Download Ch. 9 S. 1

Chapter 9 Section 1: Systems of
Stratification
Obj: The characteristics of caste systems
and class systems; How the major
theories of social stratification differ.
Almost every society in the course of human history
has separated its members on the basis of certain
characteristics. Sociologists call this division of
society into categories, ranks, or classes - social
stratification. The levels of stratification and the
types of characteristics used have varied from
society. Such ascribed statuses as ancestry, race, age,
physical appearance, and gender are among the
most common distinguishing characteristics.
Achieved statuses-such as educational attainment
and occupation-can also be used to determine social
standing. Other factors that play a part in
determining rank or position in society include talent
and effort. Divisions based on such individual
characteristics, abilities, and behaviors lead to social
inequality-the unequal sharing of scarce resources
and social rewards.
Types of Stratification Systems
The level of social inequality in a society varies
according to the degree to which that
society’s stratification system is open or
closed. In a closed system, movement
between the strata, or status levels, is
impossible. A person is assigned a status at
birth and remains at that level throughout life.
In an open system, movement between strata
is possible. The ease of movement depends on
the degree of openness in the system.
Sociologists recognize two basic types of
stratification systems in today’s societies-caste
systems and class systems. Picture a stratification
continuum with closed systems to the left and
open systems to the right. Caste systems would
fall at the far left of the continuum. In a caste
system, a person’s status is assigned at birth. In
all but the rarest cases, the individual remains in
that status throughout life. Class systems, on the
other hand, would fall somewhere on the right of
the continuum. The actual location depends on
the society under consideration, because class
systems range from slightly open to very open.
• Caste Systems – In a caste
system, scarce resources
and social rewards are
distributed on the basis of
ascribed statuses. A
newborn child’s lifelong
status – or caste – is
determined by the status
of his or her parents. While
effort and talent may
affect someone’s position
within a caste, they cannot
help the person move to a
higher status.
Because status is inherited, a caste system has
elaborate norms governing interaction among
the different castes. For example, marriage
between members of different castes would
make it difficult to assign a status to children.
Which parent’s status would be used? To
avoid this problem, caste systems have
traditionally forbidden the practice of
exogamy, marriage outside one’s own social
category. Instead, caste systems generally
have practiced endogamy. Endogamy is
marriage within one’s own social category.
Caste systems were once a very common form of social
organization in South Asia. India provides one of the
best examples of this system of stratification.
Developed more than 3,0000 years ago, the Indian
caste system assigned individuals to one of four castes.
These castes were subdivided into thousands of
subcastes based on specific occupations. Below these
four castes was a class of outcastes. They were
considered unclean and were given only the most
undesirable tasks to perform. Other castes avoided all
contact with them because being touched by one
made a higher-caste person unclean. The only way to
remove this “stain” of uncleanness was to go through
special cleansing rituals.
The Indian constitution, which was adopted in
1950, outlawed the discrimination against the
outcastes. It also declared that all Indians,
regardless of background, were equal. In
addition, government programs set aside places
in schools and government jobs for lower caste
members. But dismantling the caste system has
proved extremely difficult. Some blurring of
distinctions among the castes has taken place in
the cities. There, modern transportation systems
and work arrangements force mixing among the
castes. However, in the rural areas-where most
Indians live-caste still plays a major role in
organizing everyday life.
• Class Systems – In a class system the
distribution of scarce resources and rewards is
determined on the basis of achieved statuses.
This linking means that individuals have some
control over their place in the stratification
system. Given talent, effort, and opportunity,
individuals can move up the social-class
ladder. However, the reverse is also true.
Circumstances can reduce an individual’s
standing in the stratification system.
Sociologists have defined social class in various ways.
Those who base their work on the theories of Karl
Marx define social class in terms of who owns the
means of production. The means of production are the
materials and methods used to produce goods and
services. In this view of social class, society is divided
into two basic groups-those who own the means of
production and those who own only their labor.
According to the followers of Marx, the owners of the
means of production in a capitalist society are called
the bourgeoisie. The workers who sell their labor in
exchange of wages are called the proletariat. The
bourgeoisie reaps all of the profits, even though the
proletariat does the work. According to Marx, the only
determining feature of class is he ownership of
property.
Max Weber expanded Marx’s ideas. Weber believed
that class consists of three factors-property,
prestige, and power. Weber accepted that
property plays a significant role in determining
people’s places in society. However, he suggested
that prestige and power also greatly affect social
standing. For example, inheritance taxes and the
costs of maintaining their estates have greatly
reduced the wealth of many English nobles.
However, they still may hold a position of power
in the community. On the other hand, the
wealthy individual who made his or her money
through illegal means may be shunned by the
establish upper class.
Dimensions of Social Stratification
Today many sociologists
adopt Weber’s view of
social stratification. They
define social class as a
grouping of people with
similar levels of wealth,
power, and prestige. For
sociologists, these three
terms mean very specific
things.
• Wealth – An individual’s wealth is made up of
his or her assets-the value of everything the
person owns-and income-money earned
through salaries, investment returns, or other
capital gains. In the US, wealth is concentrated
overwhelmingly in the hands of a small
minority of the population. The richest 1% of
the population controls more than 1/3 of the
country’s wealth. About 4/5’s of the country’s
assets are in the hands of the richest 1/5.
Income is also distributed unequally in the US,
although not as strikingly as total wealth. The
top 1/5 of income earners receives
approximately 50% of the total national
income. Recent studies suggest that this
income gap is growing. One study estimates
that the average corporate executive makes
419 times as much money as the average
production worker. This ratio stood at 326 to 1
in 1997 and just 42 to 1 in 1980.
• Power – People with
substantial wealth also
usually possess
considerable power.
Power is the ability to
control the behavior of
others, with or without
their consent. Power can
be based on force, the
possession of a special
skill or type of
knowledge, a particular
social status, personal
characteristics, or custom
and tradition.
• Prestige – Individuals can be ranked
accordingly to prestige as well as by the
wealth and power they possess. Prestige is
the respect, honor, recognition, or courtesy an
individual receives from other members of
society. Prestige can be based on any
characteristics a society or group considers
important. Income, occupation, education,
family background, area of residence,
possessions, and club memberships are
among some of the most common factors that
determine prestige.
In the US, occupation tends to be the most
important determinant of prestige. When asked
to rate occupations according to levels of
prestige, Americans consistently place jobs that
require higher levels of education at the top of
the list.
To make the ranking of people according to wealth,
power, and prestige possible, sociologists often
calculate people’s socioeconomic status (SES).
This is a rating that combines social factors such
as educational level, occupational prestige, and
place of residence with the economic factor of
income. These combined factors are then used to
determine an individual’s relative position in the
stratification system.
Explaining Stratification
Sociologists are interested not only in the nature of
social stratification, but also in its causes and
consequences. Functionalists and conflict theorists
have offered explanations. Other sociologists, seeing
weaknesses in both approaches, have tried to blend
the two.
• Functionalist Theory – Functionalists view
stratification as a necessary feature of the social
structure. The functionalist explanation assumes
that certain roles in society must be performed if
the system is to be maintained. Higher rewards
for the performance of these roles ensure their
fulfillment-the more important the role and more
skill needed to perform the role, the higher the
reward. Functionalists claim that without varying
rewards, many jobs would not be filled, and
society could not function smoothly. For example,
why would someone take the time and expense
to become a physician if the reward for being a
salesclerk were the same?
Critics have suggested that the functionalist
explanation has weaknesses. The theory fails to
consider that not everyone in society has equal
access to such resources as education. Without
this access, people are unlikely to obtain highstatus occupations. The functionalist approach
also ignores the likelihood that there may be
many talented people in the lower classes.
Because of stratification these people may be
prevented from making a contribution to society.
Finally, it cannot explain why rewards sometimes
do not reflect the social value of the role. Why
should movie stars and professional athleteswhose importance to society is limited-command
such high incomes?
• Conflict Theory – Conflict theorists see
competition over scarce resources as the
cause of social inequality. Conflict theorists
who base their work on Marxist theory say
that stratification comes form class
exploitation. The owners of the means of
production control the working class in order
to make profits and maintain their power in
society.
Many American conflict theorists-such as C.
Wright Mills, Irving Louis Horowitz, and G.
William Domhoff-take a broader view of
inequality. According to their view, various
groups within society compete with one
another for scarce resources. Once a group
gains power, it is able to shape public policy
and public opinion to its own advantage. In
that way, it maintains its position of power.
Critics have found shortcomings in conflict
theory as well. One of its major weaknesses is
that it fails to recognize that unequal rewards
are based, in part, on differences in talent,
skill, and desire. Not everyone is suited for
every position in the social structure.
Consequently, society must have some way to
urge the proper individuals into positions that
are vital to its operation. One way to do this is
through the offer of different rewards.
Efforts at Synthesis
Some sociologists, noting that neither approach
fully explains stratification, have tried to
synthesize, or blend, the two. Ralf Dahrendorf
suggests that each approach might be used to
explain specific aspects of stratification. For
example, functionalist theory helps explain why
people are willing to spend years training to
become doctors or lawyers. Conflict theory helps
to explain why the children of the wealthy tend to
go to the best colleges.
Gerhard Lenski takes a similar approach. However,
he asserts that the usefulness of the theory
depends on the society under study. He notes
that functionalists state that a stratification
system functions because members of society
accept it. Such a view would apply to simple
societies – such as hunter-gatherer societies. In
simple societies, survival depends on
cooperation. Lenski suggests that the conflict
theory would apply to more complex societies, in
which people struggle to control wealth and
power. A ruling group emerges from the struggle,
and social inequality develops as this group takes
steps to maintain its position.