Social stratification 1182927 225659398 2008-07-14T19:49:13Z Ground Zero 232133 fix links {{Cleanup|date=January 2007}} In [[sociology]], '''social stratification''' is the [[hierarchy|hierarchical]] arrangement of [[social class]]es, [[caste]]s and strata within a [[society]]. While these hierarchies are not universal to all societies, they are the norm among state-level cultures (as distinguished from [[hunter-gatherer]]s or other social arrangements). According to Peter Saunders,<ref>Saunders, P, (1990) ''Social Class and Stratification'', Routledge</ref> in modern [[Western culture|Western societies]], stratification depends on social and economic classes comprising three main layers: [[upper class]], [[middle class]], and [[lower class]]. Each class is further subdivided into smaller classes related to occupation. The term ''stratification'' derives from the [[Geology|geological]] concept of ''strata,'' or rock layers created by natural processes. == Critical overview == Social stratification is regarded quite differently by the principal perspectives of sociology. Proponents of [[Functionalism (sociology)|structural-functional analysis]] suggest that since social stratification exists in most state societies, a hierarchy must therefore be beneficial in helping to stabilize their existence. [[Talcott Parsons]], an American sociologist, asserted that stability and social order are achieved by means of a [[universal value|universal]] [[value consensus]]. Functionalists indicate that stratification exists solely to satisfy the [[functional prerequisites]] necessary for functional proficiency in any society. [[Conflict theory|Conflict theorists]] consider the inaccessibility of resources and lack of [[social mobility]] in many stratified societies. They conclude, often working from the theories of [[Karl Marx]], that stratification means that [[working class]] people are not likely to advance socioeconomically, while the [[upper class|wealthy]] may continue to [[exploitation|exploit]] the proletariat generation after generation. Marx identified that the social classes are stratified based on their connection to the [[means of production]]. Therefore the ruling class, bourgeoisie, and working class, proletariats, maintain their social positions by maintaining their relationship with the means of production. This maintenance of status quo is achieved by various methods of social control employed by the bourgeoisie in the course of many aspects of social life, e.g., through ideologies of submission promoted through the institution of religion. However, some conflict theorists, mainly [[Max Weber]] and followers of his perspective, have criticized Marx's view, pointing out that social stratification is not based purely upon economic inequalities, but is also shaped, to an equal degree, by status and power differentials. Weber's analysis indicated the presence of four social classes, which he called the propertied upper class, the property-less white-collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie, and the working class. Another noteworthy factor is cited in the work of [[Francois Adle]], who stated that, "The advancement [of] technology has changed the structure of mobility completely." In a nutshell: social stratification refers to the ranking of social groups above and below each other, in terms of how much power, prestige and wealth members have. == Non-stratified societies == [[Anthropology|Anthropologists]] tell us that social stratification is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy writes: "Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples."<ref>Gowdy, John (2006) "Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market," in [[Richard Borshay Lee|Richard B. Lee]] and Richard H. Daly (eds.), ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers,'' p. 391. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4</ref> Non-stratified [[egalitarian]] or [[Acephalous Society|acephalous]] ("headless") societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership. ==== Kinship-orientation ==== Anthropologists identify egalitarian cultures as "[[Kinship]]-oriented," because they value social harmony more than wealth or status. These are contrasted with Economically-oriented cultures (including [[State]]s) in which status and material wealth are prized, and stratification, competition, and conflict are common. Kinship-oriented cultures actively work to prevent [[Social hierarchy|social hierarchies]] from developing which could lead to conflict and instability. They do this typically through a process of [[Reciprocal altruism|reciprocal altruism]]. A good example is given by [[Richard Borshay Lee]]'s account of the [[Khoisan|!Kung San]], who practice ''"insulting the meat."'' Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then distributed evenly among the entire social group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is proportional to the size of the kill--Lee found this out the hard way when he purchased an entire cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased for weeks afterward about it (since obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing off).<ref> Lee, Richard B. (1976), ''Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors,'' Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. </ref> Another example is the [[Indigenous Australians]] of [[Groote Eylandt]] and [[Bickerton Island]], off the coast of [[Arnhem Land]], who have arranged their entire society, spirituality, and economy around a kind of [[gift economy]] called ''[[Reciprocal altruism|renunciation]].'' According to [[David H. Turner]], in this arrangement, every person is expected to give ''everything'' of any resource they have to any other person who needs or lacks it at the time. This has the benefit of largely eliminating social problems like theft and relative poverty. However, misunderstandings obviously arise when attempting to reconcile Aboriginal ''renunciative economics'' with the competition/scarcity-oriented [[economics]] introduced to Australia by Anglo-European colonists.<ref> Turner, David H. (1999), ''Genesis Regained: Aboriginal Forms of Renunciation in Judeo-Christian Scriptures and Other Major Traditions,'' pp. 1-9, Peter Lang. </ref> See also the [[Original affluent society]]. ==== Marx's inspiration ==== According to [[Marvin Harris]]<ref>[[Marvin Harris|Harris, Marvin]] (1968), ''The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture'' ISBN 0-7591-0133-7 </ref> and Tim Ingold <ref>Ingold, Tim (2006) "On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band," in [[Richard Borshay Lee|Richard B. Lee]] and Richard H. Daly (eds.), ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers,'' p. 400. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4</ref>, [[Lewis Henry Morgan]]'s accounts of egalitarian hunter-gatherers formed part of [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]]'s inspiration for [[communism]]. Morgan spoke of a situation in which people living in the same community pooled their efforts and shared the rewards of those efforts fairly equally. He called this "communism in living." But when Marx expanded on these ideas, he still emphasized an economically oriented culture, with [[property]] defining the fundamental relationships between people.<ref>Barnard, Alan (2006) "Images of hunters and gatherers in European social thought," in [[Richard Borshay Lee|Richard B. Lee]] and Richard H. Daly (eds.), ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers,'' p. 379. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4</ref> Yet, issues of [[ownership]] and property are arguably less emphasized in hunter-gatherer societies.<ref>Gowdy, John (2006) "Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market," in [[Richard Borshay Lee|Richard B. Lee]] and Richard H. Daly (eds.), ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers,'' p. 393. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4</ref> This, combined with the very different social and economic situations of hunter-gatherers may account for many of the difficulties encountered when implementing communism in industrialized states. As Ingold points out: <Blockquote>Yet the notion of communism, removed from the context of domesticity and harnessed to support a project of social engineering for large-scale, industrialized states with populations of millions, eventually came to mean something quite different from what Morgan had intended: namely, a principle of redistribution that would override all ties of a personal or familial nature, and cancel out their effects.<ref>Ingold, Tim (2006) "On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band," in [[Richard Borshay Lee|Richard B. Lee]] and Richard H. Daly (eds.), ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers,'' p. 400. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4</ref></blockquote> == Weber's inspiration == Weber built on Marx's ideas, arriving at the [[three-component theory of stratification]] and the concept of [[life chances]]. Weber believed there were more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both [[Functionalism|functionalist]] and [[Marxist]] theories to create his own system. Weber believed in the difference between class, status, and party, and treated these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on people’s lives. He claimed there should be four main classes: the upper class (like the bourgeoisie of Marx’s theory), the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual working class (like Marx’s proletariat). Weber's theory resembles modern [[Western culture|Western]] class structures, although economic status does not seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber envisioned. Weber criticized Marx's theory of the proletariat revolt, believing it to be unlikely.<ref>Holborn, M. & Langley, P. (2004) AS & A level Student Handbook, accompanies the Sixth Edition: Haralambos & Holborn, ''Sociology: Themes and perspectives,'' London: Collins Educational</ref> Weber derived many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining the social structure of [[Germany]]. He noticed that contrary to Marx's theories, not everything is based simply on ownership of [[Capital (economics)|capital]]. Weber examined how many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet they had strong political power. Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power because they were [[Jewish]]. Weber introduced three independent factors that form the stratification hierarchy; class, status, and power, as follows: * '''Class''': A person's economic position in a society. Weber differs form Marx in that he does not see this as a supreme factor in stratification. Weber noticed how managers of corporations or industries control firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such a person in the [[proletariat]]. * '''Status''': A person's prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber saw how political power was not just welded from capital value, but also their status. Such as how poets or saints can have immense influence on society but have relatively little economic worth. * '''Power''': A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], or a member of the [[United States Congress]], may hold little property or status but they still hold immense power.<ref>Stark, Rodney, Sociology Tenth Edition, 2007 Thompson Wadsworth</ref> ==References== {{reflist|2}} <div class="references-small"></div> ==External links== {{external links}} * [http://www.anti-caste.org/diamond_reply/jared_diamond_one.html On the Social Function of Caste: A Reply to Jared Diamond] * [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/anthropology/Faculty/lee.htm Richard Lee's web page at the University of Toronto] * [http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2000/06/caveman-comeback Naomi Klein discussing Richard Lee, the Survivor TV series, and his work with Hunter-gatherers] * [http://www.awok.org/critique_of_civilization/ Critique of Civilization] A paper by [[Richard Heinberg]], presented at the 24th annual meeting of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations, June 15, 1995. *[http://rose.nadasolutions.com/pink/2007/12/07/major-theoretical-perspectives-on-social-stratification/ Pink and Black Stripes - Major theoretical perspectives on social stratification] == See also == * [[Religious Stratification]] * [[Egalitarianism]] * [[Communism]] * [[Wisconsin model]] * [[Social class]] * [[Socioeconomic status]] * [[Social hierarchy]] * [[Sexual field]] * [[The Power Elite]] * [[Caste system]] * [[Social inequality]] * [[Elite theory]] * [[Elitism]] * [[Theodor Geiger]] * [[Marxism]] * [[Class stratification]] * [[Race and Inequality]] * [[Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft]] * [[Pentagonal Revisionism]] * [[Split labor market theory]] * [[Microinequity]] * [[Social and Economic Stratification in Appalachia]] <br clear=all> <center> {| class="toccolours" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;font-size:90%" ! style="background:#ccccff" align="center" width="100%" colspan="5" |{{tnavbar-header|[[Social stratification]]: [[Social class]]|Socialclass}}|| |- | align="centre" | [[Bourgeoisie]] | align="centre" | [[Upper class]] | align="centre" | [[Ruling class]] | align="centre" | [[Nobility]] | align="centre" | [[White-collar worker|White-collar]] |- | align="centre" | [[Petite bourgeoisie]] | align="centre" | [[Upper middle class]] | align="centre" | [[Creative class]] | align="centre" | [[Gentry]] | align="centre" | [[Blue-collar worker|Blue-collar]] |- | align="centre" | [[Proletariat]] | align="centre" | [[Middle class]] | align="centre" | [[Working class]] | align="centre" | [[Nouveau riche]]/[[Parvenu]] | align="centre" | [[Pink-collar worker|Pink-collar]] |- | align="centre" | [[Lumpenproletariat]] | align="centre" | [[Lower middle class]] | align="centre" | [[Lower class]] | align="centre" | [[Old Money]] | align="centre" | [[Gold-collar worker|Gold-collar]] |- | align="centre" | | align="centre" | [[Slave| Slave class]] | align="centre" | [[Underclass]] | align="centre" | | align="centre" | [[Classlessness]] |- |colspan=5 style="background:#ccccff" align="center" |'''[[Social structure of the United States|Social class in the United States]]''' |- | align="centre" | [[American middle class|Middle classes]] || [[American upper class|Upper classes]] || [[Social structure of the United States|Social structure]] || [[Income in the United States|Income]] || [[Educational attainment in the United States|Educational attainment]] |} </center> [[Category:Sociology]] [[Category:Anthropology]] [[Category:Anthropological categories of peoples]] [[Category:Social systems|Stratification]] [[cs:Sociální stratifikace]] [[de:Soziale Schichtung]] [[es:Estratificación social]] [[fa:قشربندی]] [[fr:Stratification sociale]] [[id:Stratifikasi sosial]] [[lt:Socialinė stratifikacija]] [[nl:Sociale stratificatie]] [[ja:身分制度]] [[pl:Stratyfikacja (socjologia)]] [[pt:Estratificação social]] [[sv:Social stratifiering]] [[fi:Stratifikaatio]] [[ru:Теория социальной стратификации]] [[zh:社會分層]]