STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL CLASS

Sociologists use the concept of ‘social stratification’ to describe the inequalities that exist between individuals and groups within societies. In other words, stratification is defined as structural inequalities between different groups of people. Socially stratified systems have 3 characteristics: 1. The rankings apply to social categories of people who share a common characteristic without necessarily interacting/identifying with one another. 2. People’s opportunities depend heavily on how their social category is ranked. 3. The ranks of different social categories tend to change very slowly over time.

4 basic systems of stratification can be distinguished:

1. Slavery – it is an extreme form of inequality where certain people are owned as property by others. Deprived of almost all rights by law – case on southern plantations in US. In other societies, their position was akin to servants – Greek city of Athens. Throughout history, slaves have fought back against their subjugation hence the systems of slave labour have been unstable. They eventually broke down partly because of the struggle and partly because people favour economic incentives more than acting under compulsion.

2. Caste – It is a social system in which one’s social position is given for a lifetime. Everyone’s social status is based on personal characteristics – race/ethnicity (skin colour, parental religion etc). Caste societies are a special type of class society in which class position is ascribed at birth. Intimate contact with members of other castes is strongly discouraged. Such purity of caste is maintained by rules of endogamy. In India, the modern capitalist economy brings together people of different castes together and it becomes difficult to maintain the rigid barriers required to sustain the caste system. The South African caste system, apartheid rigidly separated black Africans and Asians from whites who were 15% of the population. They owned virtually all the country’s wealth and had a monopoly on political power.

3. Estates—They were a part of European feudalism but also existed in many other traditional civilizations. In Europe, the highest estate was composed of the aristocracy. The clergy formed another estate (lower status but distinctive privileges). The commoners formed the third estate – serfs, peasants, merchants. Estates formed a local, rather than a national, system of stratification.

4. Class – It is a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly reflect the type of lifestyle they are able to lead. Eg. Ownership of wealth and occupation. Classes differ from earlier forms of stratification in four respects:

i. Class systems are fluid. The boundaries b/w classes are never clear cut.

ii. Class positions are in some part achieved. Social mobility i.e. movement upward and downward the class structure is common.

iii. Class is economically based. Depends on inequalities in the possession of material resources.

iv. Class systems are large scale and impersonal. Eg. Inequality of pay and working conditions.

Theories of class and stratification:

The theories developed by Marx and Weber form the basis of most sociological analyses of class and stratification.

Karl Marx’s theory of class conflict:

Although most of Marx’s work was concerned with stratification, yet he failed to provide a systematic analysis of the concept of class. For Marx, industrial capitalism, for all its progressive elements was founded in an exploitative system of class relations that led to the oppression of the majority of working people. He said that a social class is a group of people who stand in a common relationship to the means of production. The two main classes are: those who own the means of production i.e. the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and those who earn their living by selling labour to them, i.e. the working class (the proletariat). The relationship is an exploitative one. Marx reasoned that the workers produce more than is actually needed by employers to repay the cost of hiring them. The surplus becomes the source of profit, which they put to their own use. He used the term pauperization to describe the process by which the working class grows increasingly impoverished in relation to the capitalist class.

Criticism: Marx’s characterization of society into two main camps – owners and workers seemed too simple since there are divisions even within the working class. (skilled and unskilled workers, gender, ethnicity becoming factors leading to internal competition and conflicts). Marx also saw class consciousness arising from the working class. But people today identify less with their social class position. Without developing class consciousness there cannot be any concerted class action hence no communist revolution.

Max Weber: Class, Status and Party:

Like Marx, Weber regarded society as characterized by conflicts over power and resources. But, unlike Marx’s rigid bipolar model, Weber developed a more complex, multidimensional view of society. Social stratification is not just a matter of class but of status and party also. Status refers to the differences b/w social groups in the social honor or prestige they are accorded by others. Status came to be expressed through people’s styles of life. While Marx argued that status distinctions are the result of class divisions in society, Weber argued that status often varies independently of class divisions. Eg. Britain (aristocratic families enjoying social esteem even when all fortune has been lost). Party formation is also an important aspect of power and can influence stratification independently of class and status. Marx tried to explain both status

differences and party organization in terms of class. Weber argued that even though each is influenced by them, both can influence the economic circumstances of individuals, thereby affecting class. While Marx saw social class as the key social division, Weber examined the interplay b/w class, status and party as separate aspects of social stratification.

Erik Olin Wright’s theory of class:

Wright combined aspects of both Marx’s and Weber’s approaches. According to him, there are three dimensions of control over economic resources in modern capitalist production. 1. Control over investments or money capital; 2. Control over the physical means of production 3. Control over labour power.

Ones in the capitalist class have control over all the three whereas ones in the working class, have control over none. In between these two main classes, are the groups whose position is more ambiguous – managers and white collar workers. These people are in the contradictory class locations, because they are able to influence some aspects of productions, but are denied control over others. He terms it so since they are neither capitalists nor manual workers, yet they share certain common features with each. Wright argues that many middle class workers such as managers, supervisors enjoy relationships towards authority that are more privileged than those of the working class. Another factor which differentiates class locations within the middle classes is the possession of skills and expertise. If they possess some specific skill and expertise in demand, they will be able to exercise a specific form of power in the capitalist system.

Dipankar Gupta says that stratification takes two forms. One, on a ranked scale where inequality is the sole defining factor (income, rank etc) and another one where difference in social categories place people in horizontal blocs. He further contends that if the hierarchy is left to itself, it will emphasize stability but if the difference is appreciated, it will sow the seeds of discord within the hierarchical orders. It should be kept in mind that the analyst creates the categories employed in the study of social stratification. ‘Class’ would mean different in everyday language and to a student of social stratification – Its treatment would differ as per the scholar’s theoretical disposition – Marxist, Weberian or functionalist. Social stratification is not about categorizing people into diverse strata. Rather, it is about providing a basis to understand social mobility and social order. It tells us about the principles of social stasis and social dynamics. The relationship between natural differences and social stratification is a complicated one. There are some natural differences that have no sociological significance but there are also others which are laden with sociological value. Stratification does not depend solely on natural differences. Class, status, power are some of the other axes along which stratification occurs. Every sociologist should be sensitive on how these eminently social features tend to be naturalized at popular level.

The understanding of social stratification cannot be limited to ranked gradations because they only tells us about the order and very little about the social mobility and changes within and of that order. Hence, it becomes necessary to think in terms of differences. Wealth etc can be ranked since they are easily quantifiable but languages, religions cannot be. If done, one becomes aware of the dimensions of power and prejudice. There can be social mobility within a ranked order if it is allowed by the hierarchy in question. E.g. gradation in class in a capitalist society is an open system of stratification. But in feudal societies class boundaries were firm and mobility across them invited severe reprisals. This is where the distinction between open and closed system of stratification becomes relevant. In an open system of stratification, mobility is an accepted property of the system. In a closed system of stratification, mobility is strongly discouraged. In an open system, even though the hierarchy is fixed, individuals can go up or down. E.g. modern bureaucratic system – clerk to manager to executive director. But in a closed system, it is difficult. Only when one realizes that closed systems are premised on differences first and hierarchy later, one can understand why attempts at mobility are so ideological in their thrust. Yet, caste identities are still very strong there.

It is necessary to see the interaction between open and closed systems of stratification. Caste in India and the open class structure in America are examples of the two systems of stratification. The caste system is a prime example of a closed system but it is not as if no mobility had ever taken place in Indian history. E.g. It happened through wars, protests etc. In each case, existing social arrangements were threatened and de-legitimized by attempts at caste mobility. In an open class system of stratification, mobility is an accepted characteristic of the system. When mobility is an accepted feature of the hierarchy (open system), then it is individuals who move up or down within the system, but when it is not, then it is groups or categories that move in unison (closed system). It is often said that Hinduism allows for individual mobility provided one becomes a renouncer – someone to whom caste rules do not apply. But in practice, it is seen that renouncers have been deeply implicated in the politics of the caste system.

The reason why American has an open system of stratification and India a closed one is that in the former, there is an ideological acceptance of a certain degree of similarity whereas in the latter there is an enormous investment in keeping alive differences. Nevertheless, Gregory Mantsios in ‘Class in America’ says that most people in America hate to associate themselves with ‘class.’ He examines few of the myths prevailing in the American society, e.g. the US is a classless society, and the people comprise a middle class nation etc and contends that the reality is different. Class standings have a significant impact on chances for educational achievement and that all Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Whenever differences dominate, the system tends to become closed. When a hierarchy is imposed after giving value to a difference, then this hierarchy is very different from an open system. In an open system the continuous hierarchy accepts variations in the quantum of a similar attribute among a given population.

Caste and Race: Though they are manifestations of closed systems, they are not similar to each other. Race is based in phenotypical biological differences, whereas in the caste system the natural differences are said to exist in the nature of coded substances that cannot be detected by the senses. In a racial society, one’s attachment to a community increases with the level of generality. It doesn’t matter if one is French, German or English as long as one is White. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether one is Zambian or Mozambique- they are all considered Blacks. In caste system, the logic is reverse, different castes have different kinds of interactions between other castes which have particular effects. Because race differences were quite obvious, they did not require too many symbolic markers to signal the status and positions within the hierarchy. But since castes are first differentiated and then capriciously hierarchized on the basis on supposed natural substances that are not tangible to the senses, there is a greater stress on ritual and symbolic behavior.

In an open system, protests can take place when mobility is blocked within the system, due to downturn in business cycle, recession etc. In a closed system, protests come in the form of caste mobilizations.

Hierarchy and difference in Marx and Weber:

While Marx was an advocate of social change, Weber gave more weight to order and to the politics of responsibility. For Marx, a class society was characterized by irreconcilable differences between determinate classes locked into a constitutive contradiction. For him, there was no point in seeing these classes in a hierarchy. For, it is not as if one can gradually become more of a capitalist and less of a worker and vice versa. For Weber, in ‘Class, Status and Party’, it was the hierarchy that was the most significant in each of these orders of stratification. He also saw notions of status and power along lines of hierarchy.

The divergence b/w Marx and Weber can thus be encapsulated in terms of the manner in which each highlighted questions of hierarchy and difference. Since Weber was drawn closer to hierarchy, his study of class, status and party privileged order over change. Marx on the contrary was a champion of difference. This led him to emphasize change over social order and stability.

Stratification is about both hierarchy and difference. If hierarchy strains to establish stability, social differences constantly pose a threat to order. If we look at hierarchy without difference then it would impoverish our appreciation of closed and open systems of stratification and with it our ability to position the elements of dynamism in any social order.