Social stratification--------------------
, social
stratification is a concept involving the "classification of people
into groups based on shared socio-economic conditions ... a relational set of
inequalities with economic, social, political and ideological dimensions."
When differences lead to greater status, power or privilege for some groups
over the other it is called social stratification.[1] It is a system by which society ranks
categories of people, hierarchy. [2] Social stratification is based on four
basic principles: (1) Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a
reflection of individual differences; (2) Social stratification carries over
from generation to generation; (3) Social stratification is universal but
variable; (4) Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as
well.[3]
In modern Western societies, stratification is broadly
organized into three main layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each of these classes can be further
subdivided into smaller classes (e.g. occupational).[4]
These
categories are not particular to state-based societies as distinguished from feudal societies composed of nobility-to-peasant relations. Stratification may also be
defined by kinship ties or castes.
For Max Weber, social class pertaining broadly to
material wealth is distinguished from status class which is based on such variables as
honor, prestige and religious affiliation. Talcott Parsons argued that the forces of
societal differentiation and the following pattern of institutionalized
individualization would strongly diminish the role of class (as a major
stratification factor) as social evolution went along. It is debatable whether
the earliest hunter-gatherer
groups may be defined as 'stratified', or if such differentials began with agriculture and broad acts of exchange between
groups. One of the ongoing issues in determining social stratification arises
from the point that status inequalities between individuals are common, so it
becomes a quantitative issue to determine how much inequality qualifies as
stratification.[5]
Overview---------------------------------
The concept of
social stratification is interpreted differently by the various theoretical
perspectives of sociology. Proponents of action theory
have suggested that since social stratification is commonly found in developed
societies, hierarchy may be necessary in order to stabilize social structure. Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist,
asserted that stability and social order are regulated, in part, by universal value although universal values were
not identical with "consensus" but could as well be the impetus for
ardent conflict as it had been multiple times through history. Parsons never
claimed that universal values in and by themselves "satisfied" the functional
prerequisites of a society, indeed, the constitution of society was
a much more complicated codification of emerging historical factors. The
so-called conflict theories,
such as Marxism, point to the inaccessibility of
resources and lack of social mobility
found in stratified societies. Many sociological theorists have criticized the
extent to which the working classes are
unlikely to advance socioeconomically; the wealthy tend to hold political power which they
use to exploit the proletariat intergenerationally. Theorists such
as Ralf Dahrendorf,
however, have noted the tendency toward an enlarged middle-class in modern
Western societies due to the necessity of an educated workforce in
technological and service economies.
Various social and political perspectives concerning globalization, such as dependency theory, suggest that these effects are
due to the change of workers to the third world.
Karl Marx
Main articles: Marxism, Historical materialism,
and Base and
superstructure
In Marxist
theory, the capitalist mode
of production consists of two main economic parts: the substructure
and the superstructure. Marx saw classes as defined by people's relationship to
the means of productions in two basic ways: either they own productive property
or labour for others.[6] The base comprehends the relations of
production—employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour,
and property relations—into which people enter to produce the necessities and
amenities of life. In the capitalist system, the ruling classes own the means of production,
which essentially includes the working class itself as they only have their own
labor power ('wage labor') to offer in order to survive. These
relations fundamentally determine the ideas and philosophies of a society,
constituting the superstructure. A temporary status quo is achieved by various
methods of social control employed, consciously or unconsciously, by the
bourgeoisie in the course of various aspects of social life. Through the
ideology of the ruling class, false consciousness
is promoted both through ostensibly political and non-political institutions,
but also through the arts and other elements of culture. Marx believed the capitalist mode would eventually give way,
through its own internal conflict, to revolutionary consciousness and the
development of egalitarian communist society.
Marx also
described two other classes, the petite bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.
The petite bourgeoisie is like a small business class that never really
accumulates enough profit to become part of the bourgeoisie, or even challenge
their absolute power. The lumpenproletariat is the low life part of the
proletariat class. This includes prostitutes, beggars, swindlers, etc. Neither
of these subclasses has much influence in Marx's two class system, but it is
helpful to know that Marx did recognize differences within the classes.[7]
According to Marvin Harris[8] and Tim Ingold,[9] Lewis Henry Morgan's
accounts of egalitarian hunter-gatherers formed part of Karl Marx and Engels's inspiration for communism. Morgan spoke of a situation in which
people living in the same community pooled their efforts and shared the rewards
of those efforts fairly equally. He called this "communism in
living." But when Marx expanded on these ideas, he still emphasized an
economically oriented culture, with property defining the fundamental relationships
between people.[10] Yet, issues of ownership and property are arguably less
emphasized in hunter-gatherer societies.[11] This, combined with the very different
social and economic situations of hunter-gatherers may account for many of the
difficulties encountered when implementing communism in industrialized states.
As Ingold points out: "The notion of communism, removed from the context
of domesticity and harnessed to support a project of social engineering for
large-scale, industrialized states with populations of millions, eventually
came to mean something quite different from what Morgan had intended: namely, a
principle of redistribution that would override all ties of a personal or
familial nature, and cancel out their effects."[9]
Wright Mills------------------------------
C. Wright Mills contended that the imbalance of
power in society derives from the complete absence of countervailing powers
against corporate leaders of the power elite. [15][16] "... Mills both incorporated and
revised Marxist ideas. While he shared Marx's recognition of a dominant wealthy and
powerful class, Mills believed that
the source for that power lay not only in the economic realm but also in the
political and military arenas.[15][17] During the 1950s, Mills stated that
hardly anyone knew about the power elite's existence, some individuals
(including the elite themselves) denied the idea of such a group, and other
people vaguely believed that a small formation of a powerful elite existed.[18] "Some prominent individuals knew
that Congress
had permitted a handful of political leaders to make critical decisions about
peace and war; and that two atomic bombs had been
dropped on Japan in the name of the United States, but neither they nor anyone
they knew had been consulted."[19][20] Mills sought to inform people about
the existence of the power elite through his book The Power Elite.[15]
Mills explained that the power elite embodied a
privileged class whose members were able to recognize their high position
within society.[21] In order to maintain their highly exalted
position within society, members of the power elite tend to marry one another,
understand and accept one another, and they also work together.[15][20] The most crucial aspect of the power
elite's existence lays within the core of education.[15] "Youthful upper-class members
attend prominent preparatory schools, which not only open doors to such elite
universities as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton but
also to the universities' highly exclusive clubs. These memberships in turn
pave the way to the prominent social clubs located in all major cities and
serving as sites for important business contacts."[15][22] Examples of elite members who attended
prestigious universities and were members of highly exclusive clubs can be seen
in George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both Bush and Kerry were members of
the Skull and Bones
club while attending Yale University.[23] This club includes members of some of
the most powerful men of the twentieth century, all of which are forbidden to
tell others about the secrets of their exclusive club.[23] Throughout the years, the Skull and
Bones club has included presidents,
cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices, spies, captains of industry, and
often their sons and daughters join the exclusive club, creating a social and
political network like none ever seen before.[24]
The upper class
individuals who receive elite educations typically have the essential background
and contacts to enter into the three branches of the power elite: The political
leadership, the military circle, and the corporate elite.[25]
- The
Political Leadership: Mills stated that prior to the end of World War II,
leaders of corporations became more prominent within the political sphere,
with a decline in central decision-making among professional politicians.[26]
- The
Military Circle: During the 1950s-1960s, increasing concerns about
warfare existed, resulting in top military leaders and issues involving
defense funding and military personnel training becoming a top priority
within the United States. Most of the prominent politicians and corporate
leaders were strong proponents of military spending.
- The
Corporate Elite: Mills explains that during the 1950s, when the
military emphasis was recognized, corporate leaders worked with prominent
military officers who dominated the development of policies. Corporate
leaders and high-ranking military officers were mutually supportive of
each other.[27][28]
Mills believed
that the power elite has an "inner-core" that was made up of
individuals who were able to move from one position of institutional power to
another; a prominent military officer who becomes a political adviser or a
powerful politician who becomes a corporate executive.[25] "These people have more knowledge
and a greater breadth of interests than their colleagues. Prominent bankers and
financiers, who Mills considered 'almost professional go-betweens of economic,
political, and military affairs,' are also members of the elite's inner core.[25][29]
Anthropologists have found that social
stratification is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy writes,
"Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies
believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive,
and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer
peoples."[30] Non-stratified egalitarian or acephalous
("headless") societies exist which have little or no concept of
social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent
leadership.
Kinship-orientation------------------------------------
Anthropologists
identify egalitarian cultures as "kinship-oriented," because they appear to
value social harmony more than wealth or status. These cultures are contrasted
with economically oriented cultures (including states) in which status and material wealth are
prized, and stratification, competition, and conflict are common.
Kinship-oriented cultures actively work to prevent social hierarchies from
developing because they believe that such stratification could lead to conflict
and instability.[citation needed]
Reciprocal altruism
is one process by which this is accomplished.
A good example
is given by Richard Borshay Lee
in his account of the Khoisan, who practice "insulting
the meat." Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased
and ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from becoming too
proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then distributed evenly among the
entire social group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is
proportional to the size of the kill. Lee found this out when he purchased an
entire cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased for weeks
afterward about it (since obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as
showing off).[31]
Another example
is the Indigenous Australians
of Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island, off the coast of Arnhem Land, who have arranged their entire
society, spirituality, and economy around a kind of gift economy called renunciation.
According to David H. Turner, in
this arrangement, every person is expected to give everything of any
resource they have to any other person who needs or lacks it at the time. This
has the benefit of largely eliminating social problems like theft and relative
poverty. However, misunderstandings obviously arise when attempting to
reconcile Aboriginal renunciative economics with the competition/scarcity-oriented
economics introduced to Australia by
Anglo-European colonists.[32] See also the Original affluent
society.
Impact-----------------------------------
Research
suggests that social stratification can cause many social problems. A
comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, infant
mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression, teen suicide, and prison population all correlate
with higher social inequality.[33]
Three characteristics of stratified systems
1. The rankings
apply to social categories of people who share a common characteristic without
necessarily interacting or identifying with each other. The process of being
ranked can be changed by the person being ranked.[34]
2. People's
life experiences and opportunities depend on their social category. This characteristic
can be changed by the amount of work a person can put into their interests.[34]
- Example:
The greater advantage had by the son or daughter of a king to have a
successful life than the son or daughter of a minimum-wage factory worker,
because the king has a greater amount of resources than the factory
worker. The use of resources can influence others.
3. The ranks of
different social categories change slowly over time. This has occurred
frequently in the United States ever since the American revolution.
The U.S. constitution
has been altered several times to specify rights for everyone.[34]
