Social Stratification - Essay Example

Social Stratification The term social stratification is a sociological term used to describe the various differentiations or groupings of people within society. Stratification describes the different "layers" that exist in society. Heady and Muffels note that social stratification is described as the "layer Cake" view of society. However they state that; "Western societies are not 'layer cakes' were the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. They are more like rollercoaster's, people go up and down." (3) Whilst some argue that it is possible for a society to run without such a structure, most known communities are separated by some sort of class division. Some academics believe that stratification is the difference between equality and inequality, elitism and non elitism. Stratification introduces the idea of "hierarchy" into society. Social hierarchy can be based on the possession of different qualities in different communities, and some societies are more equal than others, but none can ever be completely unstratified as there will always be inequalities in certain areas, due to individual differences. However, in contradiction to this anthropologists have confirmed that social stratification is not as universal as once thought. Non-stratified egalitarian societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership. Also known as acephalous (or "headless") societies, the best examples of egalitarian cultures all have hunter-gatherer economies, although not all hunter-gatherers can be considered egalitarian. In modern western society such as in the US, UK and Europe we live within a stratification system. David Grunsky describes a stratification system as; " the constellation of social institutions that generate observed inequalities." (523) The "observed inequalities" referred to generally points towards the unequally distributed resources in our society; privileged families receiving a disproportionate level of power, prestige and other valued resources. A common place saying that "money goes to money" perhaps therefore actually derives from an accepted creditable sociological theory / observation. Grunsky highlights that the three key components of a stratification system are: 1. Institutional processes that define certain types of goals as valuable and desirable. 2. The rules of allocation that distribute those goals across various occupations. 3. The mechanisms of mobility that link individuals to positions and generate inequalities. Inequality is thus produced by 'matching' systems; of occupation and social role to reward packages of unequal value and then the allocation of positions to individual society members to the defined positions and rewarded accordingly (Grunsky, 523) The stratification system is very complex and multidimensional. Many types of reward can be attached to certain social roles and different sociologist theorist would advocate differing factors / rewards as being pivotal in creating social stratification. Factors which can be used to create a social hierarchy / stratified group include economic, political, cultural, social honorific, civil and human factors. There are different types of stratification systems, each dependant on a differing factor. Examples include: Tribalism within a hunting and gathering society, created by human factors such as hunting and magic skills. Slavery within a horticultural and agrarian society, created by economic factors (human property). A Caste society created by honorific and cultural factors (Hinduism) And, most relevant in Western industrial society: A Class system created by economic factors and supported by Classical and Liberalism ideology. Socialism created by political factors and supported by Marxism and Leninism ideology. (Meyer, 523) In modern industrialised society there is a class system in operation, as a stratification system it is generally acknowledged as a system of inequality. The class system of stratification is the source of considerable academic debate. The conflict mainly surrounds the ideologies of Marx and Weber. Karl Marx's theory on social class is based on a model of 2 social classes, defined by whether or not they own the means of production. The bourgeoisie (the owning class) is the ruling class, which exploits the proletariats (the non-owning class) this exploitation gives rise to class conflict between the two major classes. The proletariat will eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie in the socialist revolution and create an equal classless society called communism. Max Weber does not accept Marx's view of the inevitability of a simplification of the class system leading to the breakdown in revolution. He thought that was quite rare and probably not encouraged. Weber's analytical framework led to increasing differentiation between the classes rather than unification for class action. (Lee and Turner 9-10) The two academic opinions lead to other issues which can be viewed differently dependant on the academic stance taken. Summary of Marx and Weber theory on class Marx: Class, Conflict and the Power of Property Historical Roots It was from a historical and social context that Marx's' ideas emerged. Great gap between rich and poor, capitalism could produce such extraordinary wealth yet leave so many people impoverished, contradictions that Marx wanted explained. Marx tried to arrive at an explanation by analyzing societies from pervious times: ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and medieval Europe. Concluded that each major societal form characterized by clear split between "haves" and "have-nots": master and slave; feudal lord and servant; capitalist and worker. Each form of social organization was marked by struggle, either open conflict or underlying antagonism between two main groups. (Prandy, 205) Means of Production and Class Structure Ownership and non-ownership of property-what underlies the division of societies into two opposing groups (besides wealth and prestige). Argued that the dominant group in any society was one that owned means of production (private ownership of productive property). Under capitalist system the property less majority (owned only their own labor power) had no choice but to rely on those who owned property to employ them as wage workers. Believed that the basic contradiction in this system become more and more apparent to people as capitalism developed and expanded. Contradiction-majority of population gained little benefit from the great wealth they themselves produced. Therefore those who generated riches of society through labor received only small portion as a living wage with the remainder going to capitalist owning-class. Marx says under feudalism (operated before capitalism) a similar contradiction existed. Expected the working class (proletariat) to become the rising new force under capitalism one that would oppose the obstructive and excessive class of capitalists (bourgeoisie). Just as bourgeoisie transformed feudalism, the proletariat would do the same and turn capitalism into socialism. (Croix, 102) Revolt of the Working Class Change from capitalism to socialism was a culmination of the historical process of class struggle for Marx. Socialism was to triumph the working class and become more than just a class in itself: category of people sharing the same economic position as non-owners of productive property. There needs to be awareness of the common position and a willingness to mobilize as force for change is essential if to become a genuine class for itself: group that would transform society. To achieve mobilization several obstacles have to be overcome: (i.e. despite economic power owners of property great influence in various ideological structures: religious institutions, the communication media, and educational systems). Owning class could use each of these structures to manipulate workers and to justify privileged position. Owning class had effective control of political structure or state and could use legal, military and police power to maintain its position. Despite these Marx believed that a successful revolution by proletariat was possible and that circumstance necessary for this change would be realized. MARX believes that capitalism is based on a rational and efficient but relentless and self interested pursuit of profits by owning class. This quest for increasing profits frequently has unfortunate consequences for society as whole. Great desire for great gain-often produce more goods then can sell. Involves downward-spiral fashion: economic rises tend to occur in the capitalist system: overproduction, high unemployment and slow economic growth.after each economic crisis there is a period in which the economy stabilizes but always at expense of lower strata Other things occur in the stabilization period to widen the gulf between working and owning class: 1. Smaller capitalists (petite bourgeoisie) either sell out businesses or fail and taken over by larger capitalists. 2. Increasingly evident to workers that they are losers in economic crises, while most of large scale bourgeoisie prosper in these times. Marx believed in promotion of working class consciousness and polarization of bourgeoisie and proletariat was rise of joint-stock company. Marx believed in such a system would become even more obvious to workers, that mere ownership is essentially superfluous to productive activity---owners as shareholders control the means of production and accumulate rewards from it, but offer nothing constructive or valuable in return not even managerial or administrative effort. Fate of revolution depends on the actions of the proletariat and its desire and willingness to change society. (Giddens et al, 30; Prundy, 211) Classless Society Two stages follow the revolution: Marx foresaw a socialist phase a "dictatorship of the proletariat" with leaders of revolution heading the political apparatus of the society, the state. State would abolish private property State would ensure wealth created by economy was distributed equitably to productive members of society to workers themselves. (2) After revolution-communism-the state as political force would become unnecessary and would die away although some would still be required to remain as administrators of productive and other spheres of society. Communism representing the first system without class distinction, without class structure and without class conflict. (Day, 56) Weber's Critique of Marx (1) Marx over-estimated economic structure as the source of power in society. (2) Many feel that Marx's splitting society into 2 classes (propertied and property less) ignores existence of other identifiable classes. 1. Multiple Power Sources Weber pointed out that economic class by itself not only source of power or criterion for rankings in social structure. Noted power / influence also gained from status, honor, or prestige deriving from membership in certain groups (status groups). Such groups may include ethnic, religious or similar entities involving exclusive membership; awareness of like tastes, lifestyle and interests and a tendency to act and interact as a unit. Weber was first to point out that -economic class, status group and party serves as a source of power and a basis for group formation in society. Weber DID NOT accept view of some Marxists that the political, religious, educational and other structures of society act only to serve the interests of the ruling economic class. To Weber each these structures possessed some power in its own right, some recognized sphere of influence and control. 2. Existence of "Middle Classes" Weber argued that there were more than just two main economic classes. Weber included range of middle classes, people who lack privilege of large property ownership but who have more than just labor power to sell in capitalist marketplace. Middle classes posses on or both: (1) small amounts of productive property such as shops, small businesses or small farms; (2) valued skills, such as special training or education of a physician, lawyer or artisan. Weber agreed that the small business segment of the middle class will decline. However other major segments include those people with specialized skills would NOT decrease but expand and flourish under capitalism. Weber says that: need for managers, accountants, bookkeepers, supervisors, engineers, architects, teachers and so on in business, government and educational bureaucracies ensure that middle classes WOULD NOT be a transitional group BUT RISING FORCE in modern society. Classless Society and Bureaucracy Weber argued that bureaucracy would be even more common in socialist systems in which so many more aspects of life are regulated by government; hence power differences and inequality could be even greater in a socialist system than under capitalism. (Giddens et al, 35) Issues and that arise from the Marxist and Weberian frameworks include: Ascribed and Achieved Status Difference between open and closed systems of inequality relates to ascribed / achieved statuses Ascribed Status: feature assigned to an individual by circumstance rather than accomplishment-(characteristics and individual acquires at birth and can't change-i.e. race, ethnic origin, sex and age) Achieved Status: performance characteristics, traits attained by individual action (i.e. education and occupation) Society is characterized as open if achieved statuses more important than ascribed statuses in determining person's rank in overall system of inequality. Social mobility: This is the term to describe the movement up or down the social hierarchy between the levels of the social stratification system. Intergenerational mobility- refers to a change that occurs between generations- when grown up children end up on a different rung of the social class ladder than the one occupied by their parents. Vertical mobility- movement up and down a status hierarchy. Horizontal mobility- movement by an individual from one status to another of similar rank within the same status hierarchy. Exchange mobility- When large numbers of people move up and down the social class ladder but, on balance, the proportions of the social classes remain about the same. (Goldthorpe and Erikson, 192) There are a number of consequences of stratification in the form of a class system, one of these is crime. Miller concentrated on the delinquency of lower class male gangs or in Miller's terms, 'street corner gangs' in economically deprived neighbourhoods. He also agreed with anomie /strain theorists that the commission of delinquent behaviour is motivated by the attempt to gain desired ends. But rather than positing a distinct delinquent subculture adapted to the availability of legitimate or illegitimate opportunities, Miller proposed that delinquent behaviour is a youthful adaptation to a distinct lower class culture. Delinquency is one way of achieving or gaining acceptance according to the expectations of this lower class culture. Lower class youth learn and act according to the central values or focus concerns of lower class adults, but the delinquent adolescents express and carry out these values in an exaggerated way. These values are: trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fatalism and autonomy. By demonstrating these characteristics lower class males achieve status and belonging in the street corner groups. These qualities can be demonstrated and the value ends achieved by fighting and other forms of illegal and deviant behaviour. Miller has been criticised for appearing to stress the homogeneity of lower class culture. Critics argue his focal concerns are more likely to be found among the inhabitants of slums in large cities than elsewhere. Moreover, his reliance upon these concerns in his explanation has been criticised as tautological, in that they derived from observing behaviour and then used to explain that same behaviour. He might have had done better to look in more detail at the structural factors giving rise to the focal concern such as prolonged instability of employment and the whole uncertainty of the lower class way of life. (Miller, 78) When considering social stratification the question, do elites maintain stratification There are a number of points in relation to this question: Divine right of kings- the idea that the kings authority comes directly from God. Colonialism- which refers to one country making colonies out of other countries. The countries that industrialized first got the jump on the rest of the world. Beginning in Great Britain about 1750, industrialization spread throughout Western Europe. Plowing some of their immense profits into powerful armaments and fast ships, these countries invaded weaker nations, making colonies out of them. The globalization of capitalism- the adoption of capitalism around the world. Has created extensive ties among the worlds nation. Culture of poverty- a way of life that perpetuates poverty from one generation to the next Neocolonialism- When World War II changed public sentiment about sending soldiers and colonists to weaker countries, the Most Industrialized Nations turned to the international markets to control the Least Industrialized Nations Multinational Corporations- Companies that operate across many national boundaries, also help to maintain the global dominance of the Most Industrialized Nations. Sociologist Gerhard Lenski (409) pointed out that each of us tries to maximize our status, and social ranking. Evidently social stratification is a very complex subject and in recent years there has been academic criticism of class as being the major factor to differentiate society; the argument being that class is "ceasing to do any useful work for sociology'' (Pahl, 710). Scholars argue that more cultural factors, for example environmentalism, will become of greater significance in stratification (Davis, 73). Grusky states: "Moreover, because stratification systems are deeply institutionalized, there is good reason to anticipate that demands for egalitarian change will outpace actual changes in stratification practices. These dynamics imply that issues of stratification will continue to generate discord and conflict even in the unlikely event of a long-term trend toward diminishing inequality." (Grusky, 218) Works Cited Croix, Geoffrey de Ste.; "Class in Marx's Conception of History, Ancient and Modern", New Left Review,146, (1984): 94-111 Day, Gary; Class, London: Routledge, 2001 Davis, James ''Achievement Variables and Class Cultures: Family, Schooling, Job, and Forty-Nine Dependent Variables in the Cumulative GSS.'' American Sociological Review 47 (1982):69-86. Giddens, A, Duneier, M and Applebaum, R "Introduction to Sociology" 5th ed. London: Norton, 2005 Goldthorpe, J.H. and Marshall, G. "The promising future of class analysis: a response to recent critiques" Sociology, 26, (1992): 1-400 Grusky, David B. ed.; Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001 Heady, Bruce and Muffels, Ruud; "Up and Down: the rich, the poor and income mobility" Review 1999: 3-7 Lee, D.J. and Turner, B.S;Conflicts about Class: Debating inequality in late industrialism, London: Longman, 1996 Lenski, Gerhard E. ''Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status.'' American Sociological Review 19 (1954):405-413. Meyer, John W. 1994 In Grusky, David B. ed.; Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001 Miller, Walter, 1958 In Hagedorn, John, Gangs in the Global City: Alternatives to Traditional Criminology, University of Illisnois, 2007 Pahl, R. E. 1989 In Grusky, David B. ed.; Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001 Prandy, Ken, "The Social Interaction Approach to the Measurement and Analysis of Social Stratification," 19 (1999): 204-236 Read More