Stratification
"Social stratification" is the most general term
used to describe the hierarchical division of a society whereby its members are
ranked according to their relative power, wealth, or prestige. Although it is
often used as a generic term applicable to all ranked societies, including caste
societies and those based on social class, "stratification" is more
generally used when the theoretical focus is upon individual action, so that
the overall patterns of social stratification are regarded as the outcome of
individuals' efforts to achieve social mobility. Stratification theorists can
thus compare societies according to the nature and extent of vertical mobility
within them, and can arrange them along a scale from the supposed rigidities of
caste to the hypothetically completely open societies of the modern world a scale that inevitably turns into an
evolutionary sequence leading to modernization. (Dumont 1970).
The concept of stratification is particularly appropriate to
structural-functional analyses of complex societies, where the theory assumes a
mode of social integration around the common values of achievement and
individual responsibility for social STATUS. The resulting hierarchy is then
assumed to represent the distribution of individual talents, responsibilities,
and appropriate rewards. This model of perfect individual social mobility then
becomes the benchmark against which other societies are measured, a procedure
adopted by sociologists employing sophisticated statistical techniques.
Approaches:
Strata may be nominal, constructed by sociologists, or real,
reflecting actual social distances. Real strata are divided by social distances
and systematic exclusions. Sociologists also distinguish closed stratification systems,
such as the Hindu caste system, from open ones, such as ‘modern’
occupational/class systems. In the former, social mobility is discouraged and
restricted by traditional conventions. In the latter, mobility is typical,
intense, and socially approved. In the functional theory of stratification, sociologists
portray stratification as socially beneficial and consensual. Conflict
theorists perceive stratification as contested and accompanied by domination.
Marxists see it as an outcome of economic exploitation engendered in class
relations, while Weberians treat it as an outcome of multifaceted domination in
combination with socioeconomic class, sociocultural status and sociopolitical
power/authority hierarchies.
While there is a wide consensus that occupational and
employment statuses form the backbone of modern stratification, it is accepted
that social strata may also develop around other assets and locations:
•
political influence, authority (as in Ralph Dahrendorf
);
•
ethno-racial status, prestige (as in W. Lloyd Warner
or Edward A. Shils);
•
education, skills, human capital, expert
knowledge (as in Gary Becker and Daniel Bell);
•
social networks, ties, social capital (as in James
S. Coleman);
•
“cultural capital,” taste, lifestyle, gender (as
in Pierre Bourdieu);
•
rights, entitlements, privileges (as in Bryan S.
Turner).
Functionalist perspectives:
Basic assumption of functionalism is that society must
address certain basic needs or functional prerequisites to survive.
Talcott Parsons
Order, stability and cooperation in society are based on
value consensus - a general agreement by
members of society concerning what is good and worthwhile. Parson argued that
stratification systems derive from common values. If values exist, then it
follows that individuals will be evaluated and placed in some form of rank
order. In other words those who perform successfully in terms of society’s
values are ranked highly.
Kinsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore
For Davis and Moore stratification exists in every society. For
them one of the functional prerequisites is effective role allocation
and performance. Which simply means that
1.
all roles must be filled
2.
they must be filled by those best able to
perform them
3.
The necessary training for them must be
undertaken
4.
The roles must be performed conscientiously.
Therefore, society has some sort of mechanism to ensure such
effective role allocation. The mechanism is known as stratification.
Marxist perspective:
Marxist
perspective is a radical alternative to functionalist perspective. They regard social
stratification as divisive and not integrative as suggested by functionalists. Marxists
focus on social strata rather than social inequality in general.
From a Marxist perspective, systems of stratification
derived from the relationships of social groups to the means of production. A
class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means
of production.
There is a historical analysis of class relations and
progress of society in Marxian analysis. Class relations, i.e. relationship of
classes with means of production if gets changed, society or whole social
system undergoes changes through stages (as shown in the figure).
Weberian perspective:
Weber also saw social stratification as classes in terms of
economics. He argued that classes develop in market economies in which
individuals compete for economic gain. He defined a class as a group of
individuals who share a similar position in a market economy.
Perhaps one of the most valuable contributions made by Weber
is by bringing the dimensions of status situation (often known as
prestige) to show an alternative form of stratification in society. Occupations,
ethnic and religious groups, and most importantly lifestyles, as Weber
observes, are accord different degrees of prestige which is another dimension
of stratification.
Stratification in contemporary usage
Contemporary students of social stratification typically
combine class, occupational status, and authority dimensions into synthetic
gradations (stratification schemes and class maps). Anthony Giddens (The Class
Structure of the Advanced Societies, 1973) and Ralph Dahrendorf (The Modern
Social Conflict, 1988), for example, draw stratification maps that include
occupational classes, elites, and socially marginalized strata (underclasses). Similarly,
John Goldthorpe (Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, 1987)
synthesizes class and occupational schemes into an elevenclass map. Erik Olin
Wright (Class Counts, 1997), in turn, juxtaposes class analysis to a study of
race and gender stratification. His class/stratification schemes also
incorporate the dimensions of managerial control and skill/expertise. Finally,
Bell (The Coming of Post Industrial Society, 1973) and Gøsta Esping-Anderson
(Changing Classes, 1993) accommodate in their postindustrial class maps the
dimension of power/authority (elite or political directorate), economic
integration, and citizenship rights (outsiders and underclass). With advancing
globalization, many sociologists see the whole world as stratified, typically
along the economic/developmental and power dimensions.
Social Stratification - a brief introduction (bilingual, meant for my students)
No comments:
Post a Comment