In Social Stratification The term stratification refers to a process by which individuals and groups are ranked in a more or less enduring hierarchy of status. It refers to the division of a population into strata, one on the top of another, on the basis of certain characteristics like inborn qualities, material possessions and performance.
- Malvin M. Tumin says, Social stratification refers to arrangements of any social group or society into a hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation, and/or social gratification.
- Lundberg writes, “A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are evaluated by them as being lower and higher”.
- Gisbert says, “Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of categories linked with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordination.
- Bernard Barber, “Social stratification in its most general sense, is a sociological concept that refers to the fact that both individuals and groups of individuals are conceived of as constituting higher or lower differentiated strata or classes in terms of some specific or generalised characteristic or set of characteristics.”.
The consequence of layering process in a society is the creation of structural forms – social classes. Where society is composed of social classes, the social structure looks like a pyramid. At the bottom of the structure lies the lowest social class and above it other social classes arranged in a hierarchy.
Thus, stratification involves two phenomena, (1) differentiation of individuals or groups where by some individuals or group come to rank higher than other and (2) the ranking of individuals according to some basis of valuation.
Viewed in this way it can be stated that every society is divided into more or less distinct groups. There is no society known which does not make some distinction between individuals by ranking them on some scale of value. There has been no society in which every individual has the same rank and the same privileges.
As Sorokin pointed out, “Unstratified society with real equality of its members is a myth which has never been realised in the history of mankind”. In simpler communities we may not find any class strata apart from the distinction between members of the groups and strangers, distinction based on age, sex and kinship. But in the primitive world chieftainship , individual prowess and clan or family property introduce an incipient stratification. However, modern stratification fundamentally differs from stratification in the primitive societies. Among the primitive people class distinctions are rarely found..
Every know society, past and present, thus differentiates its members in terms of roles they play in the group. These roles are determined by the formal positions or statuses in which a society places its members.
Society compares and ranks individuals and groups on the basis of some differences in values it attaches to different roles. When individuals and groups are ranked according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation, in a hierarchy of status levels based upon inequality of social position, we have social stratification.
Characteristics of Social Stratification:
Melvin M. Tumin has mentioned the following characteristics of social stratification:
- 1. It is Social:
- 2. It is Ancient:
- 3. It is Universal:
- 4. It is in diverse forms:
- 5. It is Consequential:
The stratification system has its own consequences. The most important, most desired and often the scarcest things in human life are distributed unequally because of stratification.
Elements of Social Stratification: All stratification systems have some common elements. These elements have been identified as Status differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding.
Basis or Forms of Stratification:
Social stratification may be based on a variety of forms or interpenetrating principles such as free and unfree, class, caste, estate, occupation, administrative hierarchy or income level.
1. Free and unfree:
The population of a society may be divided into freemen and slaves. In certain communities the slaves do not enjoy rights and privileges. The slave is practically at the disposal of his master. In the middle ages in Europe serfs usually possessed some plot of land and they might cultivate the land for themselves. But they were bound to till the fields of their immediate land lord and pay additional dues under certain circumstances. In Europe society was divided into land lords and serfs. A serf is less unfree than a slave. The people still lower to the serfs were slaves
2. Caste:
Social stratification is also based on caste. The Indian caste system provides a classic example, A ‘caste’ system is one in which an individual’s rank and its accompanying rights and obligations are ascribed on the basic of birth in to a particular group.
Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four Varnas or caste and a fifth group, the out caste, whose members were known as untouchables. Each class is subdivided in to sub castes, which in total number many thousands. The Brahmins or priests, members of the highest caste, personify purity, sanctity and holiness. They are the sources of learning, wisdom and truth. At the other extreme, untouchables are defined as unclean and impure, a status which affects all other social relationships. They most be segregated from members of other castes and live on the outskirts of the villages, In general the hierarchy of prestige based on notions of ritual purity is mirrored by the hierarchy of power. The Brahmins were custodian of law and the legal system which they administered was based largely on their pronouncements. Inequalities of wealth were usually linked to those of prestige and power.
3. Estate and Status:
Estate system is synonymous with feudalism, which remained basis of social stratification in Europe from the fall of Roman Empire to the rise of the commercial classes generally and to the French Revolution (1989) particularly. In Russia, in one form or another it continued to exist down to the October Revolution (1917). Under the system, the land was taken to be the gift of God to King, who in the absence of any local administrative systems made grants of it, called Estates or fiefs, to nobles, called lords temporal, for military service; they in turn made similar grants to the inferior class on oath of loyalty and military support.
The holder of the land was called vassal; the multitudes who cultivated were the serfs and the people still lower to the serfs were slaves. These grants with the privileges attached to them in the beginning, were personal in character. Latter with the weakening of the central authority, the estate and the privileges attached to it became hereditary. The church followed suit. Over the time there developed the three estates – the lords temporal, lord spiritual and the commons.
The Estate system was the basis of social stratification in all the countries of Europe. It was based on inequality of all sorts; Economic – there were few landlords and the multitudes of serfs and slaves; social – estate determined the social status and role, and the landless worked just for their protection. They were a mere service class; Political – the estate having been given for military service, made the holder the prop and pillar of the state, and allowed him full authority over men and goods within his estate.
The nobility and their important vassals enjoyed the privileges and the rest lived in misery. Mobility paid no taxes, neglected the feudal duties but secured all the dues for themselves. They had juristic immunities and political privileges; they made law their handmade and held men under bondage.
4. Occupation and Income:
Occupation is an aspect of economic systems which influences social class structure. Rogoff in her study of “Social Stratification in France and United States” stressed that “of all the criteria mentioned in determining class position, occupational position is the most consistently named among the various strata in both societies.
Talcott Parsons also confirmed this for United States by saying that “the main criteria of class status are to be found in the occupational achievements of men, for prestige is attached to occupation. In advanced societies occupations are related to social status. Attempts have been made by P.K Hatt and C.C. North to rank occupations in USA.
In this state of nationwide sample of adult was asked to rate ninety occupations in accordance with prestige associated with each occupation. The ‘physician’ had the highest prestige and shoe shiner, the lowest. In between them were other occupation like clerical and sale occupation etc.
Society is also stratified on the basis of income. Difference in income leads to very unequal standard of life. The distribution of income, both cash and real income among individuals or families, in all capitalist countries takes the form of a gradient, with a relatively small group at the top receiving huge amounts and at the other extreme, a somewhat larger but still a small number of persons in the “negative income” bracket.
5. Race and Ethnicity:
The Western people, wherever they went, claimed racial superiority and attributed their success to it. They took the ‘natives’ to be of inferior racial origin.
The race conflict in Africa, the U.S.A. and in some of the European countries remains a dominant factor in stratification and inequality. In South Africa, the whites constitute a status- group; membership of which cannot be acquired by Africans; no matter how wealthy or skilled they may be.
6. Ruling Class:
The ruling class always holds itself superior to those over whom it rules. This explains the psychology behind the ‘lord’ and ‘servant’ relationship. Democracy did not demolish the distinctions. The political parties and pressure groups are the instruments in the hands of the ruling class to influence the community and to keep themselves in power.
7. Administrative Position:
Stratification is sometimes based on administrative position. The Civil service personnel command a status higher than the members of the provincial Service. Within the services too, members of higher rank command greater respect The stratification is more distinctly clear in police and military service where the uniform, badges and ribbons distinguish the officers. Sprott has indicated that “in the Civil Services, grades are distinguished by the shape of chair upon which the official sits and the size of the desk at which he writes”.
Functions of Social Stratification:
For the proper functioning of society, it has to work out some mechanism by which people engaged in different occupations get different recognition. If each activity is associated with same type of economic returns and prestige, there will be no competition for different occupations.
Stratification is that system by which different positions are hierarchically divided. Such a system has given rise to different classes like Upper, Middle, Working and Lower or caste groups like Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The importance of stratification can be seen with regard to the functions it performs for the individual and society.
I. For the Individual:
No doubt system of stratification is applicable to the whole society yet it serves some functions for the individual also.
- 1. Competition: Individuals based on their attributes compete with each other and only those individuals who have better attributes get greater recognition. This may be in the field of sports, education, occupation etc.
- 2. Recognition of Talent: The persons with more training skills, experience and education are given better positions. The deserving individuals are not treated at par with deserving candidates. Such a system helps people to acquire better talents.
- 3. Motivation: The system of stratification motivates the individuals to work hard so that they can improve upon their social status. It is more true in case of those societies in which statuses are achieved.
- 4. Job Satisfaction: As the jobs are given to the individuals according to their skills and education, the workers get job satisfaction. In case, a person with higher qualification is not allowed to move higher in the social ladder, he feels dissatisfied with his job.
- 5. Mobility: The system of achieved status also provides an opportunity for upward and downward mobility. Those persons who work hard and are intelligent move up in the social ladder. On the other hand, those who fail to come up to the expectations move downward. Hence, the possibility of change in the position keeps the people always alert and makes them work hard.
II. Functions for the Society:
The system of social stratification is also useful for the progress and the well-being of the society. This can be seen if we take into account two forms of stratification.
- 1. Ascriptive Form of Stratification: Under the caste system, the status of the individual is fixed at birth and different castes are hierarchically arranged. However, even within the caste system those members who perform their caste roles effectively and efficiently occupy higher’ status. On the other hand, those members who do not perform their role properly occupy lower status even when they belong to the same caste. This functional base has given rise to sub castes. In other words, one caste is further divided into different sub castes and these sub castes are hierarchically divided within a caste group. Fixation of status of a caste group also facilitates better training of the members. As the members are made aware about the future roles, they start getting training from the childhood. Such a situation was more applicable in the traditional societies where knowledge was foil knowledge and it could be acquired through membership of a caste group. In this way we find that under ascriptive form of stratification, society was being well-served and there was interdependence of the caste because of the specialization of their roles.
- 2. Achieved Form: Under the achieved form of social stratification, the social statuses are assigned according to the worth of the individual. This system serves the following functions for the society:
- (a) Occupational Hierarchy: Depending upon the importance of a particular occupation, different occupations are hierarchically divided. The occupations which are very important for the well-being of the society are associated with high prestige and those occupations which do not need specialized training are given low status. Such a system is free from confusion, and motivates the people to work hard, so that they could take up occupations of high prestige.
- (b) Division according to Intelligence: All persons are not equal with regard to their intelligence. Those persons with higher level of intelligence can perform more complicated functions of the society. Hence they are provided with different opportunities and high prestige.
- (c) Training: Society makes elaborate arrangements for the training of younger generation. Those who spend more time on training and acquiring new skills are compensated with high returns. Even though such persons start working later yet the economic returns and social prestige associated with their work is higher than others.
- (d) Work Efficiency: Persons with appropriate knowledge and training occupy appropriate positions. Hence, their work efficiency is also higher. Under this system there is no place for parasites and those who shirk work. The fittest to survive is the rule which is followed.
- (e) Development: The competition to move higher in the social ladder has resulted into new inventions, new methods of work and greater efficiency. This system has led to progress and development of the country. The Western societies are highly developed; it is attributed to the fact that these societies adopted open system of stratification.
In this way we find that system of stratification helps in the progress of the society. There are some sociologists who are of the opinion that social stratification is also associated with dysfunctions e.g. giving rise to frustration, anxiety and mental tension. In short, we can say that social stratification has both positive and negative functions. But no society can survive unless it has some system of stratification.
Theories of Social Stratification:
A number of theoretical approaches to social stratification have been put -forwarded. Various theories of social stratification are discussed below.
a) Functionalist Theory:
Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore are some of the prominent American sociologists who have developed functional theory of social stratification.
Functionalists assure that there are certain basic needs or functional prerequisites which must be met for the survival of the society. They look to social stratification to see how far it meets these functional prerequisites.
They assure that the parts of society form an integrated whole and thus, examine the ways in which the social stratification system is integrated with other parts of the society. Functionalists maintain that certain degree of order and stability are essential for the operation of social system. They, therefore, want to consider how stratification systems help to maintain order and stability of society.
Functionalists are primarily concerned with the function of social stratification, with its contribution to the maintenance of society. It has been contended by them that social stratification inevitably occurs in any complex society, particularly in an industrial society.
Parsons argue that stratification system derive from common values. In Parsons’ words, ‘Stratification, in its valuational aspect, is the ranking of units in a social system, in accordance with common value system”. Thus, those who perform successfully in terms of society’s values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. They will be accorded high prestige. For example, if a society places a high value on bravery and generosity, as in the case of the Sioux Indians, those who exceed in terms of the qualities will receive a high rank in the stratification system. He also argues that since different societies have different value systems, the way of attaining a high position will vary from society to society.
According to functionalists, the relationship between social groups in- society is one of cooperation and interdependence. As no one group is self-sufficient it cannot meet the needs of its members. It must therefore, exchange goods and services with other groups. So the relationship between social groups is one of reciprocity. This relationship extends to the strata in a stratification system.
In societies with a highly specialised division of labour, some members will specialise in organisation and planning, others will follow their directives. Talcott Parsons argues that this inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and prestige. Thus, those with the power to organise and coordinate the activities of others will have higher social status.
Criticism:
M.M. Tumin, Walter Buckley, Michael Young and others have criticised this theory of stratification. Their arguments run as follows.
- Firstly, They point out that stratification may actually hinder the efficient working of a social system. Because it may prevent those with superior abilities from performing certain tasks which are preserve of a privileged class.
- Second, they cannot agree with the functionalist view that some tasks are more important to a society than others, for one cannot operate than other.
- Third, Tumin questions the view that social stratification functions to integrate social system. He argues that differential rewards can encourage hostility, and distrust among various segments of society.
- Fourth, the sociologists cast doubt on the implicit assumption that actual differentials of reward do reflect difference in the skills required for particular occupations. For, example, a surgeon earns twenty times more than a coal miner. Does this mean that the skills of the surgeon are twenty times greater or more valuable to society than those of the miner.
- Fifth, Tumin has rejected the view of Davis and Moore that the function of unequal rewards is to motivate talented individuals and allocate them to functionally most important positions. He argues that social stratification acts as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talents.
This is readily apparent in closed systems such as caste and racial stratification. For example, untouchables, even most talented, are prevented from becoming Brahmins. Thus, closed stratification system operate in exactly the opposite way to Davis and Moore’s theory.
2. Marxist / Conflict Theory
The conflict theory starts from the objections to the functionalism. They claim that stratification is based on control over productive resources such as land, labour and technology. Once the elites gain control over the resources, they get other people to do the tasks that benefits them most. This type of control varies between different kinds of economic systems. In ancient preindustrial states and chiefdoms the noble class controlled the land and the commoners had to pay tax and labour in return for the privilege of using it. In parts of feudal Europe, the serfs were tied to their estate and ordinarily had strong rights over the land they worked, but they still had to contribute a certain number of days of work or a certain amount of their harvest to their lord per year.
As per capitalist economic system, Karl Marx—the nineteenth century ‘father’ of conflict theory argued that the capitalist societies include only two fundamental classes—members of capitalist class or the ‘bourgeoisie’ and the working class or the ‘proletariat’. The capitalists buy the labour they need to operate their capital to sell goods and make profit; the workers do the jobs they need to support their families. According to Marx, the goods the workers produce must be worth more in the market than the workers themselves receive in wages or else there would be no profit for the capitalists. The difference between the amount the capitalists receive for the goods they sell and their costs (including the amount they pay their workers) is profit.
3. Ideologies theories
Resentment, rebellion and occasional attempts of revolution occur in all parts of the world. Many powerless and poor people do not simply accept their position in the social hierarchy. Inequality is a major source of social unrest. Argueably, global economic inequality and concerns about cultural imperialism are to some extend responsible for international terrorism as ethnic conflicts and religious ideologies are in existence. Use of coercion and oppression to maintain wealth and power potentially reduces the honour and esteem of one of the three rewards offered by stratification. Further stratification system that rely mostly on force seem to be short lived. It is the ideology that reinforces the stratification in a society. In many stratified societies ideologies are based on religion.
In this context, we can cite the example of ‘Divine Right of Kings’ from the feudal Europe. In many ancient civilizations such as the Aztec, the Inca, the Japanese and the Egyptian ruler himself was believed to be a divine or semi divine being. In traditional India, the beliefs about reincarnation and pollution were so intertwined with the caste system that they rendered its inequalities both explicable and legitimate. In ancient complex chiefdoms of Hawaii, there was a marked social distinction between the noble and the commoner class. The nobility was viewed as endowed with a super natural power called ‘mana’. Mana was partly hereditary, and within a single family the eldest child inherited most of the mana from his or her parents. The highest ranking noble, the paramount chief, was believed to be descended from one of the gods of the islands through a line of eldest sons. This descent gave him the right to rule because he had more mana than anyone in the chiefdom. Other nobles were relatives of the paramount chief and were also endowed with mana. Mana gave the chiefs the power to curse those who were disloyal or disobedient or violated some taboo, which further reinforced their authority. Hawaiians believed that the prosperity of chiefdom and everyone in it depended on the performance of certain religious rituals held in grand temples. Commoners did not have enough mana to enter a temple, only priests and nobles perform the rituals needed to ensure prosperity. Everyone in the chiefdom thus relied on the social elite for their wellbeing (Peoples and Bailey 2011)
c) Anthropological theories
Most if not all anthropologists dispute the “universal” nature of social stratification, holding that it is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy (2006) 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. Nonstratified 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. 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).
Another example is the Indigenous Australians of Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island, off the coast of Arnhem Land, who have arranged their entire society—spiritually and economically—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.