The Consequences of Stratification - Essay Example

The Consequences of Stratification Introduction Few sociological problems have aroused so many bitter controversies as the subject of our inquiry. Many of these controversies remain unsettled. Kurt Mayer calls the "condition of social class theory." "Chaotic." The situation is complicated by the intrusion of moralistic and political views, which ought to be kept out of scientific analysis, but there is agreement on at least one point: social stratification is generally conceived as a structural feature of a given social system (Bergel, 1962). Society is a ritual order: http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI4337/Durkheim/Durkheim%20intro.htm If a whole (or universe) consists of two or more distinguishable parts, we speak of a structure. Even the simplest social unit consists by necessity of at least two persons or two groups; therefore all social units are structured. This does not imply, as some writers assume, that the various parts of a unit are necessarily different or necessarily unequal. Let us first consider material structures from which the term is borrowed. An office building is structured because it is divided into rooms. All rooms can be of equal size, can serve the same purpose, and can be rented for the same sum: they are neither different nor unequal. The same can be said of some social units. The United States Senate is a group of a hundred members of equal rank, equal authority, and equal voting rights (Bergel, 1962). Differences and inequality are neither actually nor logically qualities of all structural systems. But the more complex a system becomes, the less it is likely that its parts will remain uniform and equal. Either of two entirely different processes accounts for the emergence of a structural system. Originally independent units can be united into a larger whole while remaining discernible as parts. In this case we speak of integration (Bergel, 1962). The distinction is of importance because some authors assume that social stratification results only from the differentiating processes within a formerly undifferentiated unit. Scientifically we have no right to make an a priori assumption (Bergel, 1962). Consequences of Stratification The end of acquisition and accumulation is conventionally held to be the consumption of the goods accumulated--whether it is consumption directly by the owner of the goods or by the household attached to him and for this purpose identified with him in theory. This is at least felt to be the economically legitimate end of acquisition, which alone it is incumbent on the theory to take account of. Such consumption may of course be conceived to serve the consumer's physical wants--his physical comfort--or his so-called higher wants--spiritual, sthetic, intellectual, or what not; the latter class of wants being served indirectly by an expenditure of goods, after the fashion familiar to all economic readers (Grusky, 1994). It is of course not to be overlooked that in a community where nearly all goods are private property the necessity of earning a livelihood is a powerful and ever-present incentive for the poorer members of the community. The need of subsistence and of an increase of physical comfort may for a time be the dominant motive of acquisition for those classes who are habitually employed at manual labor, whose subsistence is on a precarious footing, who possess little and ordinarily accumulate little; but it will appear in the course of the discussion that even in the case of these impecunious classes the predominance of the motive of physical want is not so decided as has sometimes been assumed. On the other hand, so far as regards those members and classes of the community who are chiefly concerned in the accumulation of wealth, the incentive of subsistence or of physical comfort never plays a considerable part. Ownership began and grew into a human institution on grounds unrelated to the subsistence minimum. The dominant incentive was from the outset the invidious distinction attaching to wealth and, save temporarily and by exception, no other motive has usurped the primacy at any later stage of the development (Grusky, 1994). American Class System The American class system is neither identical with nor entirely different from its European counterpart. The common heritage and the European ties account for the similarities; different conditions of the early settlements and subsequent historical developments explain the variations (Bergel, 1962). Classification of men into such groups is based on their consumption patterns rather than on their place in the market or in the process of production. Weber thought Marx had overlooked the relevance of such categorization because of his exclusive attention to the productive sphere. In contrast to classes, which may or may not be communal groupings, status groups are normally communities, which are held together by notions of proper life-styles and by the social esteem and honor accorded to them by others. Linked with this are expectations of restrictions on social intercourse with those not belonging to the circle and assumed social distance toward inferiors. In this typology we again find Weber's sociological notion of a social category as dependent on the definition that others give to social relationships. A status group can exist only to the extent that others accord its members prestige or degrading, which removes them from the rest of social actors and establishes the necessary social distance between "them" and "us." http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW7.HTML The settlers who came to America had left a continent where the feudal system had already broken down or was nearing its end. But the estate system outlived feudalism, and the early settlers had no intention of abolishing an order that they had accepted as a matter of course (Bergel, 1962). Two developments in particular had far-reaching effects. One was different rating for immigrants according to the groups to which they belonged. Catholics were rated higher than Jews. Scandinavians were rated higher than Central Europeans, who, in turn, were rated higher than Southern and Eastern Europeans, and so forth (Bergel, 1962). Consequently neither all immigrants nor all minority groups had identical rank, identical status, and identical class assignment. On the basis of group membership alone, disregarding all other criteria, they belonged to different classes and, what is still more interesting, to different classes at different times. The Irish provide the model; as the oldest mass immigrants, they belonged to the lowest stratum in 1825; at present a very large percentage belongs to the lower-upper and upper-middle classes (Bergel, 1962). The second phenomenon is the emergence of separate stratification systems within each minority group. One consequence of mass immigration is cultural segregation. Spatial segregation is but one feature of cultural separation and, for our discussion, the least important one. For cultural separation outlasts local segregation. It also is more than the mere retention of ethnic traits, because it is also social segregation. This cultural and social segregation is partly due to the choice of the immigrant himself, who feels emotionally more secure in his own group. But it also is imposed upon the minorities. The immigrants are not fully accepted, and they reciprocate by self-segregation, by partially declining to accept established values and mores; they refuse to associate with others not of their own kind (Bergel, 1962). Social segregation, as should be self-evident, excludes full social intercourse and prevents total integration; as a rule, complete integration is achieved only in the economic sector of the social system: the various groups work together but live separately. Consequently the minorities build up their own social subcultures; moreover, they organize their own associations. Inevitably differentiations within each minority develop. Even if discrimination is widely practiced, immigrants, and their American-born children even more, have excellent chances to move up. There are economic opportunities; some minority members become wealthy, some even very rich. Education opens the door to many better, sometimes to excellent, positions. Some advanced positions depend on minority status: owners of foreign newspapers and magazines, and editors and writers for such papers or for broadcasts in foreign languages, enjoy opportunities from which, ironically, the ordinary American is excluded. If the minorities are spatially segregated or concentrated and sufficiently numerous, they can elect their own members to political office, again excluding all those who do not "belong" (Bergel, 1962). Classification of men into such groups is based on their consumption patterns rather than on their place in the market or in the process of production. Weber thought Marx had overlooked the relevance of such categorization because of his exclusive attention to the productive sphere. In contrast to classes, which may or may not be communal groupings, status groups are normally communities, which are held together by notions of proper life-styles and by the social esteem and honor accorded to them by others. Linked with this are expectations of restrictions on social intercourse with those not belonging to the circle and assumed social distance toward inferiors. In this typology we again find Weber's sociological notion of a social category as dependent on the definition that others give to social relationships. A status group can exist only to the extent that others accord its members prestige or degrading, which removes them from the rest of social actors and establishes the necessary social distance between "them" and "us." http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW7.HTML To sum up: in contemporary America we have not one but several status orders. One is by race: whites, Orientals, Negroes. One is by nativity: native-born, naturalized, and not yet naturalized immigrants. One is by religion: Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. One is by cultural background: old stock, Northern Europeans, Central Europeans, Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, each again with several subdivisions. Within every group we again have hierarchically arranged status differences. All these status systems coexist with the general American class system, but they are not parallel. In this system membership in the upper-upper class is almost exclusively reserved for the prestige families of the old stock. While some members of the old stock are to be found in the lowest classes, they are not numerous. The bulk of the old stock is in the lower-upper and the middle classes. Some second-generation immigrants of what sometimes is called "desirable" minorities are accepted in the lower-upper and upper-middle classes. Their remainder is largely lower-middle class. So are most other immigrants unless they belong to the lower classes on account of their low education and vocational training. Negroes and, more recently, Puerto Ricans furnish the majority of the lower classes. However, the situation of the Negro is changing with considerable speed. Some have moved into the upper-middle and many more into the lower-middle classes. Their percentage is still small, but owing to better legal protection, better education and vocational training, greater opportunities, and greater political power, upward mobility is steadily increasing and will continue at a still greater rate (Bergel, 1962). In Weber's view every society is divided into groupings and strata with distinctive life-styles and views of the world, just as it is divided into distinctive classes. While at times status as well as class groupings may conflict, at others their members may accept fairly stable patterns of subordination and superordination. With this twofold classification of social stratification, Weber lays the groundwork for an understanding of pluralistic forms of social conflict in modern society and helps to explain why only in rare cases are such societies polarized into the opposing camps of the "haves" and the "have-nots." He has done much to explain why Marx's exclusively class-centered scheme failed to predict correctly the shape of things to come in modern pluralistic societies. http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW7.HTML Social Inequality and Stratification Gender contributes significantly to social inequalities. However, the United States is racially organized and hence its class structure is racially designed. White racism, along with class oppression and sexism, pervades the boundaries of the culture. Throughout this country's history and ensuing political economy, the extensiveness and permanence of the ideology of racism has been sustained. Recently, African American heterosexual women have been targeted as being the carriers, perpetrators, and/or victims of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This politically contrived racist stereotyping will inevitably affect the life chances, family functioning, employment options, and the entire future of African Americans. The direct link between race, not gender, and social inferiorization is evident in this politicization of a world-wide health crisis. The shift in categorization of a disease that was disproportionately concentrated among homosexual men to heterosexual black females negates all logic. This attempt to reconstruct the origins and victims of the current pandemic clearly demonstrates the profound impact of race over gender and class in the United States (Doris Y. Wilkinson; Daedalus, 1995). We live in a social system where race endures as a politically charged attribute and where racism is a paramount belief configuration that reinforces a particular form of status domination and economic oppression. The ideology of racism determines, legitimizes, and reinforces the interlocking character of the race-class-gender triad (Doris Y. Wilkinson; Daedalus, 1995). Conclusions Research on physical and mental health, for example, reveals that illness, mortality, and emotional distress are unequally allocated throughout the stratification system, with those at the bottom receiving far more than their share (Kessler 1982; Williams 1990). Studies of access to social networks similarly find that Euro-Americans, men, and people with more education have wider social networks and more resourceful connections than do African Americans, women, and the less educated (Marsden 1987). Still other research suggests that these findings are related: When poor people face misfortune, they have weaker social support on which to rely and therefore experience even more distress (Williams 1990). Like values and life-styles, health and networks are predictors as well as consequences of success. Emotional distress and illness keep people from getting ahead; robust social networks help them push forward (Granovetter 1974) (Grusky, 1994). Taken together, the findings of research on noneconomic consequences of stratification (and the reciprocal effects of these consequences) demonstrate processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage that are sometimes referred to as social reproduction (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977) (Grusky, 1994). Reference: Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage David B. Grusky, 1994. Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Westview Press, 1994 Doris Y. Wilkinson; Daedalus, 1995. Gender and Social Inequality: The Prevailing Significance of Race. Journal article Vol. 124. Egon Ernest Bergel, 1962. Social Stratification. McGraw-Hill Book Company, INC. New York San Francisco Toronto London. Granovetter, Mark S. 1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI4337/Durkheim/Durkheim%20intro.htm http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW7.HTML Kessler, Ronald. 1982. "Socioeconomic Status and Psychological Distress." American Sociological Review 47:752-763. Marsden, Peter V. 1987. "Core Discussion Networks of Americans." American Sociological Review 52:122-131. Williams, David R. 1990. "Socioeconomic Differentials in Health: A Review and Redirection." Social Psychology Quarterly 53:81-99. Read More