SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Topic overview

 The concept of stratification

 Forms of stratification
 Social class
 Life chances
 Social mobility

 INTRODUCTION
 People dream of an egalitarian society. However, such a society in which all members
are equal has never existed. All human societies from the simplest to the most
complex have some form of social inequality.
 Power, prestige and wealth or level of income are unequally distributed between
individuals and social groups.

 THE CONCEPT OF STRATIFICATION

 Definitions

1. Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality which refers to the

presence of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms
of factors such as prestige and wealth.
2. Giddens (1993) has defined it as ‘“Structured inequalities between different
groupings of people”.
3. Crompton (1993) expands, “It is a hierarchical system of inequality (material and
symbolic), always supported by a meaning system that seeks to justify
inequality.”

 Social stratification involves a ‘hierarchy’ of social groups. This reflects the idea
that social groups in any stratification system are arranged “one above the other”
symbolically, if not literally).
 The basis for this hierarchical ranking is social status. This concept is defined by
Lawson as: “The honour or prestige [level of respect] given by members of a
society to groups or individuals.”
 Members of a particular stratum have a common identity, similar interests and a
similar economic position and lifestyle.
 There are four major dimensions of social stratification, based on criteria such as:
Social class
Gender
Ethnicity and
Age

1|Page
 Ascription and achievement
Status can be gained in two ways:
a) Ascribed status
 It is given at birth either through family or physical, religious or cultural factors e.g.
in some societies women are regarded as second class citizens.
b) Achieved status
 It is the result of factors such as hard work, educational success, marriage, special
talent or sheer good fortune e.g. winning lottery.
Societies that allow for and reward achievement are called “open societies”, whereas
that ascribe social position are known as “closed societies.”

 Theories of stratification

Functionalism
Examine the functional nature of social stratification.
- Durkheim, the father of functionalism, views stratification positively i.e. the functional
nature of social stratification. Functionalism looks at how social stratification to meets
the functional prerequisites of a society:
a) Social stratification helps to maintain social order and stability in society i.e. class
inequality is beneficial, positive and necessary (Talcott Parsons). Durkheim argues
that members of society take their place within the occupational division of labour.
b) Educational qualifications and the stratification system function to allocate all
individuals to occupational roles that suit their abilities (effective role allocation and
performance function) – Davies and Moore. Therefore, a major function of stratification
is to match the most able people with the functionally most important positions.
c) It encourages members of society to work for the best of their ability because class
societies are meritocracies - high rewards in the form of income and status are
guaranteed in order to motivate gifted people to make the necessary sacrifices in
terms of education and training. Inequalities in societies motivate people, e.g. those at
the top wish to retain their advantages whilst those placed elsewhere wish to improve
on their position.
d) Stratification is beneficial because it sets limits on competition and peoples aspirations,
in that it links criteria such as skills and qualifications to particular roles so that people
do not become overly ambitious and therefore disappointed if they fail. Rather, because
the system is regarded as fair and just, members of society are relatively contended
with their lot, and thus social order is the norm.

2|Page
Critic
 The dysfunctions of stratification are neglected by Davis and Moore e.g. poverty and
exploitation.
 Equality of opportunity is an illusion – stratification by its very nature, can never
adequately perform the functions which Davies and Moore assigned to it. Those born
into the lower strata can never have the same opportunities for realising their talents
as those born into the higher strata.
 Unequal rewards may be the product of inequalities in power. Some people may use
economic and political power to increase their rewards against the will of people
(Tumin).
 High rewards also go to people who play no functionally important roles such as film
and rock stars. Functionally important roles essential to the smooth running of society
are not highly rewarded e.g. nurses, teachers.
 Davis and Moore suggest that unequal rewards are the product of consensus. However,
there exists a substantial level of resentment about the unequal distribution of income
and wealth as evidenced by cases of industrial action.

Marxism
- Provides a radical alternative to functionalist views of the nature of social stratification.
a) They regard stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure.
b) They see stratification as a mechanism whereby the upper class exploit the subject
class, rather than as a means of furthering collective goals.

Marxists focus on social strata rather than social inequality in general. Unlike
functionalists who say little about social stratification in the sense of clearly defined
social strata whose members have shared interests.

Weberian perspective
*see notes below on social class.
 Weber's work on social stratification represents a, "Dialogue with the ghost of
Marx", that is
a) Weber addressed many of the same concerns addressed by Marx.
b) Weber came to substantially different conclusions to those interpreted by Marx.

 While, in common with Marx, Weber argued that "class stratification" had a clear
and important economic dimension, he believed that two other related dimensions

3|Page
 of stratification, namely Status and Party (or political power) needed to be included
if a full analysis and understanding of the rich social variety of different forms of
social stratification was to be obtained.

 In order to understand the relative significance of Weber's "three dimensions of

stratification": Class, Status and Party, one needs to know how they are both
defined and inter-related and, in order to do this we need to further understand that
all three dimensions are, for Weber, rooted in the concept of power.

Feminist perspective
 See stratification as divisive and exploits and oppresses females at the expense of men.

 FORMS OF STRATIFICATION

Feudal estate system

 It was found in medieval Europe and was a hierarchical system based on ownership of
land, with the king – landlord, at the top and peasants at the bottom.
 In this system a person swore personal loyalty to somebody else in exchange for the
right to have a certain amount of land for a lifetime.
 This was mainly a closed society i.e. societies with no social mobility. Marriage between
groups was rarely allowed and feudal barons even restricted the geographical
movement of the peasants.
 Possibility of social mobility: on rare occasions, exceptional acts of bravery could result
in a gift of land.
Caste
 Although officially banned in India today, the Hindu caste system of stratification is still
enormously influential. The Hindu religion divides people into categories according to
how they are supposed to have behaved in their previous life, because Hindus believe
that people have more than one life and are reborn i.e. believed in reincarnation.
 There are four basic castes or varnas ranging from the Brahmins (religious leaders and
nobles) at the top, to the Sudras (servants and unskilled manual workers) at the bottom.
The ‘untouchables’ exist below the caste system and are responsible for the least
desirable jobs, unclean and degrading tasks such as disposal of dead animals and lived
on the outskirts of villages and sewage collection.

4|Page
 Possibility of social mobility: Castes were ranked in terms of ritual purity. The only way
people can be promoted to a higher caste is by living a pure life and hoping that they
will be reincarnated (reborn) as member of a higher caste. One cannot change caste
during lifetime. It is mainly a closed society.
Social class
 Social classes are groups of people who share a similar economic position such as
occupation, income and ownership of wealth. For example it is found in modern
industrial societies like Zimbabwe.
Class systems differ from the above systems in the following respects:
 Castes is derived from religious beliefs. Other forms of stratification are not based on
religion, law or race but on economic factors e.g. jobs, income etc.
 Caste does not allow people of different castes to have social relationships or to marry.
There are no legal restrictions on marriage between social classes.
 Caste is based upon the idea that one cannot improve his/her caste. Other systems are
meritocratic, people are encouraged to better themselves through achievement at
school, ability etc. for example, in the Zimbabwean society it is possible for one to
move up or down the social ladder (social mobility). Social class societies are ‘open
societies’. Other forms of social stratification are “closed societies”.
 There are no clear distinctions between social classes unlike in Castes where their
exists clear distinct social groups.
 In social class all members of society have equal rights, regardless of one’s social class.
Slavery
 In ancient Greece and Rome society was divided into two - the free people (Master)
and the slaves.
Apartheid
 Existed from the early 1960s to the early 1990s (1994) in South Africa and categorised
society into layers on the basis of race.
 Apartheid is characterised by racial discrimination in health, education, housing etc.

 SOCIAL CLASS

 Marxism

5|Page
 Classes
 In all stratified societies there are two major social groups namely the ruling class
and the subject class:

a. Those who own and control the means of production (which involves ownership of
such things as land, factories, financial institutions etc.) - the Capitalist class (or
"bourgeoisie").
b. Those who own nothing but their ability to sell their labour power (that is, their
ability to work) in return for wages - the Working class (or "proletariat").
 The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class.
 As a result there is conflict between the two classes. Institutions of society e.g. legal
and political systems are instruments of the ruling class to serve their interests.
 Classes will only disappear when the means of production are communally owned,
thereby bringing an end to exploitation and oppression of the subject class.

Classes and historical epochs

 Society developed through four main epochs
a. Primitive communism
b. Ancient society (Master and slave)
c. Feudal society (Lord and serf)
d. Capitalist society (Bourgeoisie and proletariat – employer and employee)

All societies are characterized by the struggle between social classes; between, on
the one hand, those who own and control the means of economic production and those
who do not.

 Classes emerge when the productive capacity of society expands beyond the level
required for subsistence. Private property and the accumulation of surplus wealth
form the basis for the development of class societies i.e. some people are able to
acquire the means of production, and others are obliged to work for them.

Dependency and conflict

 The relationship between the social classes is one of mutual dependence and conflict
a) It is a "mutually dependent" relationship because, for example Capitalists require
people to work for them in order to create profits. Workers need capitalists in order
to earn money for their physical survival.
b) It is also a "conflictual" relationship because, according to Marx, each class has
different basic interests - It is in the interest of a capitalist class to keep it
ownership of the means of production (to attempt, in short to make the most profit
it can out of its relationship with the proletariat it exploits). It is in the interests of
a working class to seize ownership of the means of production - to replace a
capitalist class with a dictatorship of the proletariat.

This "contradictory relationship" of dependency and conflict helps to explain both:

a. The basis of social stability in society (how things remain the same) and
b. The basis of social change.
Marx called this contradiction a "dialectical relationship" (a union of opposites).

6|Page
Capitalist economy and exploitation
 However, the mutual dependency is not a relationship of equal reciprocity - In all
class societies the ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class.

Power and the superstructure

 In Marxist theory, political power comes from economic power i.e. its ownership and
control of the means of production.
 The dominance of the ruling class in the relations of production is reflected ine the
superstructure i.e. the legal and political systems reflect ruling class interests. For
example, ownership rights of the ruling class are enshrined and protected by the
laws of the land.
 The dominant beliefs and values of class societies (ruling class ideology) justify and
legitimate ruling class domination and project a distorted picture of reality.
 Ruling class ideology produces a false class consciousness, a false picture of the
nature of the relationship between social classes.

Class and social change

a. Class struggle
 ‘The history of all societies up to the present is the history of the class struggle,’
which was the driving force of social change.
b. Class consciousness
 This means that false class consciousness has been replaced by a full awareness of
the true situation, by a realisation of the nature of exploitation. The final stage of
class consciousness and class solidarity is a collective struggle to overthrow the
ruling class.
c. Polarisation of the classes
 Apart from the basic contradictions of society. Marx believed that certain factors in
the natural development of a capitalist economy would hasten its downfall. These
factors would result in the polarisation of the two main classes – the gap between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will become greater and the contrast between the
two groups will become more stark e.g. the differences in wealth.

Evaluation of Marxism

Marx's ideas have been the subject of intense debate both within sociology and, of
course, wider society (mainly because of the important political aspect of Marx's
theoretical perspective).
 Marx’s ideas have probably been more influential and had a huge impact in the 20th
century e.g. they inspired communist revolutions in many countries like china and
Russia.

There are a number of criticisms at which we can briefly look:

 Marx was politically biased
- However, this is true but not a very telling criticism for at least two main reasons:

7|Page
a. "Bias" is only significant if it involves the attempt to misinterpret / misinform -
otherwise every statement about the world is "biased", in the sense that it involves
holding one viewpoint to be superior to another.
b. All knowledge involves some form of interpretation and it seems difficult to conceive
of any theory of social stratification that could not, on the above terms, be
considered biased.

- Furthermore, to argue that one view of stratification is more "politically biased"

than another is to imply that there is a theory, somewhere, which is incontrovertibly
true - and this is not the case.

 Marx was an economic determinist

- It argues that conflict is the product of the economic relationship between the
bourgeoisie and proletariat, yet conflict may also result from nationalism, ethnicity
and gender.

 Communism as inevitable
- Marx made certain predictions i.e. the working class would experience so much poverty
that they will overthrow the capitalist class, capitalism will disappear and communism
replace capitalism which may not come true.
- However, the question is “Is Communism "inevitable"?
- Writers such as Karl Popper argued that theories employed by Marxists are non-
scientific because they do not admit to the possibility of ever being falsified. Like
the religious leader who argues that belief in God will result in the establishment of
the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, Marxists are accused by writers like Popper of
failing to produce theories that can be tested, as opposed to theories that are little
more than articles of faith.

 Not all societies are "class societies"

- Marxists have had problem explaining something like the Caste system operating in
India (a system that seems to be built around religious status) in class terms.
- Feminists (particularly radical feminists) have argued that Marxists have paid too little
attention to stratification based upon gender (the concept of a "sex-class", for
example, whereby males and females are seen to have different political, economic
and ideological interests). In this respect, the criticism is not so much that societies
are not "class stratified"; rather, it is that Marxists have tended to use a definition of
class that encompasses purely economic relationships.

 The status of middle class

- There is debate - both within and outside Marxism - concerning the significance of
both class fractions and the status of the "middle classes" generally. Writers such as
Saunders from a right wing perspective argue that Marxists such as Wright and
Poulantzas have failed to establish a theoretical basis for the existence and
continuance of a middle class within Marxist theory (whilst, conversely, such writers

8|Page
 from a left wing perspective argue that they have satisfactorily explained the continued
existence of this class).
 Improved living standards: The living standards of the working class have improved,
the middle classes have grown and communism was rejected in Eastern Europe.
 Western class societies may have problems e.g. poverty and homelessness but they
have a reasonably good record in terms of democracy.

 Weberian perspective
 Social stratification results from a struggle for scarce resources in society.
 Although the struggle is primarily concerned with economic resources, it can also
involve struggle for prestige and for political power.

Class defined

It is a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy, and by

virtue of that fact receive similar economic rewards.

Market situation
 Like Marx, Weber saw class in economic terms – classes develop in market
economies in which individuals compete for economic gain. In Weber’s terminology, a
persons’ ‘class situation’ is basically their market situation.
 Like Marx, Weber argued that the major class division is between those who own the
forces of production and those who do not e.g. those who have substantial property
holdings will receive the highest economic rewards and enjoy superior life chances.
 Weber’s class groupings:
1. The propertied upper class
2. The propertyless white collar workers
3. The petty bourgeoisie
4. The manual working class.

Status situation
 Groups form because their members share a similar status situation – whereas class
refers to the unequal distribution of economic rewards, status refers to unequal
distribution of ‘social honour’ e.g. occupations, ethnic lifestyles and religious groups
are accorded differing degrees of prestige or esteem by members of society.
 A status group is made up of individuals who are awarded a similar amount of social
honour and therefore share a similar status situation.

Social closure
 Involves the exclusion of some people from membership of a status group e.g. the
caste system in India which prohibit members of a caste from marrying outside their
caste.

9|Page
 Class and status groups
 Class and status are closely linked – ‘property as such is not always recognised as a
status qualification, but in the long run it is, and with extraordinary regularity.’ –
Weber.
 However, those who share the same class situation will not necessarily belong to the
same status group.

Parties
 These are groups which are specifically concerned with influencing policies and
making decisions in the interests of their membership e.g. a variety of associations
like trade unions, professional associations, interests groups etc.

Contrast Marx and Webers’ views on social class.

In his analysis of class, Weber disagreed with Marx on a number of important issues:

 Factors other than ownership of property are important in the formation of classes
 Weber saw no evidence to support the idea of the polarisation of classes. Weber
saw a diversification of classes and an expansion of the white collar idle classes,
rather than a polarisation.
 Weber rejected the view of the inevitability of the proletarian revolution.
 Weber rejected the Marxist view that political power necessarily derives from
economic power. Class forms only one possible basis for power and that the
distribution of power in society is not necessarily linked to the distribution of class
inequalities.

Critic

 Weber was too concerned with identifying trivial (things of little value) market details
neglecting basic split between capitalists and workers.
 Class and status are strongly linked e.g. capitalist class not only has wealth but also
high status and political power. These overlap but a person can have wealth but little
status e.g. a lottery winner.

Conclusion

 Marx attempted to reduce all forms of inequality to social class and argued that
classes formed the only significant social groups in society. Weber argues that the
evidence provides a more complex and diversified picture of social stratification.

 LIFE CHANCES

Examine the view that social class determines one’s life chances.

 Introduction

10 | P a g e
 A person’s position in stratification system may have important effects on many areas
of life. It may enhance or reduce life chances i.e. their chances of obtaining those things
defined as desirable and avoiding those things defined as undesirable in society.
 Definition
1. Life chances refer to opportunities to acquire aspects of social life that most people
aspire to, such as good health, housing, education, family and employment.
2. Girth and Mills state that life chances include “everything from the chance to stay
alive during the first year after birth to the chance to view fine arts, the chance to
remain health and grow tall, and if sick to get well again quickly, the chance to avoid
becoming a juvenile delinquent and, crucially the chance to complete an intermediary
or higher educational grade.”
 Factors influencing life chances

Social class and life chances

 Social class is the most important influence on all aspects of our lives. In order to
assess whether social class has any relevance in modern society, it is useful to
examine the concept of meritocracy.
a) New egalitarians – Giddens and Diamond (2005) suggest that the modern society is
fair and open in which all social groups are given the potential to unlock their talents
and to realise material rewards.
b) New traditionalists – Bottero etal suggest that the society is still a class society in
which social background and structural inequalities in income, wealth, power,
education and health mean that working class people rarely have their talents unlocked
and consequently experience great inequality in material rewards and life chances.
 A variety of studies have shown that non-manual workers enjoy advantages over
manual workers in terms of life chances. They are likely to enjoy higher standards of
health, and to live longer, they are less likely to be convicted of a criminal offence,
and they are more likely to own their own house and a variety of consumer goods.
 Children with parents in higher professional occupations obtained five or more subjects
at ordinary level compared to those with parents in routine occupations.
Education

One’s social class determines:

11 | P a g e
 1. Underachievement of working class children. Feisterin (2007) suggests that class
inequalities are a significant influence on the underachievement of working class
children.
2. The type of school one attends e.g. group A, B, C schools.
3. Level of education e.g. primary, secondary or tertiary.
Health facilities
 Bottero (2005) claims that ‘social inequalities are written on the body’ and ‘hierarchy
makes you sick.’ She notes that if illness was a chance occurrence, we could expect to
see rates of morbidity (illness and disease) and mortality (death) randomly distributed
across the population. However, it is clear that working class experience a
disproportionate amount of illness.
 Borreto notes that, ‘there is strong socio economic gradient to almost all patterns of
disease and ill-health. The lower your socio economic position, the greater your risk of
low weight, infections, cancer, coronary heart disease, respiratory disease…’
 Mortality and morbidity rates high among members of the working class.
 Type of hospital attended e.g. foreign hospitals in Singapore as they cannot meet the
bills which are exorbitant.
Housing
 Poor housing standards for working class people.
 Low density suburbs for upper class, high density suburbs for working class.
Employment
 Upper class people occupy the primary labour market.
Status and lifestyle
 Upper class enjoy conspicuous consumption, exotic holidays etc.

Other factors

Gender

Employment opportunities – problems faced by women in the employment sector.

Differential Educational achievement between boys and girls.
etc.

Race

12 | P a g e
 Differential educational achievement between racial and ethnic groups.

Conclusion

 People’s destinies are as strongly affected and perhaps more strongly affected by their
class background than they were in the mid-20th century (Savage, 2000).
 Evidence challenges that social class has ceased to be the primary shaper of identity
and people exercise more choice about the type of people they want to be
 Social class holds working class back from the sorts of choices that are taken for
granted.

 SOCIAL MOBILITY

 Definition

Social mobility refers to the movement – usually of individuals and sometimes of whole
groups - between different positions within the system of social stratification, either
upward or downward the social ladder.

 Ascription and achievement

 Social mobility is significantly higher in industrial societies than in preindustrial
societies.
 Industrial societies open – they have a relatively low degree of closure. In preindustrial
societies status is largely ascribed, whereas in industrial societies it is achieved.
 Types of mobility
(a) Inter-generational mobility
It refers to social mobility between generations, measured by comparing the occupational
status of sons or daughters with that of their fathers (or less frequently with that of their
mothers) e.g. father and son.
(b) Intra-generational mobility
It refers to social mobility within a single generation, measured by comparing the
occupational status of an individual at two or more points in time - movement between
jobs within the lifetime of an individual e.g. starting on the shop floor up to company
director.
 Measurement of social mobility

13 | P a g e
There used to be many technical difficulties in carrying out studies of social mobility and
these have made it difficult to make international comparisons of social mobility rates.
a) Upward and downward occupational mobility

In recent years, International comparisons of social mobility rates have become possible
since a number of countries have adopted similar occupational classification schemes
based upon to those of Goldthorpe’s class scheme which has influenced the classification
scheme adopted for British government statistics.

High proportions of men achieve upward social mobility.

b) Income and social mobility

 Blanden etal (2005) conducted research on intergenerational mobility based upon

income differences rather than occupational grouping.
 Income levels are a direct measure of inequality, unlike occupation since earnings can
vary considerably within occupations.

corpuschristhigh2018!

14 | P a g e