SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Relevant for Sociology Paper-I : Social Stratification & Mobility

Individuals and societies differ everywhere. Differentiation is the central feature of human society. No two individuals are similar. Diversity and inequality are inherent in society. Hence human society is stratified every where. All societies arrange their members with respect to superiority, interiorits and equality the placement of individuals in strata or layers is called stratification. People on the top of the stratum have more power, prestige and privileges in comparison with those who are placed lower therein.

TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

The division of society into classes forming a hierarchy of prestige and power is a universal feature of social system. Sociologists have distinguished four main types of social stratification, namely, slavery, estates, caste and social class and status.

SLAVERY SYSTEM

In the earliest stages of civilization classes did not exist as the savage was not in a position to place his superiority over the others because then the life was very tough and they had a hand to mouth existence. They maintained a distinction between its own members and outsiders. The two sexes enjoyed almost equal rights according to Hobhouse. In other words, equality of ranks prevailed among the ancient tribes. Groups were hardly distinguishable. The distinction of rich and poor did not exist as property was too limited to create differences of wealth.

But as the savage tribe experienced growth and development and their culture grew especially in military might, the first result was that the conquered enemies were eaten, tortured and finally sent to death. Later on when attitudes softened little, captives were not killed or eaten, rather they were enslaved. This generosity was initially reserved for women and children and then afterwards it was extended to male prisoners. A class of slaves was thus formed who were within the jurisdiction of the victor tribe. This class was devoid of rights. A slave was a pure chattel. He could be sold, pawned, exchanged or put to death.

Slavery is an extreme form of inequality wherein some individuals are literally owned by others as property. As a formal institution slavery has gradually been eradicated and today slavery has completely disappeared from the world. Slavery existed at different places and at difference times. We have two major examples of slavery system; firstly, the societies of ancient world especially Greece and Rome and secondly, the Southern States of the U.S.A. in the 18th and 19th centuries. H.J. Nieboer has given an excellent description of slaves in this system. Firstly, the slave had an out and out inhuman existence in this system. Every slave has his master to whom he is subjected. The master has unlimited power over his slaves. Slaves are the property of their respective masters. The second feature is that the slaves are in a lower condition as compared with the freemen. The slave has no political rights. He does not choose his Government and does not attend the public meetings. A slave is socially despised. Thirdly, slaves are subjected to compulsory labour. The slave is compelled to work.

Slavery has always economic basis. Nieboer holds that slavery is an industrial system. The emergence of slavery system is synchronised with the rise of aristocracy which thrived upon slave labour. It is generally held that the slavery system declined due to the inefficiency of slave labour. There is another reason of the decline of slavery in the ancient world that we find in the Greece and Rome. It is with the development of debt slavery. A distinction is made between the foreign slaves and the slaves originating from within the group. The formation of “debtor-slaves” has some kind of softening influence upon the institution of slavery itself. The captive slave remained an enemy and therefore he is without any right in comparison with the ‘debtor-slaves’ as the debtor was originally a member of the community who had a privilege of less rigorous power of their master over them. In the ancient world the system of slavery was gradually modified by progressive limitation of master’s right of punishment, the securing of personal rights to the slaves such as marriage, acquisition and inheritance of property, and the provision for manumission encouraged by Christian Church in Roman Empire. These reformative steps finally led towards the eradication of slavery system.

ESTATE SYSTEM

“Estates” is a type of stratification that existed in Europe during the Middle Ages. This system has a long history. They were part of many traditional civilization. Its emergence took place in the ancient Roman Empire and it existed in Europe till very recently. This system consisted of three main divisions, namely, the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. In England and France these three visions were found. In some part of Europe such as Sweden there were four estate divisions, namely, Nobles, clergy, citizens and peasantry.

These estates were similar to social classes in two respects. Firstly each estate had a distinctive life-style. Secondly, these estates were hierarchically arranged with clergy at the top and the commoners at the bottom and the nobles occupied the intermediary position. However, it is important to note the clergy was called the First Estate only with respect to the idea that the Church is supreme and the State is to it. Hence there were three classes with the nobility at the top.

According to T.B. Bottomore feudal estates of medieval Europe had three characteristics:

(1) Firstly, the estates were legally defined. Each estate had a status of its own defined in terms of rights and duties, privileges and obligations. As it has been said that in order to know a person’s real position, it was first of all necessary to know the law by which lived. In comparison with the first two estates the third estate comprising of commoners had many legal disabilities. For example, the serfs had no right to appeal to the King for justice, they had no right to hold property and they had liabilities of paying fines even for the marriage of daughter and the death of a tenant. They also suffered various penalties for minor offences.

(2) The estates represented a broad division of labour with in definite functions. According to the law of the day, the nobility or aristocracy were to fight and defend all; the clergy were to pray and the commoners were to provide food for all.

(3) Thirdly, the feudal estates were political groups. they had political power. In this sense the commoners did not form an estate till 12th century. The decline of feudalism after the 12th century is associated with the rise of a third estate, i.e., the commoners. This third estate existed as a distinctive group within the feudal system for a long time before they overthrew it. The three estates functioned like three political groups. The clergy stood by the nobility so far as the participation in Government is concerned. The political position in France was more rigid and these three estates existed there till 1789 when the French Revolution started. In the French Parliament these estates used to sit separately and not together. The French Revolution abolished the old social order and democracy was established therein.

CASTE SYSTEM

Caste is associated with the cultures of the Indian subcontinent and the Hindu belief in rebirth. It is held that the individuals who fail to abide by the rituals and duties of their caste will be reborn in an interior caste in their next birth. Caste system determines the types of contact that can take place between members of different ranks.

The Indian caste system is unique among systems of social stratification. It has unique features. Caste is related with economic differentiation which is reflected by the effective caste groups (or jatis) or the four varnas of Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishyas and Sudras. According to ‘Senart’ the varnas originally resembled feudal estates in some respects. The varnas were like estates both in the character as well as in the hierarchical ordering of the groups (Priests, Warriors/nobles, traders, serfs). They were also not totally closed groups. Individuals were permitted to move from one varna to another. Intermarriage between varnas was possible.

The jatis developed later and grew in numbers as a result of extension in division of labour and incorporation of tribes and the operations of religious innovations. Jatis are the basic units of the traditional caste system. they are endogamus groups. They have distinctive life-styles. They exercise customary and juridical sanctions. They are mostly occupational groups. In the traditional village economy the caste system regulates the exchange of goods and services.

Outsides India the caste system has been established in only few cases such as in Hindu settlements in Ceylon. It has found expressions among some non-Hindu groups in India too.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STATUS

A social class system is radically different from other systems of stratification. Social classes are de facto groups. they are relatively open and closed. their basis is economic but classes are more than economic groups. Classes feature the industrial societies which developed since 17th century.

Class system differs in many respects from slavery, estates and castes. We can define a class as a large scale grouping of people who share common economic resources and this typically influences their life-styles. The major bases of class differences are wealth and occupation. Classes differ from earlier versions of stratification in many ways

(1) Classes are not established by legal or religious provisions. Membership to classes is not hereditary. In comparison with other types of stratification class systems are more fluid/open and the boundary between classes are never clearly demarcated. There are no formal restrictions on inter-marriage between people belonging to different classes.

(2) Contrary to the other types of stratification an individual’s class is achieved and not ascribed one. Here social mobility is much more common in comparison with other systems. In the caste system individual mobility from one caste to another is impossible.

(3) Different classes of individuals differ from one another with respect to their possession of material resources. Here economic inequality predominates. In other types of stratification system, non-economic fact as religion in the case of Indian caste system, are generally more important.

(4) In other types of stratification system inequalities find expressions in personal relationships of duty and obligation between slave and master; serf and lord or lower and higher caste individuals. By contrast class system operates mainly through large scale connections of an impersonal type. For example, one major basis of class differences is found in inequalities of payment and working conditions. These common circumstances affect the people in specific occupational categories as a result of economic situations prevailing in the economy as a whole.

THEORIES OF STRATIFICATION

Introduction

The most prominent theories of stratification are provided by conflict and functional theorists. Karl Marx and Max Weber represent the first category while functionalist theory is represented by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore. Marx placed primary emphasis on class. He saw a fundamental split between the owners of capital and the workers who do not own capital. Max Weber accepted a similar view but distinguished two other aspects of stratification, namely, status and party. “Status” refers to the esteem or ‘social honour’ given to individuals or groups whereas “party” refers to the active mobilisation of groups to secure definite ends.

The functional theory of stratification begins from the general presupposition of functionalism. It is assumed that there are certain basic needs or functional pre-requisites which are sine qua non for the society to survive. They are primarily concerned with the function of social stratification and its contribution to the maintenance of society.

MARX’S THEORY

The main outline of Marx’s view are fairly clear. But he failed to provide a systematic analysis of class. For Marx a class is a group of people who stand in a common relationship to the means of production. Prior to the rise of modern industry, the means of production were land and implements of farming. Thus in pre industrial societies, there were two main classes; first comprised of those who owned land and the second comprised of those who actively engaged in producing from the land. The former was called aristocracy and the latter peasantry. In modern industrial societies the two main classes are the capitalist and the proletariat. The means of production are factory, machinery and the capital.

According to Marx, the relationship between the classes is based on exploitation. In the feudal societies exploitation found expressions in the direct transfer of produce from the peasantry to the aristocracy. The form of exploitation was quite visible. In modern capitalist societies the sources of exploitation are less obvious. According to Marx the workers produce more than is actually required by the employers to repay the cost of hiring them in course of the working day. This surplus value is the source of profit for the capitalists which they keep with them.

The capitalist system creates tremendous inequality. In feudal societies the peasantry were relatively poor. In Industrial Societies wealth is produced on a large scale but the workers have no access to the wealth their labour creates. The process of exploitation is such that the rich becomes richer and the poor become poorer. Marx named this process as “pauperisation”. Under this process the working class grows increasingly impoverished in relation to the capitalist class.

MAX WEBER’S THEORY

In his analysis of stratification system, Weber adopted Marxian analysis. But he modified and elaborated it. Weber regarded society being characterised by conflicts over power and resources. As regards Marx, he found bipolar class relation and economic issues behind all social conflicts and in contrast Max Weber developed a multi-dimensional view of society. According to Weber social stratification is not simply a matter of class but it, is shaped by two further factors namely, status and party. These three elements of stratification overlap one another and produce an erroneous number of positions within the society rather than the rigid bipolar classification of Marx into haves and have nots. According to Weber class divisions originate not only from control or lack of control of means of production, but also from economic differences which have nothing directly to do with property. Such resources include skill and credentials or qualifications which affect the types of jobs people are able to get. Weber believed that an individual’s “market-position” strongly influences his or her overall “Life Chances”. Those in managerial category earn more and have favourable working conditions than people in blue-collar jobs. Their qualifications make them more marketable than others not having such qualifications. At lower levels, skilled craftsmen get more wages than the semi or unskilled craftsmen.

In Weber’s theory, status refers to differences between social groups in forms of the social honour or prestige they receive from others. In traditional societies status was generally determined on the basis of first hand knowledge of a person gained through multiple interaction under different situations over a longer period of time. As societies grew more complex, it became impossible to accord status in this way, Weber opined that instead, status is now expressed through people’s life-styles. Symbols of status such as housing, dressing styles, manners of speech and occupation help to shape an individual’s social standing in the eyes of others. People sharing the same status form a community in which a sense of shared identity exists.

In modern societies, according to Weber, party formation is an important aspect of “power” which can influence stratification independently of class and status. Party defines a group of people who work together because they have common backgrounds, aims or interests. Generally a party works in an organised way towards a specific goal which is in the interest of the party membership.

Weber’s writings on stratification are important because they show that other dimensions of stratification, other than class, strongly influence people’s life. While Marx tried to reduce social stratification to class division alone, Weber drew attention to the complex interplay of class, status and party as separate aspects of social stratification.

FUNCTIONALIST THEORY OF STRATIFICATION

The functionalist theory of social stratification begins from the general presupposition of functionalism. Functionalists maintain that some degree of order and stability are essential for the maintenance of society. They are primarily concerned with the function of stratification towards maintenance of society.

The functionalist theory of social stratification begins from the general presupposition of functionalism. Functionalists maintain that some degree of order and stability are essential for the maintenance of society. They are primarily concerned with the function of stratification towards maintenance of society.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore find that stratification exists in all human society. All social systems share certain functional pre-requisites which must be met for the survival of the system. One such prerequisite is effective role allocation and performance. This means that all roles must be filled.

• roles must be filled by the best candidates.
• necessary training for them must be undertaken and
• roles should be performed conscientiously

Davis and Moore argue that all societies need some mechanism for ensuring effective role allocation and performance. This mechanism is known as social stratification.

If people and positions which make up the society did not differ in important respects, there would be no need for stratification. However, people differ in terms of their ability and talent. Positions differ in terms of their relative importance for the smooth maintenance of the society. Certain positions are functionally more important than others. They require special skills for their effective execution and there are limited number of individuals with necessary ability to acquire such skills. The major function of stratification is to match the most able person with the most important position. Stratification system performs this function by attaching high rewards to those positions. Such rewards motivates individuals for those positions and in competition only the most talented will be the victor. Such positions require long periods of training and it involves certain sacrifices on behalf of the individuals such as loss of income. The promise of high rewards is necessary to encourage people to undergo this training and to compensate them for the sacrifice involved. It is essential for the well-being of the society that those who hold the functionally most important positions perform their roles diligently and conscientiously. High rewards attached to such positions motivate individuals for such performance.

Thus Davis and Moore conclude that social stratification is a device by which society ensures that most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons.

Follow us :

🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias

🔎 www.triumphias.com

🔎https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS

https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology

Find More Blogs

Compare and contrast Karl Marx’s and Max weber’s	Karl Marx- Historical Materialism	Talcott Parsons : Social system	Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences
Position of Women In the Modern Indian Society	Sociology: Social system and pattern variables	Changing family structure in India	Modernity and social changes in Europe

#Sociologyforupsc #sociologyforupscinhindi #sociologyforupscgs1 #sociologyforupscprelims #sociologyforupscinenglish #sociologyforupscmainsinhindi #sociologyforupscoptionalinhindi #sociologyforupscmains #sociologyforupscplaylist #sociologyforupsclecture1 #sociologyforupsccse #sociologyforupscoptional #syllabusofsociologyforupscoptional #bestbookforsociologyforupsc #sociologyoptionalforupscanswerwriting #sociologyoptionalforupscanukumari #sociologyoptionalforupscabhijeet #sociologyoptionalforupscanalysis #sociologyoptionalforupscalllectures #sociologysyllabusforupscanalysis