Social division and stratification

Social stratification is a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy.

Five principles of stratification:
1. It is characteristic of society not a reflection of individual difference. Thy system creates and sustains it.
2. It persists over generations, inequality stays from generation to generation, thought some individuals do experience social mobility- change in one’s position in a social hierarchy.
3. It is universal but variable from society to society
4. It involves not only inequality but benefits also. It defines ideology and hegemony
5. It creates shared identities within certain social category; Marx’s class consciousness came to place.
Karl Marx who argued that private ownership of productive property was the basis of social classes, a classless society will eliminate all the class antagonism and class conflicts.

Why did societies persist without distributing their resources equally? One of key reason is that they are built on ideology. The role of ideology is stratification’s staying power.

The ideology is cultural beliefs that serve to legitimate key interests and hence justify social stratification, e.g., the rich are clever while the poor are lazy. This is one of ideologies that bolster the dominance of wealthy elites and suggest that the poor deserve their plight.

Karl Marx argued that in capitalism society wealth and power eventually be channeled to the hands of a few. The right to own property as a bedrock principle is the engine for all inequality. The law of inheritance, which is tied to the kinship, provides the funnel money and privileges from one generation to another. He concluded that the ideas as well as resources are controlled by society elite which help to explain why established hierarchies are so difficult to change.

Both Marx and Plato recognized that ideology is evolving from a cultural pattern over a long period of time. People may question the rightness of their own positions, but they unlikely to challenge the system itself.

Theoretic Framework to explain the existence of stratification:

1. Stratification as functional theory

Social stratification plays a vital role in the operation of all societies. Davis and Moore explained that, as society becomes more and more complex, the role and division of labour become more sophisticated too. The greater the functional importance of a position, the more rewards a society will attach to it. This strategy pays off. Since rewarding important work with income, prestige, power and leisure encourage people to do these things. In effect, by distributing resources unequally, a society motives each person to aspire to the most significant work possible, and to work better and harder and longer.
The overall effect of a social system of unequal rewards which is what social stratification amounts to is a more productive society.

Critiques on this theory:

David and Moore could not explain why these systems can be so different, how to attach the reward to position fairly, can we even measure functional importance? E.g. surgeons vs. nurse; movie or pop stars?

Furthermore, this theory exaggerates social stratification’s role in developing personal talent
1) Our society does reward individual achievement, but we also allow families to transfer wealth and power from generation to generation.
2) For women, ethnic groups the disable and other with limited opportunities, stratification still raise barriers to personal accomplishment, social stratification functions to develop some people’s ability to the fullest, while barring others from even reaching their potential
3) By contending that social stratification benefits all society, the David and Moore’s thesis ignores how social inequality promotes conflicts, sometimes, even outright revolution.

2. Stratification as conflicts (Marxist)

Conflicts analysis argues that, rather than benefit society as whole, social stratification provides major advantages to some people at the expense of others.

Marx identified two major social classes corresponding to the two basic relationships to the means of production. Individuals either 1) own productive property or 2) labour for other. In medieval Europe, the nobility and the church owned the productive land, peasant toiled as farmers. In industrial class system, the capitalist (or bourgeoisie) own and operate factories which utilize the labour of workers (the proletariat).

Marx noted great difference in wealth and power arising from the industrial-capitalist productive system which he contended, made class conflicts inevitable. In time oppression and misery would drive the working class to organize and ultimately, to overthrow capitalism. The class consciousness would emerge in the process of oppression and exploitation.

3. Max Weber

He agreed that social stratification sparks social conflicts, but different form Marx, he viewed that Marx’s two polarized class structure to explain social stratification was too simply. Instead, he was of the view that social stratification is complex interplay of three distinct dimensions: class, statue and power.

Class is economic inequality
Statue measures social prestige.
Power is dimension of social hierarchy.
The soci-economic status hierarchy (SES) refers to a composite ranking based on various dimensions of social inequality. Marx believes that economic position decides one’s social prestige and power, Weber, on the other hand, thinks, economic position can only be one of factors contributes one’s social status and position. He recognizes that stratification in industrial societies has characteristically low statue consistency. An individual might have high standing on one dimension of inequality but a low position on another.

Marx views inequality in terms of two clearly defined classes, Weber sees more factors influencing stratification in industrial society. His key contribution on this area is that have identified the multi-dimensional social ranking.

Besides above, Weber also has historical observation that social inequality presented different patterns in the evolution of human society.

Agricultural society emphasizes status on social prestige in the form of honor conforming to cultural norms corresponding to their rank;
Industrial capitalist society emphasizes the economic material difference in the population. That is economic dimension of class.
Bureaucratic state, the expansion of government, with the proliferation of other large scale organization, brings power to the fore in the stratification system. Power is the centre of organization and the elites members of such societies are most highly ranked officials rather than the rich.

These historical observations underline the final disagreement between Marx and Weber. Marx believes that social stratification can be eliminated by abolishing private ownership; Weber doubted that overthrowing capitalism would significantly diminish social stratification in modern societies. Weber reasoned, the significance of power based on organizational position could only increase, and a socialist revolution might well increase social inequality by expanding government and concentrating power in the hands of political elite.