United States Class System - Research Paper Example

? US System of client> taken> U.S. System The Class System Social stratification can be described as layering of society according to social class. In the US, the issue of social stratification is of prime importance because of the widening gap between rich and poor in the society. The US has the largest wealth disparity in the world, and this disparity is growing each year (Social Stratification in the US). Kendall defines the definition of the class system as follows (219): The class system is a stratification based on the ownership and control of resources and on the type of work they do (qtd. in Rothman). Classical Perspectives on Social Class Karl Marx and Max Weber viewed class as an important factor in determining social change. According to Karl Marx, class is defined as a relationship to the means of production. In his opinion, a class can be capitalistic or it can be a working class. A capitalistic class consists of those who own the means of production. Workers in a working class are those who need to sell their labor in order to earn money. Major factor described by Marx’s theory involved in distinction between the two classes is power and authority (Kendall, 221). Weber came up with another theory as he was living in an era in which capitalism changed over time. He came up with a multidimensional approach to social stratification. He suggested there are three main factors wealth, power and prestige, out of which no single factor can determine the class level. Individuals can rank high in one factor and low in the other (Kendall, 221). Combining the Weberian and Marxian approaches to social class, research Dennis Gilbert (2003) developed a model of social class based on three factors: education, occupation, family income (Kendall, 223). Stratification based on education, occupation and income (Kendall, 224). Flieshman believes that a class is formed when there are inequalities in wealth, power, income, authority, prestige, life styles, and life chances (57). He discusses further that the prominent features of socioeconomic status are income, education and occupation. These are markers of class. Researchers have deduced that education is not a direct factor contributing in the status level, but it indirectly influences the two other dimensions, that is, occupation and income. Education also shapes cultural behavior. Statistics of 1993 confirms that education the role of education in generating America’s social division. It shows that among individuals earning more than $100,000 per year, 49 percent had postgraduate degrees (Fleishman, 57). Sajjadi in her article discusses about social class system as a description of how scarce resources are distributed in a society. Those scarce resources are wealth, income, education and occupation. She further writes that income is an important scarce resource. But, it is occupation that provides income, and it is education that determines the type of occupation. Income is also related to other life consequences such as the quality of education obtained, health care, and housing (Sajjadi, Social Stratification in United States). As mentioned above, US individual income depends on education. In 2005, the top 15 percent of income earners were actually the ones with doctorate and professional degrees. Those who had bachelor’s degree had incomes above the national median and people with college degree had less income (Sajjadi, Social Stratification in United States). Education serves as one of the most essential class feature in US, which is directly linked in income and occupation. Level of Disparity Let us see how rich the riches are in US: (Durden, A Visual Reminder of US Social Stratification). A Harvard professor and behavioral economist asked more than 5000 Americans on their opinion on wealth distribution in US. Most of them thought its more balanced than it actually is (Durden, A Visual Reminder of US Social Stratification). (Durden, A Visual Reminder of US Social Stratification). Sociological Explanations of Social Inequality in US Inequality does not seem to be a good thing for a society, especially for those who are the disadvantaged ones. But the question arises, is it always harmful for the society. There is a functionalist perspective to this issue (Kendall, 272). Kendall writes about the two famous sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore who have a fuctionalist view to the social inquality. They are of the opinion that inequality is not only expected in a society but also necessary for smooth functioning of a society. They believe that there are certain tasks to be performed in a society. These tasks are necessary to be accomplished for the survival of the society. These tasks cannot be performed by all individuals. Only specific people with specific skills and qualification can perform them well. These positions to be filled require talent that is rare, extensive training is needed, and must be highly rewarded (Kendall, 273). Davis and Moore use an example of doctors in order to explain their point of view. Doctors are very important for a society. In order to fill the position of doctors, a person has to go a lot of training and financing on his shoulders. Not everyone can do it. Only certain people who can take the qualification and training can fill up the required position. Davis-Moore theory is thus based on the assumption that social stratification is a result of meritocracy, a hierarchy in which all positions are rewarded based on people’s ability and credentials (Kendall, 273). From a conflict perspective, people with power are able to shape society’s resources, rewards, privileges, opportunities in a society for their own benefit. Powerful individuals use ideology to maintain their favored position at the expense of others. This view suggests that wealth is not a motivating factor for a society (Kendall, 273). Liberalism is The Cause of Inequality Stevens writes in his articles about his opinion on inequality. He says we all view society as a supermarket, we take whatever we want, we pay for it and worry about nothing else. We do not see the consequences. Such an attitude does not bring out healthy results for a society (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Average income is dropping in USA, whereas the incomes of the super rich are increasing, which is similar to a third-world situation. The main point that Stevens rose was that it is the liberalism that actually caused inequality (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Distribution of wealth Liberalism fosters spreading the wealth equally, so that the rich do not have that unfair portion of wealth with them. In doing so, they forget that they are taking money from those who are more competent, and they can use this money wisely to make more of it (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Fast money approach of liberalism Bill Clinton brought about the facility of making money easy to borrow. This served as a great opportunity for short term businesses, but for long term it was not a healthy approach. It shifted profitability from production of value adding goods to the shuffling of paper and reselling of financial instruments. Profitability existed entirely on paper, which created a class of super rich and also devaluated the currency (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Importing voters A tactic has been used since 1965 to import voters from third world countries. This cheapens cost of labor, but in turn forces same amount of value to go to more people. This result in dissipation of value and quality also declines (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Unions Unions spread money to the wrong people. They create violent social disparity between classes. They encourage immigration; they spread the wealth from those who make more wealth to those who sit in offices. Stevens claims it is actually the liberal policies to make inequality disappear, that brings in inequality (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). Regarding education as a factor which brings distinction in social class system, Sajjadi writes that education is rarely free. Education in elite private colleges for a four year program costs $120,000 approximately. Public colleges cost less, but they are still not free. Cost of education is high for most people. But it serves as a direct link to income and occupation (Sajjadi, Social Stratification in United States). Conclusion Social stratification which divides a society into different layers and each layer identifies different classes prevailing in a society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Researchers are of the opinion that apart from wealth, there are certain other factors that bring disparity in the classes and widen the gap between them. Marx brought his theory about capitalistic and working classes, whereas, Weber brought a theory which focused on wealth, power and prestige being the factors for determining a class. Combining these two theories, Dennis Gilbert brought his contemporary theory which derived education, income and occupation being the distinguishing dimensions for determining a class level. Education is directly linked with income and occupation. A highly qualified individual will automatically bring good income and occupation (Kendall). There are sociological perspectives to the cause of disparity in social class. But the main reason for disparity as discussed by Steven is liberalism in his opinion (Stevens, Liberalism is the cause of inequality). References Durden, Tyler. A visual reminder of US social stratification. 22 February 2011. 23 May 2011 . Fleishman, Avrom. New class culture: how an emergent class is transforming America's culture. Praeger Publishers, 2002. Kendall, Diana. Sociology in our times: The essentials. CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Sajjadi, Sara. Social Stratification In United States. 15 January 2008. 23 May 2011 . Social Stratification in the US. 23 May 2011 . Stevens, Brett. Liberalism is the cause of inequality. 24 February 2011. 23 May 2011 . Read More