. oeltarig, “lng. %y, oe in an egalitarian society, there Will bg N so dreamed anh ve-nots, no exploitation ang ou no aS rene to the people’ will become q reality ane ‘neqinity develops, and how it Persist, Beno generation? Why are some ie in . ae More walt powerful than others? These are aoe OF the Westions itt led sociologists to study social inequality. To descride Social ities, sociologists have used the term Social stray Stratification is a term that refers to all forms of Mequalities a age, gender, ethnicity, caste, class etc. We can compare Social a cation to layers of a rock in the earth’s surface, one On the top of other. While rock’s layers are quite rigid (subject to ming, change) but such rigidity is not found in social structure, : Y What is Social Stratification?Social Stratification 177 jstribution of rights and privil . al di ae eges, duties and ibil- ned cial values and privations, social power and influences anne i9e* embers of a society. ‘es among e HF secording to Raymond W. Murry (1946), “social stratification is orizontal division of society into ‘higher and ‘lower’ social units” for Talcott Parsons (1954), “stratification in its valuational aspect is he ranking of units in a social system in accordance with the gandard of the common value system”. (Essays in Sociological Theory, 1954) Kurt B. Mayer (Class and Society, 1955) defined it as. “an arrangement of positions in a graded hierarchy of socially superior and inferior ranks”, In his text, Mike O’ Donnel (1977) defined it as vgtratification is the division of society or group into hierarchically ordered layers. Members of each layer are considered broadly equal put there is inequality between the layers”. A renowned theorist of late twentieth century Anthony Giddens (2000) writes: “Stratifi- cation can be defined as structured inequalities between different groupings of people.” The term ‘stratification’ in sociology is usually applied to the phenomena of structured social inequality which arise as unintended consequences of social processes and relationships. It is a hierarchical ordering of people in a society differentiated according to power, privileges and status. The term ‘structured’ indicates an arrangement of elements—the inequality is not random but follows a pattern, displ relative constancy and stability and is backed by ideas that legitimise and justify it. In brief, the term ‘stratification’ refers to the system of ranking of persons that a society adopts. In this system, rank of some strata is higher, some lower. Their sum constitutes the stratification system of that particular society. It indicates the location of a person in society. Distinguishing Features of Social Stratification The above description reveals the following characteristics and features of social stratification: 1, Division of society into permanent groups or categories on the basis of income, wealth, ethnicity, gender, age, caste and class.1/0 olves the hierarchical ordering Of these fo Inve ] societies, particularly the ps orp Z in industria Saul Tas been by a hierarchy of individu, 3. Relationship of superiority and Subordinatio,, o ; people. . Mon, , 4. Unequal distribution of power, privilege ang Status, 5. Members of a particular stratum have a common te Tits similar interest and a similar lifestyle. Social Differentiation and Social Stratification “A society does not exists as a single entity, a Monolith Tigig moulded and solidly integrated. It is rather made up of knots fi nodes, of clusters constantly changing groups of People in Ci fluctuating relationships with other people” (Bierstead, 1957). it isi reference to this diversity within society that sociologists use the tem ‘social differentiation’. It is generally used to refer diversity between men and women, caste and class, city and village etc. In another sense, social differentiation simply means role differentiation or division of labour which is essential for the survival and stability of society. Some type of division of labour and specialisation jis necessary in human and animal society both. In animal society, it is determined by heredity but in human society the patterns of social behaviour are determined by culture instead of heredity. In brief, Social differentiation is meant the manner in which People recognise that society is subdivided, with individuals occupying different statuses according, for example, to age, sex, occupation, ethnicity | and related characteristics in modern pluralistic societies. The term ‘social differentiation’ is closely associated with that of social stratification but both are not synonymous terms. Social strati- fication involves differential ranking (a feeling of superiority or inferiority), ite.,'how roles' are ranked and their incumbents unequally rewarded. When social differences are based on hierarchy, sociologists refer to it as social stratification. It is a special type of social differentiation, signifying the existence of a systematicof social positions whose occupants are treat | ve a inferior relative to one another in ao a aS superior, : sas, To put it differently, whenever we Have cs ly important tal differentiation, but not the other We Tatification, we 8 Juted fact that social differentiation is univ. Y round. Tt is an wn nan society but there is some controve; sisal phenomenon oft nis universal. For instance, the diffeience tnt Whether strati- ~ ati 7 is uni ft cies do males and females do the som ee wa universal. In 0 . f Es e thin, uses share identical interests, confo; Teac cuPy the same fal . TMs to th i se to the same kinds of achievement. Same norms or a - characteristics of Stratification uM Tumin (1969) listed five basic attributes of the phenomenon of gratification: }. It is social: It means its character is ‘social’ indicates here five things: of stratification is dependent patterned. The adjective (a) The make-up of any system ; ; upon conventionally ascribed meanings and socially defined criteria and Prescriptions. In simple terms, it is different from outward biological caused inequalities. Although difference in such factors as strength, intelligence, age and sex can serve as bases on which statuses or strata are distinguished, such differences in biological traits do not become relevant in patterns of social superiority and inferi- ority until they are socially recognised and given importance. These differences never by themselves sufficient to explain why some statuses have more power, prestige and property than others. To determine who is the ‘fittest’ and who is having property and power is always a matter of complex social and cultural meanings. (b) Norms and sanctions ao key factors in shaping and maintenance of the system. The ‘social’ aspect of stratification also suggests that the cis putoD of rewards in any community is governed by ‘norms’ or conventional me a The norms have to be taught anew to each generation. a za there is a need to socialise each generation. There is no evi a that any kind of mentality—slave, ruling or otherwise (in Indian180 Social Stratification _aherited. (d) Lj . te bi ically inherite ike 4 context caste mentality) 5/8 viole TS likely to be unstayi . is is other social systems, this syste atical throughout the Sociey’ jalisation i: ers! tem of s p because socialisation is neve! ars, every SYS strate es ong others, tific, stile Because of this reason, am Be e) To say that stratification ; ly changit Be in is always COnNeCcted w; Is cation is continuous’ g 4 a is syste! nN f EF ‘social’ also implies that me y politics, kinship, marriage ,, ciety, SUC igi For ins! other aspects oe » qucation and ese, th ily, eco! 9 _ ‘tics is : es am of stratification with politic cee nenon Sa hhich the sons of the ruling e! ae J Bitdary power, ey whic rents. Such connections of stratification can j, succeed their pa! 5 it institutions of society. seen with other insti : sietie It is ancient: It has been found in all past so s and in a times. This fact has been established by historia and archaeg, logical records. Even, in animal groups, such as the bees ang aunts, there is distinction based upon physical structure and physiological functions. In every animal aggregation there are individual differences that go to determine relative status. Strat. ification was present in small wandering bands. Both age and sex in combination with physical strength played important part in stratification. As said above, the system of stratification is unstable and subject to change. As such, we see, this ancient system, which Was primarily based on ascriptive characteristics, is now changing in the modern industrial society and becoming more and achievement-oriented. more 3. It is universal: There is no society which is flat. Social scientifi ve ‘ : . ic search has revealed that inequality exists in all societies—even181 ag that make organisation Necessay = . i rk ry ae there 15 ne, soe known which denne Possible. In ve 08 penween in ividuals by making th Rot make some i eae ‘The most universal is that between ' va 5 i i m a wat surat A Soy even found in the oto : : n so- : atria (erstw e Soviet Union and the ae Called socialist gdiverse in its forms and amount: Thou, h pee guna) 8 ynd in all societies but its bases, forme ication Ribaeiig S : ‘ Bn place to place, and from time to time. AC smount differ i aad the caste system i iti eee we find ib-castes which is basen onal india, with i 5,000 sul f alin based on ascriptive syst Speer pe SAS eh total inequality. On the eae nie 2 een and, sabb — co aoe nara! communal cooperatives) of I he epresem ae ‘orm of total equality. Open class s' aes : ss y- S SYS! which nis an oe aa form of stratification system, is cau on achieved qual ities. In between the caste system and class system, We find the mixtures of these types also ‘in many countries. Occupation, wealth, income, education, race/ echnici Ys family and heritage used to remain the main bases of stratification. ™m e on some scale Nand women, 4 @ one extreme, It is consequential: The consequentiality of stratification simply means that the most important, most desired, and often scarcest things of human life, that is power, property, evaluation and sychic tification are all distributed une: ually. All the ‘most psy qually entitled’ to enjoy larger amount these can be classified into two: ()) life chances, and (2) lifestyles. Under life chances, we include such things as rates and incidences of infant mortality, longevity, physical and mental illness, childlessness, marital conflict, and divorce. Lifestyles refer to such things as the kind of house and neighbourhood one lives in, the recreational facil- - he kind of books, magazines and TV ities, the cultural products, the i 7 q ? Rpich one is exposed and the relationships programmes 0 ee AIL these things depend upon b ents and children. gS etween Paren’ ratification oF class situation. Life chances are one’s place in SINT Ty and impersonally determined, while —_ Tener tifferences in preferences, tastes, and values. lifestvles Te!RE DTION acim StF 382 Soria ‘ aq have different chances of enjoy Different social 5 se gysqribution of rewards. power, : oe ifferent gro g the uned! = as members OF sin sociery tion and Social Inequality i ike Tumin (1969) who think that there is There are WHE ‘ n and social inequality. For thes ffere yeen Bi tet gar difference s. Bur, there Is a of of = are synonymou: ; these TE pape ‘and Holborn (2000) who have magd scholars eeeecen these two phenomena. For such scholars, distinction hibit inequality without being stratified—for example Ere SPopportunity co all bur distributing reward Thus, it is possible for social inequality tg Stratification is systematic and is based og through which people are sorted intg Social Stratifica’ ke stratificatio: society by affording muly equ: pased upon performance. exist without social strata. identifiable social processes , categories such as caste, class, race and gender. For Haralambos, social stratification is a particular form of social inequality and it refers to the presence of social groups which a ranked one above the other, usually in terms of the amount of powe prestige and wealth their members possess. Those who belong to; particular group or stratum will have ‘consciousness of kind- common identity, like interests and a similar lifestyle. The Indi caste system provides the best example of social stratification system On the other hand, the term ‘social inequality’ simple refers t the existence of socially created inequalities. It is not biologica based, for example, whites might claim superiority over blacks. Ther is probably no relationship between genetically based and sociall created inequality in traditional Hindu society. Social inequality is, condition in which members of a society have different amount 6 wealth, prestige and power. It entails unequal rewards or opportu nities for different individuals within a group or groups within society. If equality is judged in terms of equality of o; Paes : equality of outcome, then inequality is a constant nas we. human condition. In a nutshell, the difference between social ‘fi cation and social inequality can be exhibited as under: a SegDifferentiation of Social characteristics Prestige Stratification pafferential Rewards es Class ies Social and Opportunities Consciousness Inequality Many scholars of different political ofopportunity as a pre-condition for af opportunity does not guarantee Persuasions regard equality a fair society. Of course, equality ced I » there is no issue other than inequality, its causes and consequences particularly as they relate to social class, gender, ethnicity and locality, which has been debated hotly by social scientists in the 20th century and this debate still continues. It has become more important in the wake of liberalis: ation, and globalisation. Principal Forms of Social Stratification Concrete forms of social stratification are different and numerous. However, sociologists have grouped majority of these into four basic systems of stratification: slavery, estates, caste and class. These are sometimes found in conjunction with one another. 1. Slavery: The term ‘slave’ is used to denote “a man whom law and/or custom regards as the property of another”. Slaves are in lower condition and have no political rights. The legal condi- tions of slave ownership have varied considerably between different societies. Slavery is an extreme form of inequality. Its basis is economic. It has existed almost in all agrarian societies where slaves become an asset in production. In the 18th and oeSocial stratification 184 were used exclusively as Planta ¢ menials in the United States, Sou n India, this institution existed j 19th centuries, sla workers and as domes ‘America and the West the form of ‘bonded lal ‘ 15 were categorie: middle ages- The! bility. In an es Indies. In pour’. .s in feudal systems, especially i ry were less rigid than castes ang ol tate system men are assigned ¢4 some mi a , — stre ene according to their birth, pee mie aa their stra Unlike castes, estates were created politically by aes religious rules. Each estate had if than estat -made laws rather t i a eae of appropriate behaviour. The normal divisions were own are ighest) estate], which wa Dk hd ee oe clergy (the second See about race but possessing various me privileges; and (c) the commoners, which includg everyone else from peasants to artisans. Inan estate system, the people of various strata were identified by the rights they had and the duties they were expected to perform. Caste system: The Indian caste system provides an example ofa peculiar type of social stratification based on ascription. It isja system of inherited inequality as the guiding principle in social relationships. A caste may be defined as an endogamous group whose members follow by tradition a single occupation, | certain cognate occupations and who are held together by E definite social rules of behaviour, and by common ceremonial of 2. Estates: Estate: Europe during ritual observances. The system of caste is based on 1 assumption that each person is preordained a place ‘a occupation in society at birth. Contact between persons (6 different strata (castes) is impure’ and intermarriage betwé castes is forbidden. Even the most trivial acts of life, suchyas Sipping water or eating, are governed by rules of each caste Caste system derives its authority from the Hindu belief in Principles of karma and rebirth. Accordingly. individuals | fail to abide by the rituals and duties (karma) of their i believed, will be reborn in an inferi ition-in coca aera r Mor position in their » /e caste system is an illustration of social pe ehcmec TTa closu —gecess to wealth and prestige is closed to social eu . ie vite excluded from the performance of purifying tua ‘ic Scent of caste is sometimes used outside the Indian he “where two Or More ethnic groups are largely segregated on ite another, and where notions of racial purity prevail. aed weberians, such as John Rex, argue that the apartheid we em in south Africa was a form of caste system. gst pci class: The above three systems of stratification—slavery, + pate and caste system—are mainly associated with agrarian epsieties. In the modern industrial societies, where machine nergy Bas replaced human and animal energy as the primary source of economic production, an entirely new set of social stratification has developed, which is known as social classes. social Class social class is made up of people of similar social status who regard one another as social equals. Each class has a set of values, attitudes, jeliefs and behaviour norms which differ from those of the other dasses. According to Giddens (2000), “a class is a large-scale gouping of people who share common economic resources, which srongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead”. Horton and Hunt (1968) writes: “A social class is defined as a stratum of people of similar position in the social status continuum.” A stratum isa collectivity of people occupying similar positions in the hierar- chical order. Max Weber has defined class in terms of life chances and said, “a dass is a number of people sharing one or more causes of life chances”. By life chances he meant “the typical chances for a supply of goods, external living conditions, and personal life experience”. Karl Marx, an another main theorist of class, has written much about Social class but nowhere he has defined it in certain exact terms. From his writings, it appears that for Marx, “a class is a group of People who stand in a common relationship to the means of Production”, to the political-power structure, and to the ideas of thepa Social Stratification time, a relationship which nece: avily brings it INO conflic, i some other group having divergent ideas ae et ENE interests wi respect to the economic and political prrvefure Lawrence, 1972). This statement presents the Mc class. Thus, he defined class in econor ; he wr i people wh , 4 Thus, a social class is an aggregate of peop! 10 have wal status, rank or common characteristics ee This aggregate E people is identified on the basis of their relationship to the Cconomig market who have differential access to wealth, power and certaj styles of life. Ownership of wealth together with pccuPation are the chief criteria of class differences but education, hereditary Prestigg self-identification and recognition by others alsg Copreary basic ASIC Notig N of mic terms. group participation, Anon ! piay an important part in class distinction. Characteristics of class system The following are the principal characteristics of class system: 1. A system of hierarchy of status. 2. Asystem of social ranking based primarily on economic positio: 3. Asystem marked by unequal distribution of wealth and power, 4. Asystem more mobile than caste system. 5. Asystem in which status is achieved by one’s own efforts rathet than ascribed, assigned or inherited. 6. A system having some degree of permanency of the class structure. 7. Asystem based on stratum (class) consciousness and solidarity, 8. A-system having distinctive mode of life (lifestyle) and cultura expressions of each class. ’ 9. A system based on the recognition of superiority and inferiority in relation to those who stand or below in the social hierarchy. 10. A system in which boundaries between classes are fluid and al less precisely defined. 4 11. A system in which social classes act as sub-cultures—each social class is a system of behaviour, a set of values and a way of life187 Social Stratification sages Of social classes status Pp gusr Gasses are there? Classes are not sharply defined The aw ike comes tal status varies along a continuum. oO qcial classes may be € class known as underclass, which S ommposed of ethnic majority and underprivileged minorities. Members of uk underclass hav. ‘© worse workin, majority of the in this category. Significance of social classes The imponance or the signifi cance of social classes is reflected in the Rctions which they perform for societies that can be grouped as Sader: g conditions and living Population. In Indian context, weSocial Stratification 188 ortunities: Opportunities and Tewarg, ted by his class position, Weal, nd members of the upper Clasy 2 jass people. This helps them a,,,." the political, educational ang’ (‘i f mental cries and physica) jy" f cancer, diabetes, pneumonj, <“. including hear ve common at tones levels of the aw eer than towards the top comes in 3) (2) Colouring personality develop oar a child get, lke sub-cultures, the personality develop Is, i 'S affectey ways by social classes. His goa's, interests and habj. standards are equally class-typed- Studies of enitd developmen, and socialisation show that there is a lot of difference in the personality make-up of lower-class and Da cess groups, (3) Assigning social responsibilities and privileges: Social classe provide their members with distinctive sub-cultures that Prepare them for specialised functions in society. It is said that the social class is useful as an efficient means of role allocation in the society. Through role allocation, a society fixes social respons. bilities of persons. Champions of functional theory of stratification (Davis and Moore, 1945) claim that society requires a variety of occupational roles, and one’s social class background equip a person with the skills and attitudes desirable for his occupational function. A lot of unpleasant work must be done in any society, and someone must be persuaded to do it. The class system compels someone to do such unpleasant jobs. This position has been sharply criticised, and it is said that social class may be dysfunctional. It hinders social adjustment and it may make it difficult for the individual to make the best use of his potential abilities. ) (4) Shaping life-adjustment patterns: Social class affects the way cone deal with virtually every aspect of reality. The 2 fee sna aS at varies with social class. The town economic benefits Sena Political action connected wi 5 is class is conservative in accepting (1) Determining life opP' person are greatly affec! income confers power al more power than lows leading positions in spheres. Major types © er cl| changes while the opposite tends to be true of the uPP' ial dling many group differences: Social class affects the style of 4 poe jis members. As said above, social classes act like sub- : es es and, therefore, the groups which live differently, also eK and behave differently. This is why, we see great diversity ihe outlook and behaviour of different social classes. A band Mi sociologists are of this view that many other kinds of group sitferences—racial, religious, regional—are really class differ- ences : F pefining the conventional morality: Social classes do not merely O° giffer in etiquette or mode of behaviour; they also differ in more judgements. In his study of sex behaviour, Kinsey (1948) has shown how sex mores differ between classes. Premarital sex experience, which is viewed as ‘natural’ by the lower classes, is generally condemned by the middle classes. For them it is degenerating and ‘unnatural’. On almost every point of moral conduct, class-typed mores differ. (7) Cultivating class ethnocentrism: Social class directly or indirectly helps in developing stereotypes and prejudices against other than one’s own class. People at every class level tend to see those above themselves as snobbish, pretentious, exploiters and those beneath as either disgusting or pathetic, delinquents etc. Members of one class judge members of other classes in terms of their own expectations and values. The feeling of ‘us’ and ‘them’ begins with the family which later on paves the way for the formation of class ethnocentrism. Determinants of social class Different criteria have been adopted for making distinction between various classes. Those criteria vary with time, place and circum- stances, There was a time (in feudal and medieval times) when birth was the main criterion used in determining the status of a person in the society. In modern times, this criterion has not much relevance, though, it still persists in some or the other form. Following are the main criteria (attribute in the determination of social class:“ae Social strate ion of substantial amounts of we (1) Wealth and income: session guishing the upper clos “a is the main chara te ety persons having mate seat ‘ other class groups ! re higher social oe a respec eee ee nN ncome (money), one necessary society. Wealth any yet one’s class positon is not diteg upper-class position". a prostitute has less social sta proportional to re igh her income is far greater than ‘ than a professor t fall its weaknesses, wealth and income a professor. In spite o inant of social class, partly because of th an important determin ial class is basically awa es (a soci vay of life it p mits or enforces ( s : cally a way ofl fe partly because it suggests about one’s family life ang of life), @ f life Prpper-class children have a better chance, ang fo, way of life. er-class status is practic, lly i ildren, a secure upper-C’ a ally their grandchildre over a period of time, usually Sains nd income, here assured. Wealth a alysis of class divisions, Karl Mary his ani upper-class status. In ui ane that social class is based entirely on wealth. Occupation is an exceedingly important aspect of h it is another determinant of class status, ome kinds of work are more (2) Occupation: social class and as suc! It is a well-known fact that s d a honourable than others, ¢.g., doctors, engineers, administrators, professors and lawyers hold a higher position than a car mechanic or manual worker. The high-prestige occupations generally receive the higher incomes, yet there are many excep: tions. Occupation is also one of the best clues to one’s way of life, and therefore to one’s social class membership. It affects many other facets of life (values, beliefs, marital relations) other than determining the social cla: 4 ae There is a close reciprocal relationship between social class au es ; nan d and education. To get a higher education one needs) eae oH motivation. Upper-class children already have) ‘or the finecr en y_ ha ivadiion i‘ Ee ee schools and colleges, They also have family and social encour: z p : al encouragement. One's amount and kind of} education affee allects the class pp : od ; 65 rank he secure. Thus, education 1S one of the main levers will secure. Thus, educ ] 8 of a man’s social class.r Sociat Stratification veige: refers to the respect and admiration witl 9 re parion Is regarded by society. Prestige is independen| ticular person who occupies a job, Sociologists have ti righ prestige rankings to various occupations. . jges wealth, occupation and education, there ar® certain “ria which help a person to attain higher social status in the ey. These are family background, kinship relations, Jocation © gente etc., but education, occupation and expanded income are most fairly visible clues of social class. With these are associated ast of the other behaviour characteristics which make one ‘belong’. ost of the social scientists have used these three criteria in dividing jeorle into social classes for research purposes. nero pifference between class and caste systems jn Max Weber's phraseology, caste and class are both status groups. while castes are perceived as hereditary groups with a fixed ritual gatus, social classes are defined in terms of the relations of production. ‘A social class is a category of people who have a similar socio-economic status in relation to other classes in the society. The individuals and families which are classified as part of the same social dass have similar life chances, prestige, style of life, attitudes etc. In the caste system, status of a caste is determined not by the economic and the political privileges but by the ritualistic legitimation of authority. In the class system, ritual norms have no importance at all but power and wealth alone determine one’s status (Dumont, 1958). Class system differs in many respects from other forms of strati- fication—slavery, estate and caste system. In earlier textbooks such as written by Maclver, Davis and Bottomore, it was observed that caste and class are polar opposites. They are antithetical to each other. While ‘class’ represents 4 ‘democratic society’ having equality of opportunity, ‘caste’ is obverse of it. Following are the main differ- ences between class and caste systems: : , 1, Castes are found in Indian sub-continent only, especially in India, while classes are found almost everywhere. Classes ee especially the.¢ dustrial societies of Europe ansocial Strate 192 iS o pumont and Leach, caste jg ae ly in India. - Hie, 4 economic differences be alities in possession ang cate in caste system Non-eeo, et hi ing According © non found 0M mainly | ividuals—ined! America. phenome! Classes depend i f ind! i groupings © aewhereas i of material influence of religion [theory of karma, n i acl be ji ost important. factors such ; pollution)] are mi p. and ritual (purity ata, classes are not estapy es of stré ik s or other types ays 7 Unlike castes gious provisions; membership is not baseg ; by legal or ition aS specified either legally or by custom, on inherited ee cae membership is inherited in the caste systen, the other han¢ , ically more fluid than the caste system o, the | Class system f eaification and the boundaries between classes one er clear-cut Caste system is static whereas the das is amic. ae a system, there are no formal restrictions on | marriage between people from different inter-dining and inter~ t classes as is found in the caste system. Endogamy is the essence of caste system which is perpetuating it. Social classes are based on the principle of achievement, ie., on one’s own efforts, not simply given at birth as is common in the caste system and other types of stratification system. As such social mobility (movement upwards and downwards) is much more common in the class structure than in the caste system or in other types. In the caste system, individual mobility from one caste to another is impossible. This is why, castes are known as closed classes (D.N. Majumdar). It is a closed system of stratifi- cation in which almost all sons end up in precisely the same vite ren coe The system of stratification in Britain and United aa - ida muobaliy, uch oa th dew th €s is known as open class system. The Stini ‘at castes are closed classes is not ted by MN. Tinivas (1962) and Andre Beteil accepted Dj In the caste system . eteille (1965). inequalities are Aah ote types of stratification system, ships of duty or obligati cc’ Primarily in personal relation” ‘gation—between lower- and higher-castdocial Stratification jauals, petween serf and lord, ativi® ite on er. and, the Detween slave and mast ye other hand, the nature of class system is impersona’ \ aystem operates mainly through large-scale connections of impersonal kind, 8 M at s cule a s igste SYS . o ulative inequality’ but clas: : ees is characterised by ‘dispersed inequality ty’ naste ae eee neue System but class has a segmentary character where various segments are motivated by competition iieach, 1960). a system is characterised by ‘cum, ste works as an active political force j 5 2 io $566) put class does not work so. in a village (Beteille, yew dynamics of class some sociologists argue that class today has become relatively ‘psimportant in the so-called modern Post-industrial societies, apecially the societies of the western world and North America pecause of the weakening of the reproduction of classes through the impact of global processes. The modern changes (privatisation, jberalisation, proletarianisation, de-industrialisation, globalisation atc.) suggest that the capacity for social production of both classes (capitalist and proletariat) has been reduced. Indeed, the 1980s and 1990s have seen the emergence of a new culture known as an enter- prise culture through which it is said that anyone can, given initiative, skills and a bit of luck, ‘get on’ and ‘do well’. Itis not surprising to find people saying (Abercrombie and Urry, 1983) that class identities have lost their meaning in the modern world, that class itself has lost importance as a determinant of social Position and reward, that new social movements—such as the peace and human rights movement, the environmental movement, vegetar- ianism, alternative medicines (healing through yoga and indigenous herbs) and technologies and feminism—have all replaced the allegiances and respect that the labour movement once commanded. These new movements proclaim the demise of traditional ee qaucture or decomposition of class. Moreover, class identities ha importance of ‘consumption, ‘sn said to be eroded “oa easeloe Social Stratification ' anted society, identity jg In the post-modern consumption-or iented 8° ae a ty is ders more by what we consume than by the wore £0 NOL doy assertion is true? The above view of aa gerated. There is not much truth j iit alive and well. Anthony Gjqg) far from accurate, The influence class may be less than Marx supposed, but there are few spheres social life left untouched by class difference’ nae legree to whig traditional class distinctions and inequalities have been eroded h been much exaggerated. Secondly, where there are significa changes, they are primarily a result of the growing impact ¢ globalisation (economic process) that is forcing a restructuring class at national level throughout the capitalist industrialised wor Instead of total decomposition of class, what we observe is th change in the class structure. The global processes (such as th decline of manufacturing industry) have altered the context with; which class reproduction occurs. Membership of the upper clas. which was previously based on ownership of property—tan businesses, and financial organisations—is now replaced by profes. sionals (doctors, engineers, lawyers, chartered accountants, managers and administrators, etc.). Likewise, the structure of midd] and lower classes has also changed because of the change in th structure of occupations. Many new shades of occupations have cropped up. As a result of these changes, the working class i contracting relative to other classes and a rootless and disaffecte underclass is developing. Not only this, the feminisation of certai jobs has also affected the class structure. How far the above a decomposition is highly ¢ The basic class structure is (2000) argues: “Thus. picture Is Processes of Stratification The basi ‘fication ip aiekiy Senerate, shape and sustain systems of strat (2) ranking Gi ernie de (1969) are: (1) differentiation asic aluation, and (4) rewardii (2) Differentiati rding. which sétial” oF sauses: Status differentiation is the process b: employer, wea such as father, mother, teacher an ned and distinguished from one another b}(3) 4 assigning © each a distinctive role—a set of rights and responsi- pilities. All roles j ‘vat S involve a good deal of teaching, learning, motivating and sanction; ae eae eto any society if it is to ing. This process is indispensabl Continue fi i " for a long time. status differentiatig : are clearly defineg: 0 Operates most effectively when (1) tasks roles are clearly dj (2) lines of authority and responsibility for for recruiting and qnsuished; (3) effective mechanism exists assume the statuses; 8 a sufficient number of persons to rewards and punish Nd (4) adequate sanctions in the form of eae Ments ex; ‘ ae conscientious Performance, exist to motivate individuals to Ranking of statuses: personal cee eat! can be ranked on three criteria: (i) (ii) trained skills an a i intelligence, beauty or strength; abiliti ; knowledge of law, commang ouch a manual. dexterity, of evaluational jud ate igements, such as superior/inferior, better/worse, more/less need to be distin- guished. Process of rewarding: Rewarding involves the allocation of various amounts of the good things in life to statuses which have been differentiated, ranked and evaluated. In every society there are rules or norms that determine how rewards will be distributed. These rules can be very variable and operate in such a way that large portions of a population may live in poverty while others can enjoy comfort or luxury in great proportion. They can call for relatively equal allocation to all. But, some inequality in rewards is, of course, characteristic of every known society. Classical Theories of Social Stratification Why are societies stratified? The 4) debated uestion has been widely (one of the champions o} jologists like SpencerSocial stratification 196 aan . d 1 the Soe ee id those who profited flora ; ro an evolutional y »__came outdontte 7 n—survival of He fae Fiore wealth, power 2 ing alth, © fo nen > Cduea Cfittest) whereas inferior People tion w i iety, ders in the societ) oe k of society: This view was challenges ch) pelieved that society developeg n selectio superior people and become lea’ ee mi remain in the bottom raj s eetatealo ‘ologists.. Modern sociology 74S ped two tb later socio! one . dy of social stratification—structura]-fyp, ai approaches to the stucy © eheoliav ti St and conflict perspectives. These approa ae a © been °XPlaing I under the heading ‘Modern Theories of Stratification, jater on a Marxian perspective ; le Marxian perspective about social stratification revoly £ social classes. No theorist stressed the signig social change more strongly tha, ty and for .d class differentiation as the crucial deted The whol round the concept 0 cance of class for socie! Karl Marx. Marx viewe en 7 u minant of social, economic and political inequality. According Marx, there is always a dominant and a subordinate class—a rulin class and a subject class. The former (ruling class) is the class whic owns the means of production (e.g., land and machinery) and th latter (subject class) sells its labour to survive. The ruling clas survive its power from the ownership and control of the forces of production. The relationship between these classes has always bee exploitative in all phases of history (feudal or any types of ancient societies) with an exception of a simple primitive society. Mai believed that primitive societies were non-class societies. In suc societies, there was simple equality and as such there was no stratifi cation based on class. between the two classes. This ae enone a continuous ance prea Me on ict between social classes has bee! these lines: “The history of all Faye We find echo of these views! class struggles.” Marx viewed hi: itherto existing society is the history ¢ From a Marxian Perspective eae esau outgroysthiof class smut relationships of social classe: stems of stratification derive from S to the forcac ‘Af mendicertan Accordl‘ 447 Social Stratification Marxian view, a class is a social group whose members share the me relationship to the forces of production. s Though Marx analysed stratification in all types of human gocieties, Dut his main focus was on the societies of 19th century purope. During this period, Europe was under the spell of modern industrial capitalistic mode of production. The society was divided jnto two Main classes—industrialists or capitalists—those who own the means Of production (factories a, wages paid to the work. i are well below the value of the goods they rete vane ‘dirference petween the value of the wages and com, K value’. This surplus value is appro; capitalists. Marx argued that ca: labour produces wealth. commodities is known as ‘surplus opriated in the form of profit by the pital, as such, produces nothing. Only Thus, in the capitalist society, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat one of mutual dependence and conflict. It is a relationship of exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. According to Marx, the oppression and exploitation of the proletariat will inevitably lead to the destruction of the capitalist system. But, for this, the working class must first develop class consciousness—a subjective awareness held by members of a class regarding their common vested interests and the need for collective political action to bring about social change. Marx differentiated between class consciousness and false consciousness. For Marx, false consciousness is a belief that the upper class is superior and has the tight to rule. It gives a false picture of the nature of the relationship between social classes. Criticism Commenting on the theory of Marx, T-B. Bottomore (classes i Modern Society. 1965) has observed: “For the past eighty yearses Social Stratification .o criticism and tenag theory has been the object of unrelenting Mays Mane "ati ce. i € oe Malysi defence.” This observation remain et nat even tM i ii istic. Crit a : as too simplistic. OF Fi jeghvwad bécomin of class is seen ist alist soviet see = time the class structure © srisaged by Mare. Mo" e -o-polar system a5 complex rather than a bio- pola fe mportance pf lasSand pane also criticised for exaggerating © n| future classless society 5, flict. His prediction about ; aia Society se ey “valikely and unachievable. in modem a to many unli jour of consciousness and peo oF mise more ‘moderate’ and ee aies seen as Joaded with political ap, is i mi class analysis is $0! nat hi i i is also said tha’ ideological bias. It is ei oer eniakig in the garb of scientific ana seen as Go Jater. “the God that failed Sine scientific interest 1n class has shifted from M individual mobility. Curre; fare to the struggle for in a ee a, eesnsiic and governmental changes have change, the ae ot the so-called capitalist society and we are advancin, toward a middle class society. lysis. Today, Marxism wax Weber's theory Max Weber, the great German sociologist, though developed analysis of stratification around the views of Marx, but insisted that no single characteristic (such as class) totally defines a person's position within the stratification system. Weber argues that th evidence provides a more complex and diversified picture of soci stratification. He argued that social stratification is a reflection o} unequal distribution of power. Since power can be derived fro different kinds of resources—a system of social stratification presents more than one dimension according to which a man has a standing. cara ta Seamer es 7 stood solely in Sia nee a Ser could not be unde distinct components ere ee ae identified three analyticall Weber's opinion, these three ifort class, status and party. Thus, people in modern Society: clas: Beta ac ‘ Ss power (economic) based %199 lationship to the Means Funded On esteem, (soci se Production s oihers, and party Power honour Biven tong oc Sfarences, a er a political, legal o, liticaly, eri ® Individuals o groups by ove Mary's view ther Ta Ministry ive gy ftom ©ne's dominance a, Wwe, well discuss Wry 84 starye 2. Wenn did not accept Now, USS Weber's i abou rely functions of class. prief. class, Status and party in Class Although Weber ace vie 5 ¥ WwW i tively given economic Conditions. a cass 's found precise definition of class and the Seno formation. Weber. € role o; €co i S Most detaileq discuss; eae Wirtschaft and Geselj Pts Mary's yi led on, objec- ™m™ Marx on the “class situation” is pri i used property or ¢ d by pr “class situations” he lack of Property as the ‘Operty differences”, He - He made distinction basic distinction in all between €conomic clas ances. experience, skills largely determine the types of jobs people are able to obtain. The better qualified and e es Qualifications or credentials, same social class share similar chances of social mobility. Thus, a man from a low social background would tend to have ae cand social mobility. Members of a given social class, oe P, 4 ‘ommon socio-economic situation. This difference in the tlass led to a fundamental disa about the class structure of alis Weber differed wi ut about the membeSo cise Bm? ribet rs! le of life or . ip is style 0! a . ° z oes Dieta: Se oave ight to certain oppa eae : ee wad | in the estate or caste system = ae en led caste system as status groups discussed catlier (Weber has regard systel a ewan Wal While distinguishing between ascribed and achieved s' : a states that ascribed status has rapidly declined as a means ofa a economic and political power in modern societies. He a economic and career opportunities as increasingly open t0 © tition in modem society. Pointing out difference between status and class. anther Giddens (2000) states: “Whereas class is objectively give. 5°" depends on people’s subjective evaluations of social differen Classes derive from economic factors associated with propery jOE eS e | mers Social Stratification «status is . S| ning Leanne by the varying styles of life grou?’ egy.” Marx regarded status distinctions primarily as a product 0 for. stratifice . modern societies, an individual’s status is ass Gerived from his eco, nomic or class situation. Finally, in 4 me contrast between statu, 5 allins her 'S group and class membership, Weber oli’, that Whereas status groups e , IPS are ‘communities’, classes are att It has b not. as been aya 4 central problem of Marxism that the class as a whi wort emery coche has not become an active political a those whe pce and status situations are closely a rily belong to. the ie uae the same class situation will not ece € status group. F 5 are - ip. For example, the reorricd peor : Fee excluded from the status a of the 7 rivilege cir tastes, manners and dress are define a d as walgat- Thus, status groups may create divisions within classes. party (Power) For weber, party is eae and distinct political dimension of strati- fication. Weber defines ‘parties’ as groups which are specificall concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in ihe interests of their membership. Parties are concerned with the acqui- sition of social ‘power’. He did not regard political power as a function of economic factors as Marx did. In modern societies, according to Weber, parties live in a house of power. In other words, they are an important source of power. They can influence stratifi- cation independently of class and status. Marx tended to explain both status differences and party organisation in terms of class. In contrast to Marx, Weber argued that party and status identities could cut across class lines. Weber insisted that, although economic factors could certainly affect political ones, the reverse was also true. In Weber's view, then, each of us has not one rank but three. A person’s Position in a stratification system reflects some combination of his or her class, status and power. ; Weber’s analysis of classes, status groups and parties suggest that no single theory can pinpoint and explain their Ce aE i i: formation of socia} §) interplay of class, status and party in the f that in rejecting complex and variable. In conclusion, it.can, be saSocial stratification 202 ycture (Marx atte, «< of the class ses ia ittempte, Marx’s polarised analysis ‘ id social class) ani a acing iz wh ty * ality reformulate Marx’ a reduce all forms of ineq ek acrempted tO aes . 7S the, finely graded version, oo pasis “Of weber’s perspective isp. ° weber and Marx we,, i ba! of stratification. Yet. ee ents int, : a ia i i jal « ee ma conflict. On this fun ments are Similar in y ways, te, i or ik Olin Wri agreement. Since d ee sce the a eat right ast complementary 17 ow 5 ai 1979) an G. ae cos | 1971, in their own way. Wrigh | | | 1985), Frank Parkin ane aditions i attempted to combine ' concept of capitalist economic contro], jig has reformulated Marx's ‘ of weber in nis theory at ui has also incor are three dimensions of control ove, ‘According to Wright, modern capitalist production. These include, One hysical means of production, mainly lang, (1) control over the Fy control over investment capital; and (3) i offices; . zy Eom ne power. These dimensions are the bases that allow control over classes. Critics of Wright argue that there jg f contradictory class locations identify the major 5 oa ce between this analysis © and Weber's analysis of the new white-collar classes. In contrast to Wright, Parkin’s theory of class leans heavily on Weber than on Marx. Parkin agrees with Marx that ownership of property (means of production) is the basic foundation of class structure. However, according to Parkin, property is only one form of social closure (a process whereby groups try to maintain exclusive control over resources), which can be monopolised by a minority and used as a basis of power over others. Besides property or wealth, other charac- ; teristics such as ethnic origin, language and religion as used by Weber may be used to create social closure. a x on Sees Soe of class structure presented so far on personal marketability ena neni ae a ne A third area of distinct concern h: i Be Be effectively come of control. Thi tm has arisen in recent class theory, that is has focussed particular] ; : management. W.G, Runciman arly on the rise of white-collar class scheme to integrate diffe GesO) ns developed an. ambitiog control in a single model of eed of ownership, marketability and class. His unifying concept is that of he standP srists 1iK there«. pole which h i wi rt ‘ sthich te. sorsiders to be the basis of class. Assessing 2 weaver of mI les, Runciman con: 1 wh upper class, upper-middle ae cade ia ‘ass, middle-middle clas: Ss, ek s. ski a iadle class, skilled working ¢ “ai orking class, unskilled working class and ‘Ass in terms of economic power cl s. Runciman’s analysis of cl ines elements of neo-Marxist and neo-Weberi x contemporary sociologists have also debated pi Ay eres of the ceo of social seaantan ee fuses ee ‘ormation technology, Gerhard Lenski ee E n privileges 1966) maintains that “the appearance of mature i nds “al societies marks the first significant reversal in th age oid tionary trend toward ever increasing inequali ” ooh most notably F. Hunter and C.W. i eae ae voll al societies have produced a new type of power elite, who controls write! the destiny of modern nations such as America. Modern Theories of Stratification The theories of these early writers—Spencer, Marx and Weber—have a strong influence on the two main prevailing modern theories of ratification—Structural-Functional Theory and Conflict Theory that we are dealing with in the following paragraphs: structural-functional theory stratification has been put forward by Davis and Moore (1945) and, separately by Talcott Parsons (1954), who derives it in fact from Spencer and Durkheim. Structural-functionalists have refined Spencer’s notion that society, like any other organism, is self-regulating and self-maintaining and that it consists of interre- lated parts that serve a function in maintaining the system as a whole, This theory of According to modern structural-functionalists, stratification is to function. It serves ‘vital Necessary or inevitable for society ae Jarly, in an industria sociel functions’ in complex society, particul Ir , i Where it inevitably occt re primarily concerne204 Sociat Seratifica Tor eracificat and stabi with the function of social * systems help to maintain order These writers have arZue society and that the particular rewa™ are the result of their functional 8 Pa placed in the hands of people ae eee Society rewards thos€ who serve = aah $ Wealth and status, both scarce resource who serve society by providing ca people. Thus, inequal ed by th lity is creat! desires and needs of individuals (Davis 2 means that an unequal di ibution of reward: successful functioning of fistril societies Characters© labour. Under the division regular basis. Some of these tas! A that therefore of labour people in others and must ks are more clo requirements tha i : sufficient DEOD: rewarded in order to attract performing them. Davis and Moore begin their most celebrated ar Principles of Stratification” (1945) with the observation th cation exists in every human society. They reg: social sa as a ‘functional necessity’ and see it as a solution to 2 proble by all social systems. They argue that all societies me mechanism for insuring effective role allocation and This mechanism is social stratification which they see as 2 which attaches unequal rewards and privileges to the positions in society. Us <7 individuals to cance oe me one lati Davis and Moore on y Important pos (or tasks) that ae hat iy el seceaes eae others. Such positions ( ely have) Tore “funcional ogo and trained or tasks) must be filled with properly persons. These positions d ii ills i be performed adequately. It i need special skills if Persons be attracted to those es ae sary that the mot While anyone can perform Cupations which require unskilled tasks, only the taleSociat Stratification uy tt * a fe d 4 ain skill jalis® K certain skilled o; . . pe fast be rewarded isi “consequently, persons with spe 7 ay ai Is Syferent al’ Yeveards ie’ ae Prestige or power. TheY they Sy ft pute to the maintenance ang ont for society, because The e Er aia Breaker wean ce Well-being of social syste™s- 4 Ss. 7 Sti. it hy - ty as a class. Given this, ang '8e and power marks a section ° hf ote crass privileges will be eve the existence of the human & ee But, there will also be par by one generation from a att ahd ate uinsucceSafur'ae a amount of social mobility; «| tte jose their class position, wh Tming the tasks required of them may » While others with exceptional abilities may rise. Like many functionalists, Talcott Pa: ratification as both inevitable and functic table because it derives from shared val art of all social systems. It is functional bi various groups in society. His theory of s on the role of common values in the maintenance of social systems He believes that order, stability and Cooperation in society are based on value consensus. His theory of Stratification is based on the following assumptions: sons (1953) sees social ‘ues which are a necessary ecause it serves to integrate tratification is based mainly (1) Power and prestige differentials are essential for the coordi- nation and integration of a specialised division of labour. (2) Social inequality is also essential, without this how members of society could effectively cooperate and work together. (3) Inequalities of power and prestige benefit all members of society since they serve to further collective goals which are based on shared values. (4) High rewards are necessary to motivate people to do functionally important jobs. (5) Achievement values have replaced ascriptive criteria in indus- trial society and a merit system placed people in occupations. (6) Occupations are arranged social prestige accor society. 3 (7) There is a consensus’ > Bee soelat su auiicallol! abave pong 4 atonal ' hs Bal \y oy ittoleen ALeAHHLCATIOD an ‘Ng Daysons has been silos a ven NE | Wy paclaloylals bellove hae gists of Manian followiagy | These rather hare au (ate tly Binet ae ane en of othern hoy spoty: sete aoa } wh aeraigenent wi > is hae jew that anal HiCaTlOn BYPLONIG Gg also questionedd Parsons Aiteimately thom shared valor, Criticism ‘ vavily in a longer counts were 2 eee bate. Vl rn Ranetionatist account the Davis Moore debate, Vhe evita ferred toe ee cOUALER AEUIMENE (1) e followin debate popularly te yas can ayy purr foeW’ aa} UMPOLLAAES ot posit ic the theory: is cireulaty, becaus fu functional of of more impor at paying. (2) rhat chey spu te vital or imporsunt (0 a soc eomic reward can be cen aw vitae ae on i I} than the manual labour, ety, The nun saveeper) for the one cannot operate without the other, (3) Thai conflict and the influence of power as aspects of stratification | under-emphasised. (4) That the s mificance of wealth and props is ignored. (5S) That the which inequality refle extent (0 exaggerated. (6) ‘That the consensual clement od. (7) That the theory favours not bet vccified CFuminy . high-paying Jobs are defings “yimply beeause they are nent Chat some Ui lth this vie function dispute yor ec ager is NO MELE vila social stability (st quo) rather than change. (8) That it ignores the inheritance of position, (9) That stratification is not beneficial to society |] actually it may hinder the efficient working of a social syste! preventing those with superior, innate abilities from performi certain tasks which are the preserve of a privileged clas: (10) Th they question the need for large income differentials as a mea’ 1S attracting men of talent to skilled occupation. Critics argue, in fa nee eae special skills, they will usually give tees néed ww ee ee hose which do not, so that there should ites ‘wards, not more. (11) That they cast dol on the implicit assumption that actual dif: J d reflect differences in the skills paacion ferentials of rewara required for particular occupatio® achievement over-empha:Sociat Stratification final criticism i: he ossible if it pe al classes 35» in that a society without social ¢ rages : i Ses a value syst which enco inl ont to equality and publi system, ; i jg theory iif edias an ideolovi Service, It is said that this th mm exposed as 2 ological ju aa an s 0 : . \ stification of existing pattern i caveriny Te America that was concerned to deny the ott g social class. To conclude, it ma ty B i is and i | cory pivots on the causes and ¢ y be written that Davis a7 aoe society. There is little on consequences of social stratifi- yn fOr FE AA - ¥ NO concern in i 0" ces of individuals who consti ern in it for the personal serie” titute the society. a and Moore’s v iews in his book entitled ‘ of meritocracy and th: 5 ciples at is functic i ied out many dysfunction: a ional for society. He es: For instance, he argu is ed that in a meri 5 eritocracy, “talent and ity are efficiently syphoned Out of the lower strata. As a result. ese STOUPS are in a particularly vulneral ; fi ible position be cause the’ yave 20 able members to represent their interests”. 2 some scholars like Eva Rosenfeld (Social Stratification in a qassless’ Society, 1974) tried to investigate the truth of the function- glist’s claim. that stratification is inevitable. From her research of the {sraeli ‘Kibbutzim’ system (a system which tries to translate the idea of an egalitarian society—a society without social inequality), posenfeld notes that even in this system authority and prestige are not equally distributed. The position of ‘leader-manager’ in the Kibbutzim carries authority and commands higher prestige than the lower stratum that consists of the ‘rank and file’. This study clearly lends some support to the functionalists’ claim that social stratifi- ation, at least in terms of power and prestige, is inevitable in human society. Conflict theory (Marx's theory) Conflict theory begins principally with the writings of Karl Marx that Wehave discussed in detail in the previous section. Conflict theorists "ect outrightly the above functional view of ication. They _ Mgue that inequality develops as.a, c aot gearce ailBain compete with one another to _ According t0 eu view, resourg e8 acquired through inl fan core sults when one group acquires moe According 1° Marxion analy ceil feconomic interest, 1.C., the individway resources, and close knit groups resources. not rewards for talent but are or exploitation, Inequality re resources than other groups class depends on similarity oF ee relation to the means of production. a teary goth centuries we al theorists in the oe sunctionalists of the mid-2¢f oie ary concept Of socien! ict i ir of a unit conflict in favou a BEC "y - integration (stability and order), socig f a: of common values. Som, ilibri rmonious effect 0! : 4 equilibrium EE yEOE and 1960s attempted to revive what they int y against the dominant theory of functionalis George Simmel to this end. Those identified with the conflict school, such as Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Lewis Coser and Ralf Dahrendorf, see society as a collectiof of institutions—economic, political, educational—that are ated with each other. The unequal distribution of property, power and prestige is seen as representing a special privilege enjoyed by an elite. Social stratification or social inequalit is thus conceived by these theorists as a major source of continuing conflict in a society. They see conflict as inherent, natural andj predictable in any social organisation. They believe that human beings are prone to conflict over such scarce resources as wealth, status and power. They are not concerned much about how parts of an organisation (society) fit together or how they sustain each other; rather, they inquire into the sources of tension and strain and view these as natural products of social interaction. The functionalists (of See study the Positive functions of social inequali y : 4 conflict theorists are more concerned with the negative functions. Conflict theorists reject the functional view @urberman, 1976), arguing that inequality devel esult of people’s desire for scarce resou: ange ac Seana te with one another to sii rces, and close-knit groups compet Nn possession of these resources. Soc t concerned with conflict in s century neglecte' and emphasised social sociologis called ‘conflict theor of the time, drawing on Karl Marx, various generally poorly integr_ | ry gives us a full understanding of Some sociologists have attempted 10" thesise these two approaches of stratification (Dahrendorf, s9st Tumin, 1963; Lenski, 1966). Researches in this field suggest oat stratification has a variety of causes, some based on conflict and gome on Cooperation (functions). A str: atification system based on religion may stress feelings of community and selflessness. Others, pased on landownership or accumulation of money, may tend to ‘ » f individuals that may lead to conflict. It is becoming increasingly apparent that stratification is influenced by a great many factors. hess of functional and conflict approaches of * ification chet functional nor conflict theo: Lies stratification systems develop. les. Consequently, a definite and rigid social class system develops, such as a ruling class. a merchant class and a Peasant class. Such Feminisation of Stratification Feminist Sociology challenges Conventional class analysi Socio-economic 'D210 Social Stratification Stidies ofjetratintation ware forsmany eae een eee Pind it exist, OF fOr purpo, ve s though women did a and prestige, wome; enw wealth i ander itself is one of the were written analysing divisions of power, unimportant and uninteresting. i profound examples of stratification: ‘There are no societies in yy men do not, in some aspects of social life, have more wealth, ahd influence than women (Giddens, 2000). the connection bety, fail to provide 7 wid its expressions through Most researches economic subordination of women E i. oo family and personal life. \ceording to radicalists, 1 ie the place ccoreproduction which ultimately de it can be argued y In this sense, p. Yet class divisions are ¢ is no doubt that they ‘over inequalities. Generally, the econo: ort? from her husband, since majori in of economic dependence on their husb: Jass position is most often governed by husband’ How far this approach is correct, is a mat of continuous debate. Since the last decade, female-headed fami (either by choice or death, divorce, separation) are increasing eve ies. As such, the positit where, especially in USA and western societ ce women should be studied independent of their husbands/fath Some scholars have suggested that the class position of a wom should be determined without reference to the household women in relation to econ le/female differences. ‘analogous to class rel societies that ther mines ma’ i , jationshi ‘gender marked in modern substantially with gender tion of a woman is ‘read posi women are in a positi it follows that th ir c 's class situation. domestic circumstances. In her survey of the literature Gaye Tuchman (Hearth and Hot Images of Women in the Media, 1978) showed that women w portrayed in only two significant roles: the domestic and the se: oe the romantic). In contrast, males appeared prominently oS a employment, family, polity and other areas of social li Clears pes were presenting men as dominant and women} steer aeiee man describes this as a ‘symbolic annihilation’ is reflects something akin to the real undermining women in society.% Social Stratification 211 | stratification in Post-Industrial Societies —~ 50 rf 15 wr? | i ; 80 ticable in the post-industrial societies. New 8 ;fication, which have recently emerged, are not assoc at means of production or not necessarily based upon the wi gessi n of wealth. In the post-industrial societies the majority 8 abour force is engaged in the provision of services, technical a tHe 4gsi0®) workers increase in numbers, and scientific enowledge momes crucially important in the direction of economic, poll cal, 12cm jal affairs (Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Sociz Y, wg). Some social scientists have argued that a managerial lass has ed that possesses power independent of those who technically is means of production. The numbers of technocrats have also _o at an amazing rate in post-industrial societies. In addition, the aks of the jower white-collar class, such as sales and clerical eople, computer operators and other non-manual workers, have ily expanded. (This accounts about the post-industrial e extent on the changing Indian Pee drastical : societies is also applicable to som id classification of class (bourgeoisie and proletariat) is of society.) The changes in the social stratification systems of post-industrial societies have prompted some commentators to foresee @ new society Dahrendorf (1959) believes that we are entering @ post-capitalist era where ownership of property is no longer a preteq uisite to membership jn the upper classes. Rather, he contends that those who exercise control in the political and economic realms now constitute a governing class. Daniel Bell envisages 4 period in which those who possess knowledge will increasingly gain in power. Utopians, such as Herbert Marcuse, Immanuel Wallerstein, Melford es for post-indus i Spiro, and Paul Goodman foresee different futur civilisation.