Social Stratification Background - Essay Example

?SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Definition: Social stratification simply refers to the division of the individuals into groups and factions on the foundation of the class, caste, clan, community, colour, complexion, region, religious belief, race, ethnicity, gender, age-group, sexual orientation, occupation, income level and socioeconomic status they belong to within a social establishment. “Social stratification”, Macionis observes, “is a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy.” (2008, p.254) Ethno-racial background, religion and socioeconomic position include the most dominant indicators of social stratification. Hence, social stratification could be examined in the light of the following: It is the division of people of one society into groups and communities The division is based on innate characteristics including caste, clan, tribe, race and ethnicity Individual and collective efforts also pave the way towards division of society, which include immigration status, occupation, nature and level of education, geographical location, region and area and work place Some of the characteristics of social stratification are apparently inherited, though turns out to be ascribed one in later life; religious belief, sect and nationality are these forms of stratification. Social discrimination is also taken as synonymous of social stratification; however, both the terms are different from each other. For social stratification concentrates upon segregation of the individuals into groups, while social discrimination is the prejudiced behaviour adopted by the individuals on the personality traits and background of others. Since people identify themselves with their in-groups, they maintain bias for the out-groups on the basis of their natural inclinations and tendencies. Stratification has aptly been examined and investigated in the light of social discrimination and intensity of conflict between the groups prevailing in a society. Standard of living, horizontal and vertical social ranking, segregation of races, ethnic hatred, gender conflicts and economic differences between upper, middle and lower classes are imperative indicators of stratification within a social set up. Universality of Stratification: History is replete with the evidences endorsing the existence of social stratification even in the most primitive societies of Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, which ratifies the very notion that that stratification in human society is not the product of the contemporary era, and had been in vogue in all human societies without discrimination since ever. “Looking at different cultures of the world”, Davis & Moore argue, “one finds that no human society is classless i.e. non-stratified one. There are some primitive communities so small that no class strata appear; the social organization resting almost entirely upon age, sex and kinship; but even then their chieftainship, individual prowess and clan or family property introduce an incipient stratification. As soon as greater size and complexity are attained, stratification unmistakably appears.” (1945, p. 52) The researches reveal the division of ancient Greek, Roman, Chinese, Egyptian and Indian societies into castes, classes and groups, where all these cultures maintained royalty, nobility, clergy, intelligentsia, traders, workers and slaves as divergent social groups. Feudal, Caste and Class Societies: Feudal societies: Feudalism is one of the most distinguishing traits of social stratification, which divides a society into classes on the basis of the social status and economic position of the individuals. Feudalism had been in vogue in European, Asian and African societies for the last many centuries and gave birth to the notions nobility, the commoners and slaves in its wake. The concept of feudalism has direct relation with the ownership of land acquired, purchased or bestowed upon the people against services, money or exercising of power against the real owners. Consequently, the possession of land areas determined the social status of the possessor in society. The feudal system is particularly agrarian in nature, where the feudal or landlord is considered the master of the entire village, area or town, and rules over the farmers, peasants, workers and labourers, and exploits their time and services for his personal purposes. It is therefore, they are treated as his employees, servants and even slaves, which are bound to obey the feudal even against their will. Feudalist societies existed in Russia, France, Japan, England and India, and the tenants or workers did not have permission to marry the person of his choice without prior consultation with the feudal. The peasants and workers toiled hard in the land of the feudal, and got almost nothing against their labour from dawn to dusk. The famous French revolution 0f 1789 was also the outcome of revolt against unconstrained exploitation of the poor classes at the hands of the feudal. Before the French revolution, the clergy and nobility exercised a preeminent right over all land property. “The manorial dues of various kinds”, See witnesses, “that they imposed upon the peasants who tilled the soil formed one of their chief sources of revenue. Clergy and nobility thus evaded most of the taxes and financial burdens that fell upon the popular classes and tended to increase their misery.” (2004, p.6) The same state of affairs still exists in several third world countries at full swing in this day. Caste: The term caste refers to the inherited affiliation of the individuals with some specific family, which is the most powerful source of their identity in society. Though caste is not taken into serious consideration in advanced countries of the world, it still dominates in a large number of the third world developing states. “Caste is descent-based and hereditary in nature. It is a characteristic determined by one's birth into a particular caste, irrespective of the faith practiced by the individual.” (Human Rights Wing, 2001) The Indian culture is particularly notorious for strictly observing caste system within its jurisdiction, where the Hindus consisted of five castes including Brahmans (the clergy), kshatriyas (royalty and warriors), vaishyas (bourgeoisie, including traders, vendors and merchants), shudras (workers and labourers) and chhoot (untouchables). “In the socially graded system”, Joshi and Fawcett argue, “Brahmans are considered to be the purest, as a result of their occupational involvement in ritual and religious activities. These tasks are considered to be the most superior and purest of all social activities. (2001, p.2) Moreover, the Brahmans and kshatriyas look down upon other castes; it is therefore, the members belonging to these castes neither inter-marry nor inter-dine even in this modern age. Caste system also prevails in other Asian and African countries, and people still take it into consideration particularly at the eve of entering into matrimonial relationship. Though the western societies do not strictly observe caste system; however, discrimination on the foundations of race and ethnicity as inherited characteristics certainly point out the existence of division in those societies on the basis of hereditary traits. However, another school of thought considers social classes as the most imperative symbol of social stratification; the same viewpoint has been discussed below: Class: It is a reality beyond suspicion that no culture can be declared as classless since ever; thus, the presence of different classes is an essential characteristic of all societies of the globe at large. Since society has different responsibilities to different people, economic position and professional status of the individuals determine the class to which they belong to. “The term status”, according to Mangan “connotes the distribution of prestige based upon what people have—including what occupations they have, material goods, where they live, who their family and friends are, and the kinds of education and training they possess.” (2004, p.2) Hence, political position, financial assets, land under-possession, nature of work and education level and professional skills are the factors that decide the social class of the individuals. “Social class”, according to Muntaner et al., “has important consequences for the lives of individuals: the extent of an individual’s legal right and power to control productive assets determines an individual’s strategies and practices devoted to acquire income and, as a result, determines the individual’s standard of living.” (2003, p.951) Consequently, the royalty, nobility, entrepreneurs and industrialists make up the elite or upper class, while intellectuals, writers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, traders, professors and merchants are generally called the member of middle stratum of society. Similarly, the proletariat including peasants, farmers, labourers, workers, artisans, non-technical staff and individuals working on daily wages make up the lower stratum of a social establishment. The theorists are of the opinion that the upper classes are exploiting the lower strata of society on the basis of their wealth and resources; consequently, there remain conflict between the classes, which is actually the clash of interests between haves and haves-not. Marxist perspective has pointed out the same problem in the famous social conflict theory. Marxist Perspective of Social Classes: Celebrated nineteenth century German theorist and writer Karl Marx strongly believes in the existence of social classes in capitalist society, which is certainly outcome of the division of resources, opportunities and wealth possessed by the individuals. He has articulated his social conflict theory, which submits to state that the social classes always remain in conflict because of the unequal distribution of wealth, resources and privileges. Presented in the aftermath of Industrial Revolution of 1750, Marx vehemently condemns bourgeoisie for depriving the proletariat of its share in the profit generated out of the hard efforts made by them while working from dawn to dusk in the production process of mills, factories and industries. Since conflict always contains the elements of social injustice and inequalities in its scope, financially weak and downtrodden persons have no right to seek justice on the foundations equivalent to the powerful, prosperous and mighty stratum. Thus, the rivalry between haves and haves-not gives birth to bloodshed and hostilities. “The history of all previous societies”, Marx witnesses, “is the history of class struggle. Free man and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in short oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to each other, and carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden and now open struggle.” (2003, p. 3) Marx appears to be associating social stratification with the means of production, which not only determine the socioeconomic status of the individuals, but also pave the way towards the categorisation of society into groups, communities and classes on the bases of their financial position, but also the nature of occupation they have been affiliated with. The major modern classes are, according to him, the owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent respectively. Karl Marx (1818-1883) Since the individuals belonging to divergent hierarchical status add share to the production of a mill or industrial unit, they must have been equal share-holder in the profit of the unit. However, it is the investor that takes the lion’s share in the profit even having made least effort in the production process; the proletariat undergo sorry state of affairs because getting least share even making hard efforts in the entire course. Consequently, the withdrawal of rights creates sentiments of revenge in labour class, which gives birth to the situation of conflict between the classes. Hence, Marxists declare social conflict as the outcome of the capital, investment, skill and occupational status, which augment the intensity of differences between the bourgeoisie and proletariat eventually. Weber’s Social Class Theory: Marxist perspective fervidly censures private ownership, and looks for equal distribution of wealth, resources and opportunities for the socioeconomic uplift of the lower classes. Somehow, Max Weber refutes the very idea of the elimination of class discrimination altogether from the very face of society provided it is against the law of nature. “Classes are social categories sharing subjectively-salient attributes used by people to rank those categories within a system of economic stratification”. (Quoted in Wright, 2003 p.2) Weber is of the opinion that since different people have developed aptitude as well as obtain skill and command over quite divergent fields of interest, the selection of their professions is also different from one another. Hence, if the individuals enjoy one and the same income and educational levels, as well as contain the same social status, it would become quite difficult for the masses to hire the services of various professionals for the fulfilment of their requirements. Weber declares class stratification on the foundations of three fundamental elements, which include political power, social status and economic position. All the three are essential elements for assessing and estimating the position of an individual in a social hierarchy. Hence, it is social class that serves as the identity mark for the members of society. Structural Functionalism and Stratification: Structural functionalism strictly believes a social establishment like a living organism, where all social institutions serve as different organs of one and the same organic whole. Consequently, adequate and proper working of all the social institutions, including family, peer group, church, school, health and economic institutions and political set up as well is in the best interest of the individuals living in the social establishment and sharing the same social and natural environment. The functionalist theorists strongly support the very notion that it is quite impossible for different social organs to render one and the same services to the individuals. Consequently, they distribute duties and responsibilities between them for the best possible functioning of the institutions that are the part of the same organic structure. Thus, stratification is not only beneficial for the proper functioning of the institutions; it is equally inevitable for the progress, growth and survival of society. “A society must”, Ritzer submits, “be able to extract from the environment what it needs to survive (food, fuel, raw material and so forth) without destroying the sources”. It is only possible when different people take responsibility of performing difficult tasks for the collective benefit. For instance, the farmers and peasants work in agricultural fields to fulfil the food requirements of the society, while teachers render services at educational institutions for teaching the individuals different subjects, skills and professional knowledge. Similarly, male stratum works in fields, factories, offices and other social institutions in order to feed and support their families; while women generally get involved in domestic chores and reproduction activities for the mental peace, satisfaction and growth of family. Talcott Parsons, the structural functionalist, is of the opinion that structure and functioning of a social establishment is affected both by external and internal factors. If there is appropriate co-ordination between different institutions, the society will cope up with the external invasion as well as internal conflict. Difficulties in Defining Social Stratification: Though apparently, determination and explanation of social stratification looks simple and flexible; however, it is really difficult to segregate the society into groups and communities. The most advanced cultures of the world declare race and ethnicity as the more important determinant of classes rather than socioeconomic status even; however, the South Asian states view caste and clan as the most formidable source of the segregation of social classes. It is particularly the case with the White Anglo Saxon Population (WASP) belonging to the western civilisations, which never consider the Blacks and African Americans as their equivalent in status, even some members of the racial groups are in a better position both politically and financially, than the white population. Somehow, their inherited prejudice and established bias on the basis of superiority complex does not allow them take the Blacks, Asians and Latin American ethno-racial groups as their equivalent in status. A poor white Anglo Saxon Family The same is the situation in Indian and Pakistani cultures, where the persons coming from low caste never obtains respectable status even seeking higher education and adopting respectable profession in life. Similarly, the Jewish community considers itself as the chosen seed, which has no parallel to them in spiritual status all over the world. wrote: “Social stratification”, Parsons views, “is regarded here as the differential ranking of the human individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and inferior relative to one another in certain socially important respects.” (1940, p.841) Thus, there is not specific criterion for defining the social classes as well as explaining the foundation of social stratification in society at large. Jewish Rabbis To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that social stratification is the identity mark of individuals, and they are recognised and evaluated in the light of the same socioeconomic, cultural, familial, ethno-racial, religious and geographical background. It is stratification that determines and decides the place, position, duties, obligations, rights and responsibilities of the individuals. For instance, a lawyer simply means the professional who pleads in the court of law for the seeking justice as well as for the implementation of the statutes of the prevailing code of law. Lawyer Similarly, a doctor treats the patients and suggests medicine for their convalescence as well. Hence, the professions not only introduce the professionals in society, but also help out the individuals in respect of seeking their advice and professional counselling as well. Doctor The same is the case with religious background, caste and clan, which determine the way of faith and worship on the one hand, and help out in entering into marital knot on the other. ACTIVITY: Get a magazine and go through it. Select the pictures of men and women belonging to different professions, races and ethnic groups to analyse their responsibilities Go to a public place i.e. park, cinema, church or market, and observe the people. After it segregate them on the basis of their class in the light of conveyance, dresses and manners of the people. Note the characteristics of the people belonging to black and white racial groups Notice the educational background on the economic level of the individuals by observing the life of doctors, lawyers, teachers and pilots. Set your goals in the light of the struggle the professionals make while climbing the career ladder on the one hand, and in improving their status level on the other. BIBLIOGRAPHY Joshi, Deepa & Fawcett, Ben (2001) Water, Hindu Mythology and an Unequal Social Order in India Retrieved from http://www.wateraid.org/documents/hindumyth.pdf Macionis, John J. (2008) Sociology: A Global Introduction Prentice-Hall pp 253-256 Mangan, J. Marshall (2004) Education, Socio-economic Status, and Social Class Retrieved from http://publish.edu.uwo.ca/marshall.mangan/Documents/Publications/Books/SF/Social%20Class.pdf Marx, Karl. (2003) The Communist Manifesto Bompa Crazy.com Publishers pp 1-11 Muntaner, Carles, Borrell, Carme, Benach, Joan, Pasarin, M Isabel and Fernandez, Esteve (2003) The associations of social class and social stratification with patterns of general and mental health in a Spanish population International Journal of Epidemiology vol.32 no.6 32 pp 950–958 Retrieved from http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/950.full.pdf Parsons, Talcott. (1940) An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification American Journal of Sociology pp 841–62. Ritzer, George & Goodman, Douglas (2003) Classical Sociological Theory Fourth Edition McGraw Hill Publishing Company pp 20-51 See, Henri (2004/1927) Economic and Social Conditions in France during the Eighteenth Century Translated by Zeydel, Edwin H. Batoche Books p 6 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/see/18thCentury.pdf Wright, Erik Olin (2003) Social Class Encyclopedia of Social Theory, edited by George Ritzer Sage Publications p 2 Class Discrimination: A Global Concern (2004) Retrieved from http://www.ambedkar.org/research/CasteDiscrimination.pdf http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_macionis_sociology_5/23/6031/1544046.cw/index.html Read More