Sociological Theories of Social Stratification

 

Sociological Theories of Social Stratification

 

Gaurang R. Sahay

Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing of individuals in a society. The term social stratification refers to society’s categorization of people into socioeconomic strata, based upon their occupation and income, wealth and social status, or derived power (social and political). Thus, it refers to differential access to resources, power, autonomy, and status across social groups. As such, social stratification denotes the relative social position of persons or social strata within a social group or social category. Social stratification occurs in all societies except the primitive homogeneous society. Since social stratification arises from inequalities of status among persons, therefore, the degree of social inequality determines a person’s social stratum. In other words, social stratification implies social inequality; if some groups have access to more resources than others, the distribution of those resources is inherently unequal. While there are always inequalities between individuals, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Stratification is not about individual inequalities, but about systematic inequalities. Societies can be stratified on any number of dimensions. The most widely recognized stratification systems are based on race, caste, class, and gender. Social stratification has been theorised by many sociologists. The main theories of social stratification have been propounded by Karl Marx, Max Weber and structural functionalists by Talcott Parsons and Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore which are as follows:

Karl Marx on Social Stratification

Marx regards social stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure. It is a mechanism whereby some exploits others rather than a means of furthering collective goals. His major observations vis-à-vis stratification are as follows:

1. In human history all societies except the earliest ones have been stratified societies consisting of a structure of two major antagonistic strata: master and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society and capitalist and wage labourers in capitalist societies.

2. The earliest society (primitive communist society) was characterized by a subsistence economy (hunting and gathering). Private property and the accumulation of surplus wealth due to the advent of agriculture led to the development of class based stratified society.

3. Stratification system ultimately derives from the relationships of social groups and individuals to the forces of production, and accordingly their positions in the relations of production.

4. Marx used the term class to refer to the main strata in all kinds of stratification systems. A class is a social group whose members share same relationship to the forces of production, and occupy same position in the relations of production.

5. The ruling power of the ruling class (Master, Feudal lords, Bourgeoisies) derives from its ownership and control of the forces of production.

6. The subject class (Slaves, Serfs, Proletariats) has remained a powerless, therefore, exploited and oppressed stratum. Powerlessness of the class has turned them into a labouring class.

7. The subject class is made up of the majority of the population whereas the ruling or dominant class forms a minority.

8. As a result there is a basic conflict of interests between the two classes. And the relationship between the two is both of mutual dependence and conflict. It is conflictual because the mutual dependence does not signify a relationship of equality and symmetrical reciprocity. Instead, it is a relationship of exploiter and exploited or oppressor and oppressed.

9. Among all structural features, economy is best signifier of a stratified society, it is more so in the context of capitalism.

10. Since the superstructure is ultimately dependent on the infrastructure, political and other power of a class derives from its economic power.

11. The various institutions of society such as the legal, educational, bureaucratic and political systems are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to further its interests through justification, legtimation and ideological indoctrination leading to false class consciousness and fatalism.

12. Stratification is not an inevitable and indispensable feature of society. It was not a part of society in the beginning and it will not remain in the end.

Max Weber on Social Stratification

Unlike Marx, Weber has provided a more complex and diversified picture of social stratification in his work ‘Class, Status and Party’.

1. A person’s class position is his position in the market.

2. Class is a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy.

3. More than two classes because of the heterogeneity of labour class. Four types of classes: 1. The propertied upper class, 2. The propertyless white collar workers, 3. The petty bourgeoisie, 4. The manual working class.

4. Capitalism grows with a further diversification of the classes and an expansion of the white collar middle class, but definitely not with polarization of classes.

5. The petty bourgeoisie lead to white collar workers or skilled manual workers.

6. White collar middle class expands because capitalism requires a comprehensive rational bureaucratic organization.

7. No polarization therefore no revolution.

8. Among members of a class we find an absence of common identity, shared interests, and collective action.

9. Members of a class may respond in a variety of ways.

10. Distribution of power in society is not necessarily linked to the distribution of class inequalities.

11. There are two other bases of power: status group and party.

12. Class refers to the unequal distribution of economic rewards whereas status refers to the unequal distribution of ‘social honour’.

13. Groups like occupational, ethnic, caste and religious groups are status groups.

14. Status groups are always aware of their status situation, share a similar life style, identify with and feel that they belong to their status group and often place restrictions on the ways in which outsiders may interact with them (social closure).

15. No clear relation between the class and status group (class and caste or neo-rich): different classes in the same status group and different status groups in the same class.

16. Parties are social groups which are concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in the interests of their members (political parties, interests groups, caste associations, trade unions, union for equality, etc.).

17. No clear relations between class status and party. No single theory can explain the relationship, it is quite complex and varies from time to time and space to space.

 Talcott Parsons on Social Stratification

1. Social stratification is inevitable because it derives from shared system of values and norms which are a necessary part of all social systems.

2. It is functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society.

3. Power and prestige differentials are essential for the coordination and integration of a specialized division of labour.

4. The system of stratification benefits all members of society.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore on Stratification

The central arguments advanced by structural functionalists like Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in their paper ‘Some Principles of Stratification’ (1945) to theorise social stratification can be stated in a number of sequential propositions which are as follows:

1. Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others, and require special skills for their performance.

2. Only a limited number of individuals in any society have talents which can be trained into the skills appropriate to these positions.

3. The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind or another are made by those undergoing the training.

4. In order to induce the talented persons to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their future positions must carry an inducement value in the form of differential, i.e., privileged and disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards which the society has to offer.

5. These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and prerequisites attached to, or built into, the positions, and can be classified into those things which contribute to (a) sustenance and comfort, (b) humour and diversion, (c) self respect and ego diversion.

6. This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has as a consequence the differentiation of the prestige and esteem which various strata acquire. This may be said, along with the rights and perquisites, to constitute institutionalized social inequality, i.e., stratification.

7. Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods, and the amount of prestige and esteem which they receive, is both positively functional and inevitable in any society.

Melvin M. Tumin’s Critique of Davis and Moore’s theory

The central arguments advanced by Melvin M. Tumin in his paper ‘Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis’ whle criticizing Davis and Moore’s theory can be stated in a number of sequential propositions which are as follows:

1. There is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of positions. Whether one considers engineers and doctors as more important than farm labourers and soldiers is simply a matter of opinion.

2. Differences in pay and prestige between occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional importance. (Differences between the wages of farm labourers and coal miners).

3. An effective method of measuring talent and ability has yet to be devised. There is no proof that exceptional talents are required for those positions which Davis and Moore consider important. The pool of talent in society may be considerably larger in society than Davis and Moore assume. As a result, unequal rewards may not be necessary to harness it.

4. Training required for important positions should not be regarded as sacrifice and therefore in need of compensation. Apart from the opportunity for self development, any loss of earnings can usually be made up of in the initial years of work.

5. Social stratification can, and often does, act as barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. This is readily apparent in closed systems such as caste and racial stratification. Even throughout the class system the motivation to succeed and be talented is unequally distributed.

6. It is only when there is genuinely equal access to recruitment and training for all potentially talented persons that differential rewards can conceivably be justified as functional. And stratification systems are apparently inherently antagonistic to the development of such full equality of opportunity.

7. Differential rewards can encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among various segments of a society. From this point, stratification is a divisive rather than an integrating force. It can also weaken social integration by giving members of the lower strata a feeling of being excluded from participation in the larger society.