties in obtaining accurate information on the
status of specific households within their community - i.e finding
ways of measuring the deferenee and honour accorded the HH -. the
analysis instead focuses on the HHs own perceptions. How does hel
222