What Factor is Essential to the Continued Survival of a System of Stratification

Read this article on Social Stratification:It's meaning, nature characteristics and theories of social stratification!

Men have long dreamed of an egalitarian society, a society in which all members are equal. No one will be placed in a position that will be higher or lower, superior or inferior in relation to other. No one will suffer the indignity of being related to a position which commands little respect. Wealth will be distributed equally among the population.

Image Courtesy : artsonline.monash.edu.au/sociology/files/2013/06/Sociology-Function-DSC_6425.jpg

The rich and poor, have and have-not's will be a thing of the past. In an egalitarian society, the phrase' power to the people' will become reality. No longer will some have power over others. Exploitation and oppression will be the concepts of the history which have no place in the description of contemporary social reality.

Clearly the egalitarian society remains a dream. In no society people are absolutely equal in all respects. All human societies from the simple to the most complex have some form of social inequality. In particular, power and prestige are unequally distributed between individuals and groups.

In many societies there are also marked differences in the distribution of wealth. Wealth may include land, livestock, buildings, money and many other form of property owned by individuals or social groups. Societies are marked by inequalities. Societies may differ in the degree of inequalities and nature of stratification.

Social Inequality and Social Stratification :

Inequality is found in all societies irrespective of time or place. Personal characteristics such as beauty, skill, physical strength and personality may all play a role in the perpetuation of inequality. However, there are also patterns of inequality associated with the social positions people occupy.

We can say that there are two types of inequality:

1. Natural and

2. Man Made

So far as the natural inequality is concerned with reference to age, sex, height, weight etc. the man made inequality may be horizontal or vertical e.g. different occupational groups perform different activities but when these groups become social groups in the sense that they are placed hierarchically and they have interaction within the group and at the inter-strata level, then such type of inequality is called social inequality.

The term social inequality refers to the socially created inequalities. Stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of the power, prestige and wealth their members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interest and common identity.

They will share a similar life-style which will distinguish them from the members of other social strata. Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four Varnas and fifth group, the out caste or untouchables. These strata are arranged in a hierarchy with the Brahmins at the top and untouchables at the bottom.

Such inequality has been perceived by the earlier thinkers in different terms like economic, political, religious etc.

Plato was one of the first to acknowledge that inequality is inevitable and to suggest ways in which the distribution of money, status and power could be altered for the betterment of both the individual and the society.

The society that Plato envisioned is explicitly meant to be class-structured, so that all citizens belong to one of three classes:

(i) (a) ruling (b) non-ruling

(ii) Auxiliaries or the workers.

He eliminated inheritance of class status and provided equality of opportunities regardless of birth.

Aristotle was clearly concerned with the consequences of inequality in birth, strength and wealth. He talked about three classes: (i) Very Rich, (ii) Very Poor, and (iii) Moderate.

St. Thomas and St. Augustine made distinction based on power, property and prestige.

Machiavelli asked who is fit to rule and what form of rule will produce order, happiness, prosperity and strength. He saw tension between elite and the masses. He preferred democratic rule. About the selection for ruling positions he advocated inequality in situation is legitimate so long as there has been equality of opportunity to become unequal.

Thomas Hobbes saw all men equally interested in acquiring power and privileges, which leads to chaotic conditions, unless there is a set of rules by which they agree to abide. These rules constitute "Social Contract", under which people give the right to one man to rule, who has collective desire and will. The sovereign can be removed if he fails to come up to the maintenance of equality for safety of all men.

Weber emphasized the existence of three types of groups based on different forms of inequality and the fact that they may be independent of one another. Weber suggested three types of market situations (i) labour market, (ii) money market, and (iii) commodity market.

Weber termed the second from of inequality social honour or prestige and the third form of inequality for Weber was power.

As exemplified by caste, social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular group have common identity, like interests, and similar life-style. They enjoy or suffer from the unequal distribution of rewards in societies as members of different social groups.

Social stratification, however is only one form of social inequality. It is possible for social inequality to exist without social strata. It is stated that a hierarchy of social groups has been replaced by a hierarchy of individuals. Although many sociologists use the term inequality and social stratification interchangeably, social stratification is seen as a specific form of social inequality.

Social Stratification :

Social stratification is an inherent character of all societies. It is historical as we find it in all societies, ancient and modern; and it is universal as it exists in simple or complex societies. The social differentiation on the basis of high and low is the historical heritage of all societies.

These social strata and layers, divisions and subdivisions have over the time been accepted on the basis of sex and age, status and role, qualification and inefficiency, life chances and economic cum political ascription and monopolization, ritual and ceremony and on numerous other basis. It is of varied nature. It is no less based on the considerations of superiority and inferiority, authority and subordination, profession and vocation.

Social stratification has remained despite the revolutionary ideas and radicalism, equality and democracy, socialism and communism. Classless society is just an ideal. The stratification has something to do; it appears with the very mental makeup of man.

The origin of the social stratification cannot be explained in terms of history. The existence or nonexistent of the stratification in early society cannot be pin pointed. The differentiation between classes existed as early as the Indus Valley society. They, it appears, had the priestly and other classes.

Meaning and Nature :

By stratification we mean that arrangement of any social group or society by which positions are hierarchically divided. The positions are unequal with regard to power, property, evaluation and psychic gratification. We add social, because positions consist of socially defined statuses.

Stratification is a phenomenon present in all societies that have produced a surplus. Stratification is the process by which members of society rank themselves and one another in hierarchies with respect to the amount of desirable goods they possess.

The existence of stratification has led to the centuries old problem of social inequality. In societies that have closed stratification systems, such inequalities are institutionalised and rigid. An individual born into a particular economic and social stratum or caste, remains in this stratum until he dies. Most modern industrial societies have open or class stratification systems. In open stratification systems, social mobility is possible, although some members of the population do not have the opportunity to fulfill their potential.

The term stratification refers to a process by which individuals and groups are ranked in a more or less enduring hierarchy of status. It refers to the division of a population into strata, one on the top of another, on the basis of certain characteristics like inborn qualities, material possessions and performance.

According to Raymond W. Murray "Social stratification is a horizontal division of society into higher and lower social units. As Malvin M. Tumin says, Social stratification refers to arrangements of any social group or society into a hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation, and/or social gratification.

Lundberg writes, "A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are evaluated by them as being lower and higher". As Gisbert says, "Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of categories linked with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordination.

According to Bernard Barber, "Social stratification in its most general sense, is a sociological concept that refers to the fact that both individuals and groups of individuals are conceived of as constituting higher or lower differentiated strata or classes in terms of some specific or generalised characteristic or set of characteristics." Sociologists have been able to establish several strata or layers which form a hierarchy of prestige or power in a society.

The consequence of layering process in a society is the creation of structural forms – social classes. Where society is composed of social classes, the social structure looks like a pyramid. At the bottom of the structure lies the lowest social class and above it other social classes arranged in a hierarchy.

Thus, stratification involves two phenomena, (1) differentiation of individuals or groups where by some individuals or group come to rank higher than other and (2) the ranking of individuals according to some basis of valuation.

Viewed in this way it can be stated that every society is divided into more or less distinct groups. There is no society known which does not make some distinction between individuals by ranking them on some scale of value. There has been no society in which every individual has the same rank and the same privileges.

As Sorokin pointed out, "Unstratified society with | real equality of its members is a myth which has never been realised in the history of mankind". In simpler communities we may not find any class strata apart from the distinction between members of the groups and strangers, distinction based on age, sex kinship.

But in the primitive world chieftainship, individual prowess and clan or family property introduce an incipient stratification. However, modern stratification fundamentally differs from stratification in the primitive societies.

Among the primitive people class distinctions are rarely found. In the modern industrial age estates pass into social classes. Hereditary ranks are abolished but distinctions of status remain and there are great differences in economic power and social opportunities.

Every know society, past and present, thus differentiates its members in terms of roles they play in the group. These roles are determined by the formal positions or statuses in which a society places its members.

Society compares and ranks individuals and groups on the basis of some differences in values it attaches to different roles. When individuals and groups are ranked according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation, in a hierarchy of status levels based j upon inequality of social position, we have social stratification.

Characteristics of Stratification :

Melvin M. Tumin has mentioned the following characteristics of social stratification:

1. It is Social:

Stratification is social in the sense that it does not represent inequality which are biologically based. It is true that factors such as strength, intelligence, age, sex can often serve as the basis on which status are distinguished. But such differences by themselves are not sufficient to explain why some statuses receive more power, property and prestige than others.

Biological traits do not determine social superiority and inferiority until they are socially recognised. For example, manager of an industry attains a dominant position not by physical strength, nor by his age, but by having socially defined traits. His education, training skills, experience, personality, character etc. are found to be more important than his biological qualities.

2. It is Ancient:

The stratification system is very old. Stratification was present even in the small wandering bands. Age and sex wear the main criteria of stratification. Difference between the rich and poor, powerful and humble, freemen and slaves was there in almost all the ancient civilisation. Ever since the time of Plato and Kautilya social philosopher have been deeply concerned with economic, social, political inequalities.

3. It is Universal:

Social stratification is universal. Difference between rich and poor, the 'haves' or 'have notes' is evident everywhere. Even in the non-literate societies stratification is very much present.

4. It is in diverse Forms:

Social stratification has never been uniform in all societies. The ancient Roman society was stratified into two strata: the Patricians and the Plebians .The Aryan society was divided into four Varnas: the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Sudras, the ancient Greek society in to freemen and slaves, the ancient Chinese society into mandarins, merchants, Farmer and soldiers. Class and estate seem to be the general forms of stratification found in the modern world.

5. It is Consequential:

The stratification system has its own consequences. The most important, most desired and often the scarcest things in human life are distributed unequally because of stratification. The system leads to two kind of consequences: (i) Life chances and (ii) Life style.

Life chances refer to such things as infant mortality, longevity, physical and mental illness, marital conflict, separation and divorce. Life styles include the mode of housing, residential area, education, means of recreation, relation between parent and children, modes of conveyance and so on.

Elements of Social Stratification :

All stratification systems have some common elements. These elements have been identified as differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding. Here Tumin has been referred to discuss the elements of social stratification.

Status Differentiation:

Status differentiation is the process by which social positions are determined and distinguished from one another by way Of associating a distinctive role, a set of rights and responsibilities such as father and mother.

Status differentiation operates more effectively when:

(1) Tasks are clearly defined.

(2) Authority and responsibility are distinguished.

(3) Mechanism for recruiting and training exists.

(4) Adequate sanctions including rewards and punishment exist to motivate persons.

Responsibilities, resources and rights are assigned to status not to particular individuals. For only by doing so societies can establish general and uniform rules or norms that will apply to many and diverse individuals who are to occupy the same status e.g. all the different women who will play the role of a parent.

Differentiation is not independent process in itself. The most important criteria for understanding the process of differentiation is ranking.

Ranking:

Ranking is done on the basis of:

(i) Personal characteristics that people are thought to need if they are to learn and perform the roles effectively such as intelligence, aggressiveness and politeness.

(ii) The skills and abilities that are believed necessary for adequate role performance such, as surgical, numerical or linguistic skills.

(iii) General qualities of the task e.g. difficulty, cleanliness, danger and so forth.

Purpose of ranking is to identify the right person for the right position.

Ranking non-valuative i.e. jobs are rated as harder or easier, cleaner or dirtier, safer or more dangerous and people are judged slower, smarter or more skillful than others without implying that some are socially more important and others less because of these characteristic.

Ranking is a selective process in the sense that only some statuses are selected for comparative ranking and of all criteria of ranking only some are actually used in ranking process e.g. the status of Father-Mother is not ranked.

Evaluation:

Differentiation and ranking are further solidified by the evaluation process. Whereas the ranking procedure pivots about the question of more of or less of, the evaluation process centres in the question better and worse. Evaluation is both a personal and societal attribute.

That is, individuals assign a relative worth, a degree of preference and a priority of desirability to everything. To the extent that evaluation is a learned quality, a consensus tends to develop within a culture individuals tend to share a common set of values. This value consensus is the societal dimension crucial to evaluation stratification.

There are three dimensions of evaluation:

(i) Prestige:

Which refers to honour and it involves the respectful behaviour. Radcliffe Brown says that among hunting societies three groups usually are accorded special prestige: the elderly, those with supernatural powers, those who have special personal attributes such as hunting skill. In the more advanced society, prestige is the commodity that is in scarce supply and it is, therefore, more valued.

(ii) Preferability:

Those positions i.e. status roles which are preferred by majority of I the people are evaluated higher e.g. ". I would like to be a doctor."

(iii) Popularity:

Those status roles which are popular, about which people know to be very prestigious are evaluated higher e.g. nowadays there is fashion among students to go for Engineering job. It is the most popular occupation.

Rewarding:

Statuses which are differentiated, ranked and evaluated are allocated differential rewards in terms of good things in life.

Social units such as families, subcultures, social classes and occupations that are socially differentiated are differentially rewarded in various ways. Health care, education,' income and positions of prominence are a few of the advantages.

Rewards can be of two types:

(i) Abundant:

Which are spiritual or psychic rather than material and are secured in the process of role performing e.g. pleasure, love, and respect.

(ii) Scarce:

Social stratification becomes relevant in this area of desired and scarce rewards. In society where there is an unequal distribution of rewards, those who have power take hold these rewards.

In conclusion it can be said that differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding are the social process which bring about shape and maintain the system of stratification.

Basis or Forms of Stratification :

Social stratification may be based on a variety of forms or interpenetrating principles such as free and unfree, class, caste, estate, occupation, administrative hierarchy or income level.

1. Free and unfree:

The population of a society may be divided into freemen and slaves. In certain communities the slaves do not enjoy rights and privileges. The slave is practically at the disposal of his master. He is the property of his master. The slave can always be brought and sold, though his treatment and the degree of protection accorded him vary from place to place and from time to time. He comes from various sources: war, slave-capture, purchase, birth or seizure for debt.

In the middle ages in Europe serfs usually possessed some plot of land and they might cultivate the land for themselves. But they were bound to till the fields of their immediate land lord and pay additional dues under certain circumstances. In Europe society was divided into land lords and serfs. A serf is less unfree than a slave.

2. Class:

Class is a principal basis of social stratification found specially in the modern civilised countries. In societies where all men are free before the law, stratification may be based upon accepted and self estimation of superiority or inferiority.

Social classes, says Ginsberg, may be described as portions of the community, or collection of individuals, standing to each other in the relation of quality and marked of from other persons by accepted standards of superiority and inferiority. A social class as defined by Maclver and Page, "is any portion of a community forked off from the rest by social status".

A structure of social class involves (1) a hierarchy status groups, (2) the recognition of the superior – inferior positions and (3) some degree of permanency of the structure. Where a society is composed of social classes, the social structure looks like a truncated pyramid.

At the base of the structure lies the lowest social class arranged in a hierarchy of rank. Individuals composing a particular class stand to each other in the relation of equality and are marked off from other classes by accepted standards of superiority and inferiority. A class system involves inequality, inequality of status.

3. Caste:

Social stratification is also based on caste. In open society individuals can move from one class or status level to another, that is to say equality of opportunity exists. The class structure is 'closed' when such opportunity is virtually absent. The Indian caste system provides a classic example, A 'caste' system is one in which an individual's rank and its accompanying rights and obligations are ascribed on the basic of birth in to a particular group.

Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four Varnas or caste and a fifth group, the out caste, whose members were known as untouchables. Each class is subdivided in to sub castes, which in total number many thousands. The Brahmins or priests, members of the highest caste, personify purity, sanctity and holiness. They are the sources of learning, wisdom and truth.

At the other extreme, untouchables are defined as unclean and impure, a status which affects all other social relationships. They most be segregated from members of other castes and live on the outskirts of the villages, In general the hierarchy of prestige based on notions of ritual purity is mirrored by the hierarchy of power. The Brahmins were custodian of law and the legal system which they administered was based largely on their pronouncements. Inequalities of wealth were usually linked to those of prestige and power.

4. Estate and Status :

Estate system is synonymous with feudalism, which remained basis of social stratification in Europe from the fall of Roman Empire to the rise of the commercial classes generally and to the French Revolution (1989) particularly. In Russia, in one form or another it continued to exist down to the October Revolution (1917).

Under the system, the land was taken to be the gift of God to King, who in the absence of any local administrative systems made grants of it, called Estates or fiefs, to nobles, called lords temporal, for military service; they in turn made similar grants to the inferior class on oath of loyalty and military support.

The holder of the land was called vassal; the multitudes who cultivated were the serfs and the people still lower to the serfs were slaves. These grants with the privileges attached to them in the beginning, were personal in character. Latter with the weakening of the central authority, the estate and the privileges attached to it became hereditary. The church followed suit. Over the time there developed the three estates – the lords temporal, lord spiritual and the commons.

The multitudes were serfs. They were somewhat better than slaves who in law, were chattels. They had no civic rights. In Russia, for example, about nine-tenth of arable land consisting of large estates belonged to the Czar, the royal family and to about one lakhs of the noble families. It was cultivated by the millions, called serfs. The serfdom continued till 1861, when it was finally abolished.

The Estate system was the basis of social stratification in all the countries of Europe. It was based on inequality of all sorts; Economic – there were few landlords and the multitudes of serfs and slaves; social – estate determined the social status and role, and the landless worked just for their protection.

They were a mere service class; Political – the estate having been given for military service, made the holder the prop and pillar of the state, and allowed him full authority over men and goods within his estate.

The nobility and their important vassals enjoyed the privileges and the rest lived in misery. Mobility paid no taxes, neglected the feudal duties but secured all the dues for themselves. They had juristic immunities and political privileges; they made law their handmade and held men under bondage.

5. Occupation and Income :

Occupation is an aspect of economic systems which influences social class structure. Rogoff in her study of "Social Stratification in France and United States" stressed that "of all the criteria mentioned in determining class position, occupational position is the most consistently named among the various strata in both societies.

Talcott Parsons also confirmed this for United States by saying that "the main criteria of class status are to be found in the occupational achievements of men, for prestige is attached to occupation. In advanced societies occupations are related to social status. Attempts have been made by P.K Hatt and C.C. North to rank occupations in USA.

In this state of nationwide sample of adult was asked to rate ninety occupations in accordance with prestige associated with each occupation. The 'physician' had the highest prestige and shoe shiner, the lowest. In between them were other occupation like clerical and sale occupation etc.

Society is also stratified on the basis of income. Difference in income leads to very unequal standard of life. The distribution of income, both cash and real income among individuals or families, in all capitalist countries takes the form of a gradient, with a relatively small group at the top receiving huge amounts and at the other extreme, a somewhat larger but still a small number of persons in the "negative income" bracket.

6. Race and Ethnicity :

Over the time, and at some places even now, race and ethnicity was and is taken to be the basis of inequality and stratification. The Western people, wherever they went, claimed racial superiority and attributed their success to it. They took the 'natives' to be of inferior racial origin.

The race conflict in Africa, the U.S.A. and in some of the European countries remains a dominant factor in stratification and inequality. In South Africa, the whites constitute a status- group; membership of which cannot be acquired by Africans; no matter how wealthy or skilled they may be.

The Greeks and the Romans had also the racial notions; and the Turks in our country had no less. The Turko-Afghans considered Indian Mussalmans to be an inferior class and offices of responsibility and trust—were not generally conferred upon them. Balban (1266- 86), a Turk by origin, was full with the notion of racial superiority, and held that a Turk alone had the qualities to rule. The British in their heyday of imperialism had similar notions. They gave to all others in theirs colonies, and to us an unequal treatment.

7. Ruling Class :

The ruling class always holds itself superior to those over whom it rules. This explains the psychology behind the 'lord' and 'servant' relationship. Democracy did not demolish the distinctions. The political parties and pressure groups are the instruments in the hands of the ruling class to influence the community and to keep themselves in power.

In newly independent countries such as ours, political power rests with a political class of 'new men' of no great substance who by founding and dominating the party and the Government, become a new ruling elite. They have acquired such areas of influence, that a new entrant can hardly proceed on his own. He needs their support: the 'blessings' of the establishment the masses have hardly any say. They have to agree with what they are told is good for them.

8. Administrative Position:

Stratification is sometimes based on administrative position. The Civil service personnel command a status higher than the members of the provincial Service. Within the services too, members of higher rank command greater respect The stratification is more distinctly clear in police and military service where the uniform, badges and ribbons distinguish the officers. Sprott has indicated that "in the Civil Services, grades are distinguished by the shape of chair upon which the official sits and the size of the desk at which he writes".

Functions of Social Stratification:

For the proper functioning of society, it has to work out some mechanism by which people engaged in different occupations get different recognition. If each activity is associated with same type of economic returns and prestige, there will be no competition for different occupations.

Stratification is that system by which different positions are hierarchically divided. Such a system has given rise to different classes like Upper, Middle, Working and Lower or caste groups like Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The importance of stratification can be seen with regard to the functions it performs for the individual and society.

I. For the Individual :

No doubt system of stratification is applicable to the whole society yet it serves some functions for the individual also.

1. Competition:

Individuals based on their attributes compete with each other and only those individuals who have better attributes get greater recognition. This may be in the field of sports, education, occupation etc.

2. Recognition of Talent:

The persons with more training skills, experience and education are given better positions. The deserving individuals are not treated at par with deserving candidates. Such a system helps people to acquire better talents.

3. Motivation:

The system of stratification motivates the individuals to work hard so that they can improve upon their social status. It is more true in case of those societies in which statuses are achieved.

4. Job Satisfaction:

As the jobs are given to the individuals according to their skills and education, the workers get job satisfaction. In case, a person with higher qualification is not allowed to move higher in the social ladder, he feels dissatisfied with his job.

5. Mobility:

The system of achieved status also provides an opportunity for upward and downward mobility. Those persons who work hard and are intelligent move up in the social ladder. On the other hand, those who fail to come up to the expectations move downward. Hence, the possibility of change in the position keeps the people always alert and makes them work hard.

II. Functions for the Society :

The system of social stratification is also useful for the progress and the well-being of the society. This can be seen if we take into account two forms of stratification.

1. Ascriptive Form of Stratification:

Under the caste system, the status of the individual is fixed at birth and different castes are hierarchically arranged. However, even within the caste system those members who perform their caste roles effectively and efficiently occupy higher' status. On the other hand, those members who do not perform their role properly occupy lower status even when they belong to the same caste. This functional base has given rise to sub castes. In other words, one caste is further divided into different sub castes and these sub castes are hierarchically divided within a caste group.

Fixation of status of a caste group also facilitates better training of the members. As the members are made aware about the future roles, they start getting training from the childhood. Such a situation was more applicable in the traditional societies where knowledge was foil knowledge and it could be acquired through membership of a caste group.

In this way we find that under ascriptive form of stratification, society was being well-served and there was interdependence of the caste because of the specialization of their roles.

2. Achieved Form:

Under the achieved form of social stratification, the social statuses are assigned according to the worth of the individual. This system serves the following functions for the society:

(a) Occupational Hierarchy:

Depending upon the importance of a particular occupation, different occupations are hierarchically divided. The occupations which are very important for the well-being of the society are associated with high prestige and those occupations which do not need specialized training are given low status. Such a system is free from confusion, and motivates the people to work hard, so that they could take up occupations of high prestige.

(b) Division according to Intelligence:

All persons are not equal with regard to their intelligence. Those persons with higher level of intelligence can perform more complicated functions of the society. Hence they are provided with different opportunities and high prestige.

(c) Training:

Society makes elaborate arrangements for the training of younger generation. Those who spend more time on training and acquiring new skills are compensated with high returns. Even though such persons start working later yet the economic returns and social prestige associated with their work is higher than others.

(d) Work Efficiency:

Persons with appropriate knowledge and training occupy appropriate positions. Hence, their work efficiency is also higher. Under this system there is no place for parasites and those who shirk work. The fittest to survive is the rule which is followed.

(e) Development:

The competition to move higher in the social ladder has resulted into new inventions, new methods of work and greater efficiency. This system has led to progress and development of the country. The Western societies are highly developed; it is attributed to the fact that these societies adopted open system of stratification.

In this way we find that system of stratification helps in the progress of the society. There are some sociologists who are of the opinion that social stratification is also associated with dysfunctions e.g. giving rise to frustration, anxiety and mental tension. In short, we can say that social stratification has both positive and negative functions. But no society can survive unless it has some system of stratification.

Theories of Social Stratification :

A number of theoretical approaches to social stratification have been put -forwarded. Various theories of social stratification are discussed below.

Functionalist Theory :

Functionalists assure that there are certain basic needs or functional prerequisites which must be met for the survival of the society. They look to social stratification to see how far it meets these functional prerequisites.

They assure that the parts of society form an integrated whole and thus, examine the ways in which the social stratification system is integrated with other parts of the society. Functionalists maintain that certain degree of order and stability are essential for the operation of social system. They, therefore, want to consider how stratification systems help to maintain order and stability of society.

Functionalists are primarily concerned with the function of social stratification, with its contribution to the maintenance of society. Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore are some of the prominent American sociologists who have developed functional theory of social stratification.

It has been contended by them that social stratification inevitably occurs in any complex society, particularly in an industrial society and it serves some 'Vital functions' in such societies. Social stratification is indispensable to any complex society, they say. This view is known as functionalist theory of social stratification.

Parsons argue that stratification system derive from common values. In Parsons' words, 'Stratification, in its valuational aspect, is the ranking of units in a social system, in accordance with common value system". Thus, those who perform successfully in terms of society's values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards.

They will be accorded high prestige. For example, if a society places a high value on bravery and generosity, as in the case of the Sioux Indians, those who exceed in terms of the qualities will receive a high rank in the stratification system. He also argues that since different societies have different value systems, the way of attaining a high position will vary from society to society.

It follows from Parson's argument that there is a general belief that stratification system are just, right and proper, since they are basically an expression of shared values. Thus, the American business executive is seen to deserve his rewards because members of society place a high value on his skills and achievements.

It is not that there is no conflict between the highly rewarded and those who receive little reward. Parsons believes that this conflict is kept in check by the common value system which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.

According to functionalists, the relationship between social groups in- society is one of cooperation and interdependence. As no one group is self-sufficient it cannot meet the needs of its members. It must therefore, exchange goods and services with other groups. So the relationship between social groups is one of reciprocity. This relationship extends to the strata in a stratification system.

In societies with a highly specialised division of labour, some members will specialise in organisation and planning, others will follow their directives. Talcott Parsons argues that this inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and prestige. Thus, those with the power to organise and coordinate the activities of others will have higher social status.

As with prestige differentials, Parsons argues that inequalities of power are based on shared values. Power is legitimate authority in a sense that is generally accepted as just and proper by members of society as a whole. The power of American business executive is seen as legitimate authority because it is used to further productivity, a goal shared by all members of society.

Parsons sees social stratification as both inevitable and functional for society. Power and Prestige inequalities are essential for the coordination and integration of a specialised division of labour. Without social inequalities, Parsons find it difficult to see how members of society could effectively cooperate and work together.

The most famous functionalist theory of stratification was first presented by Davis and Moore in 1945. According to them stratification exists in every known human society. They argue that all social system share certain functional prerequisite which must be met for survival and effective operation of the system.

One such functional prerequisite is effective role allocation and performance. Davis and Moore argue that all societies need some mechanism for ensuring effective role allocation and performance. This mechanism is social stratification. They see stratification as a system which attaches unequal rewards and privileges to different positions in society.

People differ in terms of their innate ability and talent. Positions differ in terms of theirimportance for the survival and maintenance of the society. Certain positions are more 'functionally important' than others. There are some tasks which require training or skills and there are limited number of individuals with ability to acquire such skill.

Positions usually require long period of training which involves certain sacrifices such as loss of income. Therefore high reward is necessary to provide incentive to encourage people to undergo training for a position to compensate them for the sacrifice involved. It is necessary for those who hold most important positions to play their roles must efficiently.

The high rewards attached to these positions provide required motivation for such performances. These rewards – usually economic, prestige and leisure-are attached to or built in to the social position. Thus, Davis and Moore conclude that social stratification is a device by which societies insure that the most important positions are filled by qualified persons and roles performed adequately.

They say, there is the necessity to distribute prestige according to the importance to society of a social position. Prestige, reward involve the exercise of greater power. The possession of greater wealth, prestige and power marks off a section of society as a class.

In response to the question, which positions are functionally most important, they suggest that the importance of a position can be measured in two ways. Firstly by the degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being no other position that can perform the same function satisfactorily. It could be argued that a doctor is functionally more important than a nurse.

Because his position carries with it many of the skills necessary to perform role of a doctor. But not the vice versa. The second measure of importance is the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question. It may be argued that managers are more important than routine office staff since the staffs are dependent on direction and organisation from management.

To sum up, Davis and Moore regard social stratification as a functional necessity.

Criticism:

M.M. Tumin, Walter Buckley, Michael Young and others have criticised this theory of stratification. Their arguments run as follows.

They point out that stratification may actually hinder the efficient working of a social system. Because it may prevent those with superior abilities from performing certain tasks which are preserve of a privileged class.

Second, they cannot agree with the functionalist view that some tasks are more important to a society than others, for one cannot operate than other.

Third, Tumin questions the view that social stratification functions to integrate social system. He argues that differential rewards can encourage hostility, and distrust among various segments of society.

Fourth, the sociologists cast doubt on the implicit assumption that actual differentials of reward do reflect difference in the skills required for particular occupations. For, example, a surgeon earns twenty times more than a coal miner. Does this mean that the skills of the surgeon are twenty times greater or more valuable to society than those of the miner.

Fifth, Tumin has rejected the view of Davis and Moore that the function of unequal rewards is to motivate talented individuals and allocate them to functionally most important positions. He argues that social stratification acts as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talents.

This is readily apparent in closed systems such as caste and racial stratification. For example, untouchables, even most talented, are prevented from becoming Brahmins. Thus, closed stratification system operate in exactly the opposite way to Davis and Moore's theory.

These criticism are true but they cannot be regarded as complete refutation of the functionalist theory of stratification. Eva Rosenfeld has shown in her study that stratification is inevitable. Her study was on Israeli Kibbutizim system and many of Kibbutizim are found on the Marxist Principle of from everyone according to ability – to everyone according to need.

Despite various arrangements designed to create an egalitarian society, social inequality exists in the Kibbutzim. Eva Roserfeld has identified two distinct social strata which are recognised by members.

The upper stratum is made of 'leader – manager. The lower stratum consists of the rank and file', the agricultural labourers and machine operators. Authority and prestige are not equally distributed. Rosenfeld notes that lead managers are respected for their contribution to the communal enterprise. Rosenfeld's study lends some support to the functionalist claim that social stratification, at least in terms of power and prestige, is inevitable.

Marxist/Conflict Theory :

A different view of society is taken by the conflict theorists, who see stratification as the result of the differential distribution of power in which coercion, domination, exploitation are viewed as key processes. The assumptions of the conflict theorists basically are:

1. Every society is at every point subject to processes of change, social change is ubiquitous.

2. Every society displays at every point dissensions and conflict, social conflict is ubiquitous.

3. Every element in a society renders a contribution to its integration and change.

4. Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others.

Conflict theorists view stratification in terms of individuals and subgroups within a society. This theory argues that inequality exists in society because there is always a shortage of available valued goods and services and therefore there is always a struggle over who shall get what. Inequality results because desirable social positions are attained not by talent or ability, but by force, by birth, by dominance, by exploitation or by coercion.

Karl Marx never gave theory of stratification; he gave a theory of social class on the basis of which we derive stratification or inequality in society. In the view of Marx, the concept of class is fundamental.

Classes according to Marx, are large groups of people who differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of production, by their relation to the means of production, and by their role in the social organisation of labour, and consequently the methods by which they receive their share of social wealth and the amount of this wealth they possess.

Class, according to Marx, is a historical category. It is connected with a certain stage in the development of production, with certain stage in development of production with certain type of production relation. Classes arise for reasons of historical necessity connected with appearance of exploitative modes of production.

The fast exploitative mode of production was slavery, in which the principal classes were slaves and slave-owners. Slavery was followed by feudalism under which the landowners and the serfs constituted two principal classes. Feudalism was replaced by capitalism under which capitalists and the proletariat are two main contending classes.

Besides these classes of an exploitative society, Marx recognised that social differentiation produced many other groups with conflicting interests. He also recognised the existence of the middle classes (petty bourgeoisie).

These classes own the means of production but also contribute their labour power, like the proletariat. Every class-society becomes a theatre of conflict-conflict between classes of opposing interests. Men in different relations to the means of production naturally have opposed interests.

In capitalist society, the owners of capital have a vested interest in maximizing profit and seek to keep the profit for themselves which has been created by the workers. Thus, class conflict, according to Marx, takes place between capitalist and the proletariat under capitalism. The development of society is determined by the outcome of this class conflict. "The history of all hitherto existing society", wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, "is a history of class struggle."

Marx said that class conflict is resolved by revolutionary abolition of the old production relation and old classes and their replacement by new ones. He showed that in capitalist society the class struggle inevitably leads to the abolition of classes and the establishment of classless society, socialism'.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was produced by struggle between landed aristocracy and a rising capitalist class. The rising capitalist class overthrew the feudal aristocracy and will be similarly displaced by the working class. Marx's basic thought was that the proletariat which sets all the means of production in motion yet never owns them is the 'last class '.

The proletariat comes in to conflict with the bourgeoisie, and in the course of the struggle, becomes of its position as a "class-for-itself" in economic and political competition with the capitalist class. The outcome of their struggle, other things being equal, is the overthrow of the capitalist class and the capitalist relation of production.

The proletariat cannot emancipate itself as a class without abolishing the capitalist system of production, where it is the exploited and oppressed class. To liberate itself, therefore, the proletariat must abolish itself as a class, thus abolishing all classes and class rule as such.

The transition to socialism does not takes place automatically. It is the historic role of the working class to bring about this transition which is opposed by the capitalist class. The question of the form in which the revolutionary process was to occur by peaceful or violence means. The transfer of state power from the capitalist class is the basic question of the socialist revolution. It can only be effected through a sharp class struggle, the highest form of which is revolution.

Criticism:

Sorokin has criticised Marx's theory on three grounds. Fast he says, it is old. Marx himself referred to Augustine Theory as the "father of class struggle in French historical writings".

In his Letter to Weydemeyer he stated that the new that he did was to prove that "the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical process in the development of production" and the class struggle in capitalist society would lead to the establishment of a classes society.

This is the originality of Marx. Secondly Sorokin says, the acceptance of class struggle as the motive force of the development of society leads to the denial 'of cooperation of social classes which has been the basis of the progress of mankind. Thirdly, Marx's class theory is wrong because it does not recognise the importance of other antagonism such as the struggle of racial, national and religious groups.

Raymond Aron and Lipset have tried to argue against Marx's theory of class. They argued that with the advancement of economy, there is minimum opposition or hostility among classes. The ruling class engages in welfare activities like making charitable schools, hospitals etc. But antagonism would not disappear, class antagonism would disappear in a Marxist Utopia, but surely other types of antagonism would arise.

T.B. Bottomore is another thoughtful critic of Marxism. According to Bottomore, Marx assigned too much significance to social class and class conflict. He has ignored other important social relationships. Bottomore claims that gulf between the two major classes has not widened because there has been a general rise in everyone's standard of living.

The working class has developed new attitudes and aspirations which are not receptive to revolution. Revolution has not occurred and will not occur because of expanded social services, greater employment, security and increased employment benefits. Bottomore criticized Marx's argument that middle class would disappear because its members would join one or the other two great classes. Instead there has been tremendous growth in the middle class.

Dahrendorf argued that Marxist analysis is not applicable to post capitalist society. Internal contradictions which Marx thinks will arise, do not arise easily. Dahrendorf says as Marx himself talked of Division of Labour, we can see that economic factors are not the important factors.

Weber treats Marx's concept of class as an ideal type, a logical construct based on observed tendencies. He gives more importance to Status, Prestige and Power. He says that class is not something to be perceived in terms of means of production.

Multidimensional Theory :

Multidimensional theory is associated with the name of Max Weber felt that the influence or the effect that the behaviour of another individual or group, manifests itself in several ways. Influence, a by-product of social interaction and culture, is reciprocal it exists in many forms and is unevenly distributed throughout the social order. He felt that there were at least three independent orders or hierarchies in any society. Weber actually used the terms class, status and party respectively to refer to three orders – economic, social and political.

Max Weber has profoundly influenced modern sociological writing about social stratification. His framework to explain and analyse the system of social stratification is based on three dimensions of ' class', status and power. According to him all or nearly by all the members of the society are collectively ranked above or below one another in terms of class status and power.

Max Weber agreed with the fundamental tenants of Marx that control over property was a basic fact in the determination of the life-chances of an individual or a class-Weber says, "classes are stratified according to their relation to the production and acquisition of goods ……".

That is to say, class is determined by a person's market situation, which depends largely on whether or not he owns property. Market situation determines income, and the life chances which depends on this. Hence, Weber's definition of class is broadly similar to that of Marx.

To the economic dimension (class) of stratification Weber added two other dimensions, 'Prestige and Power'. According to Weber, Property, Prestige and power constitute three separate though interacting, bases on which hierarchies are created in a society. Prestige means the extent to which a person is looked up or looked down or regarded as the sort of person to be admired or emulated or, on the other hand treated with contempt.

Power refers to the extent to which a person can influence or command the action of others, make his will effective and make decisions. Differences in property create classes, differences in social prestige and honour generate states groups and strata and differences in power generate political parties.

Weber says that status groups are formed on the basis of common amount of socially ascribed prestige or honour. He admits that differences in property can constitute the basis for differences in honour or prestige, but he insists that other factors are just as important if not more so. Status, he says, stands in sharp opposition to the pretension of property.

Status groups are stratified according to the principles of their 'consumption' of goods as represented by special 'style of life '.Therefore, acquisition of wealth is not by itself sufficient basis for entry into a high status group, such as aristocracy. Both the property owners and the property less can and frequently do, belong to the same states-group.

Difference in property results in 'life chances', while status differences lead to difference in 'life styles'. Such differences in 'life style' form an important element in distinguishing one status group stabilise their position by securing different amounts of economic power they tend to enjoy privileges, which differ from one status group to another.

Thus, like Marx, Weber recognised the essential significance of property differences in the formation of status groups and in sharpening the lines of the distinction and privilege among them. But he differed from Marx in two respects. First he gave more importance to status groups than Marx did. Secondly, he held that economic classes do not normally constitute communities, but status groups do.

The third dimension of social stratification is power. Differences in power generate political parties. Weber says that economic classes, status groups and political parties are all phenomena of distribution of power within a community, but parties differ from classes and status in several ways.

While the central significance of classes is economic, and that of status group is prestige, parties live in a house of power. Weber argues that parties can develop in societies that have some rational order and staff of persons who are ready to enforce it. However, Weber did not deny that there exist groups and parties.

To conclude, Weber conceives of society stratified into three kinds of social segregation. These segregation differ in degree of self-conscious unity and community purpose. They also differ in particular aspect of social reward or resource with which they are primarily concerned, Thus, classes have economic basis, status groups have the honour basis and parties are centered on power. These often have overlapping membership and sometimes under special circumstances, the economic class is virtually identical with the status group and the political party.

Weber's analysis of classes, status groups and parties suggests that no single theory can pinpoint and explain their relationships. The interplay of class, status and party in the formation of social group is complex and must be examined in particular societies during particular time periods. Marx attempted to reduce all forms of inequality to social class and argued that classes formed the only significant social group in society. Weber argues that the evidence provides a more complex and diversified picture of social stratification.

hawkinsplathe.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/social-stratification-meaning-nature-characteristics-and-theories-of-social-stratification/8531