Social Stratification

Important:
1. Every society stratifies its members; some societies have greater inequality than others,
but stratification is universal.
2. Gender is basis for stratification. On the basis of gender, people are either allowed or
denied access to the good things offered by their society.
Social stratification is a common characteristic of social structure

social structure: relatively enduring and organized patterns of overlapping norms,

values, statuses, and roles (Hansen, 1999)
social stratification:

social statuses which are organized and patterned in a hierarchy of importance and/or
value
layering of the nations, and of groups of people within a nation
a system in which people are divided into layers according to their relative power,
property and prestige
a way of ranking large groups of people into a hierarchy according to their relative
privileges
the division of society into levels, steps, or positions (Tischler, 1999, p. 226)
Common stratification systems in modern societies are based on:

class

economic, power, prestige, occupational

race and ethnicity

gender

Global Stratification and the Status of Females:

Important Points:
1. In every society of the world, gender is a basis for social stratification.

2. In no society is gender the sole basis for stratifying people, but gender cuts
across all systems of social stratification whether slavery, caste, or class. In all these
systems, on the basis of their gender, people are sorted into categories and given different
access to the good things available in their society.

3. These distinctions are always in favor of males. It is remarkable, for example,

that in every society of the world, mens earnings are higher than womens. Mens dominance
is even more evident when we consider female circumcision. And, there are more females
who are illiterates than males. (Henslin, James. Essentials of Sociology, 2004).

Important social stratification terms:

social inequality: the uneven and unequal distribution of privileges, material rewards,
opportunities, power, prestige, and influence among individual and groups; results from social
stratification

the positions and statuses available in a society are for the most part determined by social
structure

open society: broad latitude as to who fills social positions and how (i.e., achieved

status)

closed society: predetermined and fixed means for filling social positions (i.e., ascribed

status)

social mobility: the movement within or between status hierarchies

vertical mobility: moving up or down within a particular status hierarchy

horizontal mobility: moving between different status hierarchies
upward mobility: a movement within a status hierarchy that results in increased power,
prestige, authority, recognition, etc.

downward mobility: a movement within a status hierarchy that results in decreased

power, prestige, authority, recognition, etc.

intergenerational mobility: change that occurs across or between two or more

generations

intragenerational mobility: change that occurs to a specific individual within his or her
own lifetime
Stratification Systems
CASTE SYSTEMS
ESTATE SYSTEMS
CLASS SYSTEMS
caste systems: a closed and rigid form of social stratification where people are assigned a status
based on ascribed characteristics such as skin color or family status.
(e.g., Indias caste
system)
estate systems: a closed system of social stratification where people inherit their position based
on custom, law, and family influence. (e.g., Medieval system of clergy, nobility, peasant; Chinese
estate system)
class systems: systems of social stratification that allow for varying degrees of achieved status
based on occupational income, wealth, power, prestige, and authority
allows for social mobility (various degrees/limitations)
less formal recognition/enforcement of ascribed statuses
Caste and Estate systems determine what positions are available, how many are available,
and who fill them.

Class systems give the impression of being open, but the positions open and how many are
available are still determined by social structure and not individual choice.
Max Weber: Property, Power and Prestige and the Determinants of Class
Main assumption: Social Class is made up of three components: property, power and prestige.
Property:some people do not own property but they control means of production such as
managers of corporations
income: material compensation received for employment or through investment
wealth: accumulated material goods and resources which can be passed from one
generation to another

(many of the wealthiest people in our country list no income)

wealth produces social inequality

The accumulation of wealth results in a few people controlling scarce resources (including social
positions) needed or wanted by everyone, resulting in:
Power: the ability to make others do what you want them to do even if they do not like it;
the ability to unduly influence the outcome of events and other peoples lives irrespective of their
actions
authority: power that is inherent in a position as opposed to any specific individual
Prestige: respect and approval received from other group members. People tend to look up to the
wealthy, but those who have prestige, for instance Manny Pacquiao, are able to exchange their
prestige for property. Property can bring prestige, prestige can also bring property. Prestige can be
turned to power as in the case of Erap Estrada (an actor-prestige) who became president of the
country (power). (Although of course it could be argued that he lost both when he was
impeached.)
esteem: prestige given a person due to individual traits and accomplishments
status: prestige accorded a position (differs from the other sociological term status)
Karl Marx The Means of Production as the Determinant of Class
Main argument: social class depends on a single factor the means of production the tools,
factories, land, and investment capital used to produce wealth
There are just two kinds of people: bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production)
and the proletariat (those who work for the owners)
Marx also recognized the lumpenproletariat (marginal people such as beggars, vagrants,
criminals); farmers and peasants; self-employed professionals. But according to him,
these groups lack social consciousness (a shared identity based on their position in the
means of production). They did not perceive themselves as exploited workers whose
plight could be solved by collective action.

When the workers realize that the capitalists are the source of their oppression, a bloody
revolution will ensue. However, they are held back by what Marx termed as false consciousness
workers mistakenly thinking of themselves as capitalists.
OPEN CLASS SOCITIES
-

much more open because it is based primarily on money or material possessions

ones status in life can change depending on what one has achieved (or failed to achieve)
in life
no laws specify peoples occupations on the basis of birth or prohibit marriage between
classes
allows social mobility movement up or down the class ladder
The potential for improving ones life or for falling down the class ladder- is a
major force that drives people to go far in school and work hard. In the extreme,
the family background that a child inherits at birth may present such obstacles
that he or she has little chance of climbing very far- or it may provide such
privileges that it makes it almost impossible to fall down the class ladder.

CLOSED SOCITIES (Caste)

-

status determined by birth and is lifelong.

in sociological terms, the basis of a caste system is ascribed status
they practice endogamy marriage within their own group
developed elaborate rules about ritual pollution teaching that contact with inferior castes
contaminates the superior caste

Indias Religious Caste

-

base not on race but on religion

the four main castes are further divided into thousands of subcastes or jati with each jati
having an occupational specialty

 Untouchables (Pariahs) Dalits of India, pictured at the left

-lowest caste
-jobs no one else wanted
-considered unclean
-forbidden to use wells, streets, schools, temples
-forbidden to mix with other people
Followers and Workers (Sudras)
-performed simple jobs
-unskilled workers
-usually performed jobs that required physical activity

Producers (Vaishyas)
-provide goods and services
-must have tools and services to produces food, clothing, and shelter
-this group would include farmers, merchants, craftsmen, and engineers

Administrators and Leaders (Kshatriyas)

-organize activities and guide others
-need authority to lead others
-usually has politicians, managers, and military men

 Brahmins
-are very wise and understand the world
-interpret world for others
-preferred to be left alone to meditate and
create art
-includes artist, philosophers, clergymen, and
teachers

THE UNIVERSALITY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Theories of Stratification
Functional: vast differences in income, power, and prestige are necessary to assure only the best
qualified and talented people can successfully obtain the most important jobs
The Functionalist Perspective
According to this perspective (by Kingsley Davis & Wilbert Moore) concludes that:
Society must make certain positions are filled.
Some positions are more important than others.
The more qualified positions must be filled by the more qualified people.
To motivate the more qualified people to fill these positions, society musty offer them
greater rewards.
Supporting statements:
The higher the position one occupies, the greater the responsibility.
The greater the responsibility, the greater the accountability.
In order to motivate people into taking higher-pressure positions, society
offers greater rewards for such.
Melvin Tumins Critique or Argument against Moore & Davis Theory
Who or what determines what positions are important?
Society would be a meritocracy if stratification worked according to how Moore & Davis
explained it. Meaning, all positions would be awarded on the basis of merit. If so, ability
should predict who goes to college. But we all know that the best predictor for
educational attainment is income: the higher the income of the family, the more likely
they are to be able to send their children to school.

 If social stratification were functional, it would be beneficial to everyone. But it is

dysfunctional for many: for instance, children who might haven had a chance to make a
valuable contribution to society but are not able to do so because they didnt have the
opportunity to ascend the ladder of education, and therefore are forced to take menial
jobs jobs considered as unimportant by society in general.
Conflict: social inequality is the norm and social mobility is an ideological myth. Any society
that allows an excess accumulation of wealth will also have vast social inequality because those
who possess the wealth control the resources and use their power to keep and expand their wealth
The Conflict Perspective
Moscas Arguments:

No society can exist unless it is organized. Someone has to coordinate peoples actions
and ensure that societys work is done.

Leadership (in political organization) means inequalities of power. Some people lead,
others follow.

Human nature is self-centered people in power will use their position to seize greater
rewards for themselves.

Marxs Arguments:

The people in power are not there because they are superior that is simply an ideology
the elite use to justify their being at the top.

Modern Marxist View: Mills (1956), Collins (1999); Schellenberg (1996) stress that groups
within the same class compete for scarce resources. The conflict is not simply between union
and multinationals, but rather between men and women, young and old and racial and ethnic
groups.
Philippine Stratification System

Does the Philippines have social classes?

How are social classes defined in the Philippines?

Most people define class in terms of occupation and occupational prestige

Upper class people people tend to define class in terms of wealth and especially status
as it applies to the concept of prestige (e.g., people listed in social register)

Because of the difference between wealth and income, income alone is a very poor
indicator of social class

Effects of Stratification

Lower class people suffer from more frequent and more chronic illnesses.
Lower class people have higher infant mortality and poor to non-existent pre-natal care.
Lower class people have shorter life expectancies.
Lower class people have larger families and (by definition) experience more chronic
unemployment, underemployment, and poverty.

Lower class people are more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system.