Understand your society 101: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND RANKING SYSTEM IN THE SOCIETY

Hello Steemians. Welcome to my blog.
Today I will be discussing the social stratification existing in our society and the factors influencing the ranking system.

In every society, there are socially constructed inequalities which we are consciously or unconsciously aware. Sometimes we consciously or unconsciously perpetuate these social inequalities. A good example is when some set of people are made to sit at the high table or specially provided seats during an event, while other people are deprived of the same preferential treatment. This inequality occurs mostly because people in the society have differ possession of wealth, status and power. This is why we sometimes refer to some set of people as the upper class, middle class and lower class. When a system of social inequality is based on a hierarchy of groups, this is social stratification.

Image source

Social stratification refers to the ranking and categorization of people in the society based on their socioeconomic affluence. Schaefer(2013), sees social stratification as a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal economic rewards and power in a society. A better illustration is to see stratification like a geological layering of rock, whereby, people with more resources occupy the topmost layer (upper class and middle class), while those with fewer resources settle for lower layer(lower class). In other words, it is the existence of social groups whereby one group is ranked over another usually in terms of wealth, prestige or power that members of each group possess. It is important to emphasize that social stratification does not refer to individuals; rather, it refers to a way of ranking large groups of people into a hierarchy according to their relative privileges (Henslin, 2013)

Social stratification is a society-wide system; it is universal. It is an important subject (especially in sociology) because of its influence on human interaction. People’s life chances, experience and opportunities are influenced by how their social category is ranked in the society. For example, people with wealth and prestige are more likely to have more opportunities come their way than those with less aforementioned attributes. In addition, the rankings apply to social categories of people who share a common characteristic without necessarily interacting or identifying with one another (Giddens, 2009). What is the basis for stratifying people in the society and is social stratification justifiable? These questions will be answered, however, it is important we understand the system of social stratification that exists in our society.

SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Historically, four major systems of stratification have been identified. These are Slavery system, Caste system, Estate system and social class system.

Slavery system

Image source

This is an extreme form of inequality. In this system, people are owned as property like cars. The condition of slave ownership and the way slavery is practised varied from society to society. Sometimes slaves are totally deprived of all human rights, while in other society; they are treated more like servants. For example in ancient Greece, some slaves occupy the position of responsibility. Although they are excluded from the military and political position, however, they are accepted in some other occupation; in fact, some of them are literate and also work for the government. Nevertheless, not all slaves can be that lucky. In contrast, the United States practised an extreme form of slavery. They had it legalized and there are strict laws preventing slaves’ freedom. Slavery is temporary in some places, for instance, Roman’s slaves have the right to buy their freedom and Israel is known to free their slaves on the year of jubilee, which occurs every fifty years.

Slaves are gotten through various ways, however, the major source of slaves is through war; when a larger kingdom conquers smaller kingdoms, and some of the vanquished are enslaved. In another situation, debtors are enslaved for their inability to pay their debt. Therefore, a freeborn can become slaves; this is common in ancient Rome. A person who commits some serious crimes is also enslaved.

Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is binding on all members of the United Nations, prohibits slavery in all its forms (Schaefer, 2013). However, modern-day slavery still exists. A recent revelation occurred in Libya where illegal immigrants are enslaved and tortured. Asides from this, children(especially females) are still enslaved and forced into prostitution in Africa, Asia and some other parts of the world

Caste system

The caste system is a closed stratification system, and people can do nothing to change their social status. In this system, Caste membership is ascribed and it is lifelong (birth determines status). Therefore, an individual born into a low-status group will forever remain in the low-status group regardless of his/her accomplishment. In other words, this system is immobile and gives no room for mobility from one status to another. A society where this system is practised ensures that boundaries between the various castes remain firm. Endogamy (marriage within the same social group) is seriously encouraged and exogamy is strictly forbidden in such societies. In fact, there are rituals to be performed if a member of a superior caste touches a member of an inferior caste.

A good example of this system occurs in India and it is associated with Hinduism. There are four major castes in India with a fifth called the untouchables. The four major caste consists of the Brahmins (scholars and spiritual leaders) at the top, Ksyarriyas (soldiers and rulers ) follows, then followed by the Vaisyas (farmers and merchants) and the Shudras (labourers and artisans). Below the four castes are those known as the 'untouchables' or Dalits.

Image source

The Dalits are made to do the worst jobs in the society such as removing human waste. Members of the higher caste regard contact with the Dalits as contaminating, hence, they perform rituals to cleanse themselves when such contact occurs. Although India government abolished the caste system as far back as 1949, however, this practice persists. Nevertheless, urbanization, globalization and the modern-day capitalist economy is gradually putting a drastic end to the caste system in the country. The anonymity of city life tends to blur caste boundaries, allowing the Dalit to pass unrecognized in temples, schools, and places of employment (Schaefer, 2013). In addition, globalization and technology have provided arrays opportunities to those who can capitalize on them.

Another good example is the apartheid system that was formerly operated in South Africa before it was abolished. The black Africans and whites rigidly separated. The whites control all the country’s wealth and resources.

Estate system

This system was prominent during the middle ages in the feudal societies. In this system, there are three groups. The first group is made up of wealthy families known as the nobles (nobility). They own lands which are considered as the major source of wealth at that time. They do not engage in farming, because they consider it as demeaning, rather they administer/lease land to those who will work on them. In return, they get a percentage of the farm products; usually a larger percentage.

The second groups are the clergy who at that time has some power. They own and administer land. The last groups consisted of the commoners known as the serfs. They do not own land which is the major source of wealth, hence, they work on land and mostly, they are regarded to belong to the land. The serfs do the farming and cannot be separated from the land because that is their major source of livelihood. If someone bought or inherited land, the serfs came with it. Serfs were born into the third estate, and they died within it, too (Henslin,2013). Although in rare occasions, individuals make it out of the third group, either through vocation into the priesthood or knighted due to bravery at war. In other words, unlike caste, a certain degree of mobility and marriage is allowed in estate system.

Social class system

As the society evolves from the feudal system, people whose sources of wealth does not depend on land or agriculture emerges. This ushered in the social class system. A social class system is based on wealth and material possession. We can define a class as a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead (Giddens, 2009).

A class system is a social ranking based primarily on economic position in which achieved characteristics can influence social mobility (Schaefer, 2013). This system is an open system and unlike in slavery, caste and feudal system, individuals can change their social class by what they can achieve or fail to achieve. In other words, an individual in a lower social class status can achieve higher social class status. Therefore, the social class system gives room for social mobility; movement from one stratum to another. This system also allows intermarriage regardless of the social class the couple belongs.

People go to school and also work hard in their various occupation and professions because of the potential the class system provides to either improve their lives; move up the ladder or fail to improve their lives then move down the ladder. The social class system is the prominent system in operation in our modern society.

WHAT DETERMINES SOCIAL CLASS AND STRATIFICATION IN THE SOCIETY
(THE BASIS FOR STRATIFYING PEOPLE)

KARL MARX’S VIEW: The agricultural society gave way to the industrial society (Industrial revolution) in the early eighteenth century because of the advancement in science and technology at that period. Peasants migrated to the cities to compete for the few available jobs in the various factories. However, they were underpaid for the value of their labour and were made to work under unfavourable conditions. The working classes were poor, went hungry for days and could barely get a roof over their head. In contrary, the owners of the factories built mansions and enjoy mast amount of wealth.

The disparity between the workers and owners made Karl Marx conclude that social class depends on people’s relationship to the means of production. These include land, factory, capital and so on. Those that own and have access to these means of production controls a large mass of wealth while those without access to the means of production labour endlessly with little wealth to show for their labour. Karl Marx identified two classes in this capitalist economy; these are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Image source

The bourgeoisie owns the means of production while the proletariats are the working classes that work for the owners of means of production. In other words, people’s relationship to the means of production determines their social class. In a capitalist economy, the bourgeoisie strives to make maximum profit and to out beat out any competitor. In the process, they exploit workers, who must exchange their labour for subsistence wages (Schaefer, 2013). Karl Marx also recognized another group; the lumpenproletariat, the farmers and self-employed professionals. The lumpenproletariat includes the beggars, criminals and vagrant. To Marx, these groups are not social classes because they do not share identity in relationship to the means of production. Therefore, they do not see themselves as exploited workers.

THINK ABOUT IT
Do you agree with Karl Marx on the factor that determines one’s social class in the society? Did you find any flaws in his explanation? What are they?

MAX WEBER’S VIEW:CLASS(property), STATUS(prestige), and POWER

Max Weber criticized Karl Marx's view on social stratification. He argued that property and access to the means of production are not the only factors determining social class in the society. He noted that social class has three components; Class (property), status (prestige), and power.

The class/property refers to the economic dimension of stratification and it is the relation of people to the means of production and distribution of goods and services in the society. It also refers to the amount of money, wealth and other economic goods possessed by an individual in the society. Status/prestige refers to the relative amount of prestige, honour, privileges and deference that an individual or social group can easily command from the rest of the society. This is also the prestige dimension of stratification. Power refers to the ability of a person or social group to control others even without their consent. It is also known as the power dimension if stratification.

An explanation to Weber’s argument is that there are three modes of ranking individuals and families or placing them in the stratification system. An individual can be placed in the stratification system based on his economic standing in the society,( i.e his economic position), the amount of power he exercises in the society or the amount of honour he commands in the society. In other words, the position of an individual in the stratification hierarchy is dependent on their standing on each of these three components (i.e class, status, power).

Image source

People’s position in the stratification system reflects some combination of the three components. In other words, each factor influences the other two. Therefore, people are who are high on one dimension is likely to be high on other dimensions. For example, the rich who are high in class, are highly respected and accorded with honour (prestige) and they tend to exercise a large amount of power in the society. The likes of Bill Gates andJeff Bezos are good example. On the other hand, the poor, i.e low in class are less respected and they hardly command any amount of power.

However, these three stratification dimensions do not always correlate with one another and may often be inconsistent. This means an individual standing in the economic dimension, prestige dimension and power dimension may be unequal. For example, a man may be very rich but command little or no prestige in the society. An Olympic gold medalist may not be rich but may command so much prestige. Sometimes, the dimension of stratification in which an individual is high can be used to improve or acquire better ranking in another dimension. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an actor, who is high in prestige capitalized on it to become the governor of California. Likewise, an Olympic gold medalist may sell his gold for a large amount of money to boost his ranking in the economic dimension.

THINK ABOUT IT
Do you agree with Max Weber’s explanation for social stratification? Between Karl Marx and Max Weber, whose explanation do you think best describe social stratification in our society?

Social Class Division in our Contemporary Society

Our contemporary society has three classes; the upper class, the middle class and the lower class. The upper class makes up about 1 to 2% of the population in every country. The upper class controls majority of the wealth of a country. Because they are wealthy, they wield a lot of power. They do not only have power to control their own lives, their status gives them power over other people's lives. The upper class owns most of the business in a a country and the decision they make affects the job status of millions of people in the society. They own and control the media , they are virtually everywhere.

People attain the upper class in two ways, either by inheritance or hardwork. For example Jeff Bezos attsined the upper class to hardwork while the likes of Christy Walton inherited theri wealth.

The middle class are mostly income earners who are comfortable with the income they earn. The middle class are divided into two categories; the upper-middle class and lower-middle class. The upper middle class earn high income have large houses and own nice cars. They are managers of big companies or work in medical lines or own a fast growing business. While the lower-middle class hold job superviser by upper-middle class and also earn lesser income compared to upper-middle class. However, their jobs offer them prestige and income to own a decent house, car and mainstream lifestyle, but they may struggle to maintain it.

The lower class refers to the working class. It includes those that works on jobs that requires lesser skill. They also include those that are underemployed or unemployed. The lower class earn low income and they usually work for the upper class and the government. They usually do not own houses or cars, but if they do, they are usually not as great as that of the middle class. They do not live the mainstream lifestyle and mostly work to feed thenselves and family.

IS SOCIAL STRATIFICATION JUSTIFIABLE?

According to the functionalist in sociology, social inequality and social stratification occur in every society because it is functional to the society.

Two functionalists theorist in sociology, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued on why stratification is inevitable. The society has several positions and for the society to function well, all these positions must be occupied. Some of these positions are more important than others. Therefore, it is important that the society ensures that the appropriate people with the necessary talent occupy these positions. How does the society do this? Rewards, including money and prestige, are attached to social positions of more importance. Now take a look at it from this angle, do you think people would spend so many years in medical school to become a doctor if they get the same pay with cleaners on the street? Of course, the answer is no. This means that the important positions have a greater reward attached to them to encourage more people to fill them.

People accept high demanding positions because of the prestige, power and social status they have to offer. Of course, they could have settled for easier and low demanding positions, but the rewards attached to them cannot be compared to the high demanding positions.

THINK ABOUT IT
Do you agree with Davis and Moore? Is there any flaw in their explanation? What are they?

The functionalists have their own share of criticism about their position on stratification. Melvin Tumin pointed out some of the major flaws in their explanation. His first argument was that how do we know that the positions that offer the higher rewards are more important? A heart surgeon, for example, saves lives and earns much more than a garbage collector, but this doesn’t mean that garbage collectors are less important to society. By helping to prevent contagious diseases, garbage collectors save more lives than heart surgeons do (Henslin, 2013).

His second argument was that if society works just has David and Moore argued it to be, society would be a meritocracy; that is, positions would be awarded based on merit. However, is this what we have? His third argument noted that if stratification is functional, then it ought to be for the benefit of all, however, it is dysfunctional to so many people.

THINK ABOUT IT
Who do you think is right; David and Moore or Tumin?

Some conflicts theorist in sociology like Karl Marx argued that social stratification is just a means by which the rich and the powerful exploit the weaker group in the society. The rich and the powerful find ways to ensure they maintain their high position usually to the detriment of people in the lower position. Therefore, they believe stratification facilitates exploitation.

THINK ABOUT IT
With the above explanation from functionalist and conflict theorist, do you think social stratification is justifiable?

I hope you have learnt something new today. You can also check out my previous post and also anticipate my subsequent post on my blog. Have a great day.

References
Schaefer, R (2013). Stratification and Social Mobility in the United States. In R.Schaefer, Sociology a brief introduction. New York: McGraw Hill companies, inc

Henslin, J.M(2011). Global Stratification. In J.M Henslin, Essentials of sociology. PearsonEducation, Inc.

Giddens, A (2009). Stratification and social class. In A. Giddens, sociology. UK: Polity Press Cambridge.