Download Chapter 6 - Systems of Stratification The four general systems of

Chapter 6 - Systems of Stratification
The four general systems of stratification may be identified as slavery, castes, estates, and social classes. Any
stratification system may include elements of more than one type.
Slavery
It is the most extreme form of legalized social inequality for individuals or groups. Enslaved individuals are owned by
other people, who treat them as property. Today United Nations prohibits slavery in all its forms. Yet, around the
world, millions of people still live as slave.
Castes
Castes are hereditary ranks that are usually religiously dictated, and that tend to be fixed and immobile. This system is
generally associated with Hinduism in India. In India, there are four major castes, called varnas. A fifth category of
outcastes, referred to as untouchables or the dalit, is considered to be so lowly and unclean as to have no place within
the system of stratification. Caste membership is an ascribed status.
Estates
This system of stratification is related to feudal societies during the Middle Ages. The estate system required peasants
to work land leased to them by nobles in exchange for military protection and other services. Inheritance of one’s
position largely defined the estate system.
Social Classes
Class system is a social ranking based primarily on economic position in which achieved characteristics can influence
social mobility. One can move from one stratum to another. Class systems maintain stable stratification hierarchies,
and are also marked by unequal distribution of wealth and power. Although it is achieved, it is still dependent on
family and ascribed factors.
Income inequality is a basic characteristic of a class system. However, different social classes also different in other
significant ways, such as the jobs they have, their level and quality of education, and their general lifestyle.
Social class in one of the independent or explanatory variables most frequently used by social scientists to shed light on
social issues.
Perspectives on stratification
Karl Marx’s View of Class Differentiation
Marx was concerned with stratification in all types of human societies. His main focus was on the effects of economic
inequality on all aspects of 19th-century Europe. He felt that it was imperative to strive for changes in the class structure
of society. According to Marx, social relations during any period of history depend on who controls the primary mode of
economic production, such as land or factories. Differential access to scares resources shapes the relationship between
groups.
Marx examined social relations within capitalism – an economic system in which the means of production are held
largely in private hands and the main incentive for economic activity is the accumulation of profit. He focused on two
main classes, the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, and the proletariat, or working class.
In capitalist societies, the members of the bourgeoisie maximize profit in competitions with other firms, and in the
process, exploiting workers who must exchange their labor for subsistence wages. According to him, exploitation of the
proletariat will inevitably lead to the destruction of the capitalist system, because the workers will revolt. However, they
must overcome false consciousness (an attitude held by members of a class that does not accurately reflect their
objective position) and develop class consciousness – a subjective awareness of common vested interests and the need
for collective political action to bring about social change; and that the bourgeoisie in the source of their oppression.
Revolutionary leaders will guide the working class and overthrow the rule of both the bourgeoisie and the government,
and will eliminate private ownership. Classes and oppression will cease to exist in the postrevolutionary worker’s state.
However, his predictions were not very accurate. He failed to anticipate the emergence of labor unions, whose power in
collective bargaining weakens the stranglehold that capitalists have on worker. Nor did he foresee the extent to which
political liberties and relative prosperity could contribute to false consensus.
Max Weber’s View of Satisfaction
Weber insisted that no single characteristic (such as class) totally defines a person’s position within the stratification
system. He identified three distinct components of stratification: class, status, and power.
Class refers to a group of people who have similar level of wealth and income. Weber argued that the actions of
individuals and groups could not be understood solely in economic terms.
Status group refer to people who have the same prestige or lifestyle. Status is gained through membership in a
desirable group such as esteemed profession.
Power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others.
To summarize, each of us has three ranks in the society. Our position in a stratification system reflects some
combination of class, status, and power. Each factor influences the other two, and in fact the ranking on these three
dimensions often tend to coincide.
Interactionist View
Interactionists are interested in the importance of social class in shaping a person’s lifestyle.
Is Stratification Universal?
Can social life be organized without structure inequality? Utopian socialists, religious minorities, and member of recent
countercultures have all attempted to establish communities that to some extent or other would abolish inequality in
social relationships. Social scientists have found the inequality exist in all societies – even the simplest. But why? How
much differentiation among people, if any, is actually needed?
Functionalist View
Would people go to school for many years to become physicians if they could make as much money and gain as much
respect working as street cleaners?
Society must distribute its members among a variety of social positions, depending on their talents and abilities.
Rewards (money, prestige) are based on the importance of a position and the relative scarcity of qualified personnel
(Davis and Moore 1945). However, this assessment seems to devalue work performed by other segments of the society.
Social in equality is necessary so that people will be motivated to fill functionally important positions. Critics think that,
unequal rewards are not the only means of encouraging people to fill position and occupations. Even if stratification is
inevitable, the functionalist explanation for differential rewards does not explain the wide disparity between the rich
and poor.
Conflict View
Marx did not believe that stratification was inevitable, but he did see inequality and oppression as inherent in
capitalism. He believed that humans are prone to conflict over scarce resources such as wealth, status and power. He
focused a lot on class conflict; recent conflict sociologists like Dahrendorf extended the analysis to include conflicts
based on gender, race, age and other dimension. Social classes are groups of people who share common interests
resulting from their authority relationships. The most powerful group in the society includes the company owners,
managers of the industry, legislators, the judiciary, heads of the government bureaucracy and others. The powerful of
today, want society to run smoothly so that they can enjoy their privileged positions. Because the status quo suits those
with wealth, status and power, they have a clear interest in preventing, minimizing and controlling societal conflict (i.e.
unemployment compensation to pacify those who might otherwise rebel). This is done so by defining and disseminating
the society’s dominant ideology (set of cultural beliefs and practices that helps to maintain powerful social, economic
and political interest) through education and media.
Conflict theorists see stratification as a major source of societal tension and conflict; it will inevitably lead to instability
and to social change.
Lenski’s Viewpoint
In subsistence-based hunting-and-gathering societies, people focus on survival; and while some inequality and
differentiation are evident, a stratification system based on social class does not emerge because there is no real wealth
to be claimed. As societies advance, it becomes capable of producing considerable surplus of goods. The emergence of
surplus resources greatly expands the possibilities for inequality in status, influence, and power and allows a welldefined, rigid social class system to develop. To minimize strikes, slowdowns and industrial sabotage, the elites may
share a portion of the economic surplus with the lower classes, but not enough to reduce their own power and privilege.
The allocation of surplus goods and services controlled by those with wealth, status, and power reinforces the social
inequality that accompanies stratification system. While this reward system may once have served the overall purposes
of society, the same cannot be said for the large disparities separating those who have, and those who do not. In
contemporary industrial society, the degree of social and economic inequality far exceeds what is needed to provide for
goods and services.
Social Mobility
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals from one position in the society’s stratification system to another.
Social mobility is possible in an open stratification system, wherein the position of each individual is influenced by his
achieved status. It is less possible, or sometime impossible, in a closed system, such as slavery or caste, in which social
placement is base on ascribed statuses.
Types of Social Mobility
Horizontal mobility is a movement of an individual from one position to another that is of the same rank in the
stratification. Vertical mobility on the other hand, is movement for a position to another that is of higher or lower rank.
Vertical social mobility is of two types: intergenerational mobility and intragenerational mobility. Intergenerational
mobility involves changes in the social position of children, relative to their parents. Intragenerational mobility involves
changes in social position within a person’s adult life.
Stratification in the World System
Globally, the world market place is dominated by a few nations. Three forces are seen responsible for such a condition.
Colonialism
Colonialism occurs when a foreign power maintains political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a people for
an extended period; a rule by outsiders. Relations between the colonial nation and the colonized people are similar to
those between the dominant capitalist class and the proletariat. Colonialism had largely disappeared and most
colonized nations, like the Philippines, have achieved political independence, but he transition to genuine self-rule is not
yet complete. Some former colonies remain dependent and dominated by foreign influence – neocolonialism.
The economic and political consequences of colonialism and neocolonialism are readily apparent.
Immanuel Wallertein’s World Systems Analysis
Core
Semiperiphery
Periphery
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, United States
China, India, Ireland, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama
Afghanistan, Bolivia, Chad, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Haiti, Philippines, Vietnam
Wallerstein describes the unequal economic and political relationships in which certain industrialized countries and their
global corporations dominate the core of this system. The division between core and periphery nations is significant and
remarkably stable.
Dependency theory maintains that’s even as developing countries make economic advances, they remain weak and
subservient to core nations and corporations in an increasingly intertwined global economy; allowing industrialized
nations to continue exploit developing countries for their own gain. A growing share of the human and natural
resources of developing countries is being redistributed to the core industrialized nation. This happens in part because
developing countries owe huge sums of money to industrialized nations. As a result, developing countries may be
forced to devalue their currencies, freeze workers’ wages, increase privatization on industry, and reduce government
services and employment.
Multinational Corporations
A key role in neocolonialism today is played by worldwide corporate giants. Multinational corporations refer to
commercial organizations that are headquartered in one country but do business throughout the world. They do not
only buy and sell overseas, they also produce goods all over the world. Multinationals that are based in core countries
are beginning to establish reservations services and the centers for processing data in periphery nations. Many
companies are concluding that the low costs of overseas operations more than offset the expenses of transmitting
information around the world.
Functionalists believe the multinational corporations can actually help the developing countries by bringing jobs and
industry to areas where subsistence agriculture serves as the only means of survival. They also promote development
through the diffusion of inventions and innovations from industrialized countries. Through international ties,
multinational corporations also make the nations of the world more interdependent, preventing disputes and serious
conflict that may result to warfare.
Conflict theorists emphasize that multinationals exploit local workers to maximize profits. The pool of cheap labor in
developing countries prompts multinational to move factories out of core countries. Governments seeking to attract or
keep multinationals may develop a “climate of investment” that includes repressive antilabor laws that are restrictive of
union activity and collective bargaining. If labor’s demands become too threatening, the multinational firm will simply
move its plant elsewhere, leaving a trail of unemployment behind. Although multinationals may initially contribute to a
host nation’s wealth, it eventually increases economic inequality. Multinationals invest in limited economic sectors and
restricted regions of a nation. Certain sectors of the host nation’s economy expand, this very expansion appear to
retard growth in agriculture and other important economic sectors.