One of the fiercest debates in the social sciences is about the choice of concepts to describe premodern societies; above all, in the choice between what are termed “actors’ categories” and “observers’ categories.” On the one hand, it is argued, to understand properly how a society worked, we need to try to see it through the eyes of those who experienced it directly, rather than imposing our own foreign and anachronistic terms on it; this is the approach known as Verstehen (the German word “to understand,” here implying “to understand from within”) developed by the philosopher and historian Wilhelm Dilthey and widely followed within anthropology (P. Burke 2005). On the other hand, sociologists of a different theoretical orientation argue, actors’ categories can only ever be limited and subjective, and frequently incoherent; to gain a proper understanding, we need to analyze society in terms of more general social categories which will enable us to compare different societies and see how they actually work, rather than just how their inhabitants believe they are supposed to work.
These issues can be illustrated by considering the social structure of Rome in the late republic, as presented by Cicero in his fourth speech against Catiline in 63 bc. “All men are here, of every order, of all origins and indeed of all ages,” he declared to the Senate, and listed the different groups: the equites (the wealthy Romans from whom the Senate drew its members); the tribunes of the treasury and the clerks; the mass of the ingenui (free-born citizens), “even the poorest”; the liberti, former slaves “who, having gained the benefit of citizenship by their own virtue, truly judge this to be their native land”; and even the slaves (Cat. 4.14-16). Cicero recognized that Roman society consisted of different groups whose interests did not necessarily coincide; the force of his argument is that Catiline is so dangerous that he has united everyone against him.
This sort of account - which is echoed in other sources - is frequently taken as the basis for descriptions of “Roman society.” We can safely assume that it reflects the way that Cicero and his fellow senators viewed the world - though in other writings Cicero offered slightly different versions, for example emphasizing distinctions between richer and poorer citizens, assidui and proletarii - and this “actors’ perspective” is an important part of understanding Roman social history. The question is whether it is sufficient. Cicero’s list comprises different kinds of groups, some defined by wealth, some by legal status, some by political rights, some by birth; elsewhere he includes occupation, place of origin and moral virtue as further means of dividing Romans into groups. There is, on the other hand, no mention of gender or race as principles of social organization, although modern scholars would emphasize at least the first of these. Cicero does not indicate which of these distinctions is most significant in ordering society, or, given that many individuals would have fallen into several categories, which ones were most important for a Roman’s sense of his own social identity. Finally, the account is self-serving, intended to rally the support of “all Romans” for Cicero’s policy and to present Catiline’s followers as outcasts from society. The “actors’ perspective,” subjective, partial and sometimes contradictory, tells us what society looks like from the vantage point of those at its pinnacle, seen through the lens of their prejudices and assumptions; it does not offer an objective picture of social structure.
For that, historians have often turned to modern sociological concepts. One important issue here is that there is no universal system for interpreting social structure, but a number of competing theories, each of which represents society differently and raises different questions. One approach is that of the “status group,” developed by Max Weber. Society is made up of a number of such groups, which are defined by indicators such as birth, occupation, way of life, and shared cultu