Unit II SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

a. Key factors of stratification

b. Conceptual understanding of differences and inequality, natural and social inequality, rise
of meritocracy
c. Perspectives of Parsons, Karl Marx and Max Weber
d. Basis of stratification- class, race and gender
e. Stratification in capitalist and socialist societies

Background
Social stratification is ubiquitous and every society is stratified. There are no purely
equalitarian societies, but only differing in degree of stratification. Social Stratification is as
old as human civilization. When human moved from fishing and gathering societies to settled
agricultural societies with surplus economy, a variety of occupations developed which were
essential to the proper functioning of the society. Thus, stratification systems are both a cause
and consequence of inequality. Although in hunting and gathering society all members are
equally valued and rewarded, yet once the division of labour expands beyond gathering, some
tasks will be considered more important than others, and the people who perform such tasks
are rewarded with power, respect and benefits. At the very least, labour is divided based on sex
and age, so that all societies have gender and age stratification systems. The more complex the
division of labour, or the more heterogeneous the society in terms of race, gender, caste, and
origins, there are more ways are there to judge people differently by what they do (achieved
status) or by what they are (ascribed status).

Definitions of Stratification
The concept of social stratification came into existence in the 1940s. The term ‘stratification’
was borrowed from geology. Geologists viewed the earth as the layering of rocks, wherein each
layer had its own composition and was distinct from other layers. Similarly, sociologists opine
that society consists of different strata in a hierarchy where the most privileged are at the top
and the least privileged are at the bottom.

Stratification is a system of social ranking, involving relations of superiority and inferiority.

These relations between the units of rank are governed by set of norms. This vertical scale of
evaluation and placement of people in strata, or levels, is called stratification. Those in the top
stratum have more power, privilege and prestige than those below.

1
Frank P. Gisbert says, ‘Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of
categories linked to each other by the relationship of superiority and subordination.’

According to American sociologist William J. Goode, ‘Stratification is the system through

which resources and rewards are distributed and handed down from generation to generation.’

Melvin M. Tumin defined social stratification refers to arrangement of any social group or
society into a hierarchy of positions that are unequal regarding power, property, social
evaluation and/or psychic gratification.

For Ogburn and Nimkoff social stratification is the process by which individuals and groups
are ranked in an enduring hierarchy of status.

Conceptual Understanding of Differences and Inequality, Natural and Social Inequality

The existence of certain dissimilarities between the two things, individuals or groups causes
difference. It does not mean that one group or individual is superior to the other, that is, it does
not imply ranking or inequality. For instance, potters are different from carpenters, but they
depend on one another for their needs of the respective products.

Natural and Social Inequality

The differences among individuals on the basis of social characteristics and qualities are known
as ‘social differences’. The concept of ‘social stratification’ is very broad, and it is possible to
include under its ambit all types of ‘differences’ such as age, race and gender. However, social
stratification based on gender and race is substantially different from social stratification based
on age as the latter encompasses all people and creates spaces for everyone who occupy them
at different stages of their lives. Social difference also involves assigning of tasks and
responsibilities after taking into account the existence of differences.

Differentiation is the law of nature. This is true in the case of human society. Human society is
not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Men differ from one another in many respects. Human
beings are equal so far as their bodily structure is concerned. But the physical appearance of
individuals, their intellectual, moral, philosophical, mental, economic, religious, political and

2
other aspects are different. No two individuals are exactly alike. Diversity and inequality are
inherent in society. Hence, human society is everywhere stratified.

The bases or dimensions of social stratification refer to the different levels of differentiation
which made to allocate people in each society. Natural inequalities take the form of social
inequalities take the form of social inequalities when members of society assign some meaning
of them. Age, sex and race are natural bases of inequalities. But when it becomes the bases of
social stratification because society has attached some meanings to them.

According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, the question of inequality was a basic one. According
to him, society came to be as an act of human will and that it is possible to conceive of a natural
man living in isolation. However, Rousseau’s discussion on inequality tells us that historical
or social man, because of the very conditions of social living, is inevitably evil, that is he is
impelled to selfish actions, inimical to his fellow beings. The more civilised the society, the
more evil s/he will be. Further Rousseau’s natural man is happy and unchanged. The imposition
of society on this natural man created a situation of conflict, inequality, distorted values and
misery.

Today, social inequality is generally considered a matter of distributed justice and social
relations among people of higher and lower strata. Income, wealth, occupation, education,
power, style of life etc. determine the nature and process of distributive justice or injustice.
Based on differentiation emanating from these considerations, social relations are shaped
among people in a society. Thus, there could be several modes of status determination,
including birth, ethnicity, race, and other such criteria. A given pattern of stratification would
determine the nature and functioning of a society.

Ralf Dahrendorf while tracing the history of inequality, says that in the 18th century, the origin
of inequality was the focal point, and in the 19th century, the formation of classes was debated
and in 21st century, we are talking of theory of social stratification. He gives two approaches
to study inequalities. First, we must distinguish between inequalities of natural capabilities and
those of social position, and secondly, we must distinguish between inequalities that do not
involve any evaluative rank order and those that do. Based on the combination of both,
Dahrendorf refers to four types of inequality in relation to individual. They are:-
a) natural differences - in physical features, character and interests

3
b) natural differences - in intelligence, talent and strength
c) social differentiation of positions essentially equal in rank
d) social differentiation based on reputation and wealth and expressed in a rank order of social
status.

In all the four types, individual is evidently the focal point of status evaluation. Such a
conception of social inequality, built on distribution of property, wealth, honour and power
among individual members, would imply a certain ideological basis and a structural
arrangement of people based upon those non-egalitarian and institutionalized norms. Social
inequality is found in the division of labour, differentiation of roles, and even differential
evaluation of different tasks and roles assigned to be taken up by the members of a society.

Dahrendorf while acknowledging Rousseau’s distinction between natural and social

inequalities and also the preference for the natural inequalities as good, expresses his interest
primarily in inequalities of the stratification type.

The term hierarchy is used for ordering of social units as superior and inferior or higher and
lower. Race and caste are also considered as natural hierarchies as both imply an ordering of
endogamous groups having an unchanging hereditary membership. Hierarchy as a principle of
ranking or ordering signifies for more rigidity compared to the terms like stratification,
differentiation, class and power. Louis Dumont gave the concept of hierarchy while explaining
India’s caste as a rigid and static system of stratification in his famous work Homo
Hierarchicus. Thus, social stratification is the ordering of social differences with the help of a
set of criteria.

Dipankar Gupta in his work Social Stratification admits that when we talk of stratification in
India, it is very often that we only relate to the caste system. He says that it includes a lot more.
He states, when hierarchy and differences are externalised and socially demonstrated then we
can truly talk about social stratification. Thus, socially visible differentiation can be termed as
social stratification. Gupta writes social differentiation then deals with the ways in which the
human population is socially differentiated, i.e., differentiated publicly and demonstrably. The
social display of differentiation usually includes a host of factors. Social stratification manifests
itself in almost every aspect of social life. According to him, hierarchy and differences are the
key concepts of social stratification.

4
Besides the above discussions, there are numerous debates on the approaches to the study of
social stratification. The debate on the functional approach to social stratification was initiated
by Wilbert E. Moore and Kinsley Davis. This approach states the inevitability of social
stratification and the functional necessity and ability for different tasks, value and rewards.

The functional theory of social stratification formulated by Davis and Moore conforms to the
above characterization. The salient features of their theory are as follows:
i) Inevitability of social stratification
ii) Need for differential intent and ability for different functions
iii) Differential evaluation of different social positions and duties
iv) Reward on the basis of differential value attached with different functions, and
v) Values and rewards constituting the social differential and stratification

Social Inequality
The term ‘social inequality’ means unequal distribution of privileges and resources in the
society, whereby some people possess more wealth, power and privileges than the rest of the
people in the society. In most of these societies, people live with pre-existing notions of unequal
power, status and economic resources. Those who are privileged with more money, power and
superior social status continue to have greater accessibility to resources, for example, going to
school, getting a university degree, and receiving technical and professional education that
leads to better-paid jobs. Therefore, anyone who cannot afford this kind of education will be in
a disadvantageous situation. Social stratification is a particular form of inequality that refers to
hierarchy. It means that the members of a society are assigned high and low ranks in various
social groups, where weightage is given on the magnitude of power, prestige and wealth. The
social inequality comprises both the vertical and horizontal division of a society, but social
stratification only signifies the vertical division of a society. The people belonging to ‘strata’
form a group, and they have common interest and a common identity. The people of a strata
have some awareness of ‘consciousness of kind’ and share a similar way of life which
distinguishes them from the people of other strata.

*Refer class-notes for example