Social Stratification Hierarchy, Difference, and Social Mobility ‘Most generally understood, stratification is about how people are placed in different social categories. Broadly speaking, stratification takes two forms. The first kind of stratification is based on a ranked scale where inequality, of one kind or the other, is the defining factor. There is a second kind of social ordering possible where stratification is not about ranking or inequality. In this case the relevant social categories thar separate people are based on conceptions of difference. If inequality is the key feature then the stratificatory system can be characterized as a hierarchical one. If difference is more important then the various social orders face cach other as horizontal and equal blocs. A ranked hierarchy does not make that much sense here. Inequalities of income or rank quite clearly belong to the hierarchical order of stratification. In fact, for a long time social stratification was only another term for social inequality (sce Sorokin 1967). In a ranked hierarchy of wealth there are the rich and the poor, and a variety of people in- between, There could aleo be hierarchiee of power, etatue, oF influence. In a power hierarchy, for instance, those at the top wield the most power while the multitude at the bottom have very little power, if any at all. Similar hierarchies could also be worked out for status or influence. In all such cases we see the geological model of stratification at work, where one layer is placed on top of the other much like the earth’s crust. If instead of power or wealth one takes into account forms of stratification based on difference then the geological model cannot be easily invoked. For example, linguistic differences cannot be placed in a hierarchical order. Looked at closely, neither should differences between men and women be understood in terms of inequality: Sadly, however, such differences areMORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 503 never always allowed to retain their horizontal status. They usually tend to get hierarchized in popular consciousness. This is where prejudice takes over. Men are deemed to be superior to women, certain linguistic groups are held to be less civilized and cultivated than others, and religious bigotry prevails, all because most of us are not conditioned co tolerate difference qua difference. The conceptual need to separate these two orders arises because in the sociology of social stratification attention is directed to the manner in which hierarchy and difference relate to each other. If hierarchy and difference could hold on to their respective terrains then there would be no real need to study stratification as a special area of interest. If it is hierarchy alone that is of interest, then ‘social inequality’ would be a good enough rubric within which to organize our study. If, on the other hand, it is only difference that is of concern then the tried and tested term ‘social differentiation’ should do adequately. The term ‘social stratification’, however, is not a synonym of either social inequality or of social differentiation. As social stratification is about the way hierarchy and difference continuously act upon each other, we are sensitized to issues of social stability and order, as well as to potentialities for social change. It is because of this dual aspect that social stratification occupies such a central position both in sociology and social anthropology. As will be discussed in the pages to follow, the scope for change and dynamism differs vastly with different kinds of stratification systems. Social stratificatio: is also of critical academic concern as there are no known societies today that are not stratified in one form or another. One can of course imagine a world where there are no inequalities, but if that world were also to be characterized by sameness then it would certainly be a very boring place to live in. Utopians of all stripes are keen to further an image of a society that knows no hierarchical or class differences. Yet they would baulk at the notion that these societies should be free of differences and variations. In a utopia, differences would not carry traces of hierarchy in them. One could with equal facility, and without prejudice, move from being a fisherman to a poet or from one religious set of beliefs to another. The real world is vastly different, and that is why uropians tend not to ground themselves in the real. In the real world it is impossible to think of differences without at the same time surreptitiously bringing in hierarchy. Even in the simplest of societies where there are only very rudimentary distinctions between people, there are still rankings of sorts. Men are usually held to be superior to women and cadets and youngsters are under the control of elders; where there are chieftains then the elaboration of hierarchy may get more complex. Yet if we wish to understand how hierarchical orders are504 THE OXFORD INDIA COMPANION 70 SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY disputed and sometimes overthrown, it is necessary to factor the aspect of difference into our analysis. A major contention in this chapter is that hierarchy left to itself emphasizes stability, whereas it is the appreciation of difference that sows seeds of discord within these hierarchical orders. By the same token, it is precisely in those societies where hierarchies, whether of wealth or of power, are weak that the scope for social change is practically negligible. It is not surprising then that the so-called primitive communities should have been characterized in anthropology as ‘cold societies? because they were outside the scope of historical change. ‘When colonialism brought such regions into the ambit of rapid social transformation, they began to develop rigid notions of hierarchy and, concomitantly, a greater degree of alienation based on social difference. Most contemporary societies, whether developed or developing, present evidence of a higher order of stratification than just between sexes, or between elders or cadets. The question of inequality, of course, looms large in much of our thinking about stratification, but there is also the issue of cultural diversity. Tensions between diverse languages, religions, colours, and sects arise because of the conflicting ways by which each community wants to rank others in real operational terms. Unlike the utopias mentioned earlier, people are not always prepared to let differences flourish for their own sake without hierarchizing and labelling them in terms of good and bad, refined and crude, or civilized and uncivilized, Ic should also be kept in mind thar the categories employed in the study of social stratification are the creations of the analyst. Sometimes these creations coincide with popular concepts, but most often they do not. For example, the term ‘class’ is used in everyday language, but a student of social stratification would give it a meaning quite different from its common usage. A sociological treatment of class would differ depending on the scholar’s theoretical predisposition—Marxist, Weberian, or functionalist (Ortner 1991: 168). Even if the sociologist or anthropologist gives a technical meaning to concepts such as class or status, the main material for analysis comes from how people interact with one another and conceive of the divergences in their stations and life-chances. Occasionally, an entire chart of stratification might be based entirely upon how people rank themselves and others (Warner, et al. 1949), but the ultimate choice of categories that the scholar or analyst would employ must be secured by a well-founded theoretical rationale, This holds true whether or not the data comes from subjective and ‘warm’ facts (such as what people think of each other and of themselves) or from impersonal and ‘cold’ facts (like the amount of land owned, or money in the bank). The material, in either case, undergoes self-MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 50S conscious theoretical and analytical transformations at the hands of the sociologist or anthropologist. Social stratification is nor just about categorizing or differentiating people into diverse strata. That would be a purely mechanical exercise, unworthy of conscientious sociological analysis. Though social stratification most obviously stratifies a given population, the principles of stratification tell us a lot more. Properly understood, social stratification provides an analytical basis for comprehending both social order and social mobility. An understanding of social stratification tells us simultaneously about the principles of social stasis and of social dynamics, thus offering a unique window to comprehending the liveliness and vivacity of social reality. To be able to see dynamics in what appears as static ranked order, and, by the same token, to be able to discern order in flux, surely constitute the greatest challenges in any disciplinary pursuit of knowledge. Natural Differences and Sociological Categories ‘There are various criteria on the basis of which people are stratified. However, not all of them are of sociological significance. A sure way of testing the disciplinary validity of any kind of stratification is to ascertain the extent to which it tells us about social order and social mobility. If a form of stratification tells us nothing on these counts then it has little relevance for either sociology or for social anthropology. For instance, to distinguish and categorize people on the basis of height or weight or the length of their hair has no sociological salience at all. This should not give the impression that perceived natural differences have no sociological significance. We all know how colour was used as an important aspect of social stratification in apartheid-beset South Africa. Even though racism may have been dismantled as official policy all over the world, and its scientific pretensions debunked repeatedly, the sad truth is that, colour and racial categories still exercise powerful influence over the minds of many. Consequently, race-inspired thinking affects the way people of different colours relate to and interact with one another. This is why distinctions based ‘on popular conceptions of race cannot be ignored in studies of social stratification, The relationship between natural differences and social stratification is thus not an uncomplicated one, There are some natural differences that have no sociological significance, and then there are others that are laden with sociological valency. The fact is that natural differences by themselves do not naturally make for categories of social stratification. If some natural differences, such as colour, are highlighted, itis also true that in the same society there are many other natural differences that are not. The508 THE OXFORD INDIA COMPANION TO SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY reasons for emphasizing colour as a potent category of stratification do not lic in nature as much as they do in the specific character of the society which considers it to be significant. The odd thing is that very often there are no natural differences that can be discerned in any tangible fashion, yet members of a society may believe that such differences do in fact exist. The caste system is one such example, Though there is no way by which those in a caste society can actually distinguish unfailing natural markers of difference, they justify caste stcatification on the ground that different castes are built of different natural substances (Marriott and Inden 1977). We have, therefore, two diametrically opposite ways by which nature is forced by culture to act at its behest. In the case of race, a specific physical difference that is on the surface is picked out to substantiate, justify, and perpetuate economic and social inequalities among people. But in caste societies where no natural difference can be discerned by the naked eye, itis imagined that such differences exist and elaborate care is taken so that the substances that constitute each caste do not commingle. Hence the elaborate rules prohibiting inter-caste dining or marriage. Stratification does not depend solely on real or putative natural differences. Class, status, and power are some of the other axes along which stratification occurs. These could be considered as purely social categories as they are substantiated by markers that have nothing to do with either nature or natural differences. Even so, every sociologist should be sensitive to how these eminently social features tend to be naturalized at popular level. We thus come across seemingly natural justifications as to why poor people deserve to be poor, oF why those who follow a different life-style have a natural propensity to do so. By acknowledging the persuasiveness of such ideological justifications for social categorizations, we realize the energy that is expended to either maintain or overthrow the status quo. In a later section there shall be occasion to return to this very important aspect of social stratification. For now let ns move on to a closer examination of the kinds of strata that social stratification is concerned with. Hierarchy and Difference: Social Statics and Dynamics It was mentioned earlier that a test of relevancy for the categories of stratification is the extent to which they contribute to our understanding of social order and change. If this is true then the understanding of social stratification cannot he limited to ranked gradations, whether they be of power, wealth, status, purity, pollution, or colour. This is because such ranks tell us only about order and very little about the potentialities for social mobility and changes within and of thar order. To be able to factor thisMORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 507 clement into the studies of social change it is necessary to think also in terms of differences. Differences can be said to exist when it is difficult to rank diversities. Wealth, income, status, and even power can be ranked in terms of there being more or less of a single variable, But there are other forms of strata differentiation that cannot be hicrarchized or ranked in this fashion. While gradation on the basis of wealth can unambiguously rank the rich and the poor, and even the various degrees of opulence and penury, the same strategy cannot be employed to understand other kinds of stratification, For instance, if an attempt were made to rank different languages, religions, or aesthetic preferences in hierarchical terms then it would not only be incorrect but also offensive to many. Strata of this kind are not amenable to ranking in terms of possessing more or less of a particular attribute. The differences between languages or religions are incommensurable but of logically equal status and thus cannot be measured on a hierarchical scale. For this reason, when attempts are made to hierarchize them, as in sectarian mobilizations, one is immediately alerted to the dimensions of power and prejudice that accompany such drives. Social stratification thus includes both hierarchy and difference. If fone were to talk only of hierarchy then one would be partial to order. If, on the other hand, only differences were to be emphasized then the social imperatives of order would not be appreciated. Instead, change, instability, and dynamism would become the focal points of research. That studies of social stratification are usually conceived in terms of the geographical model (Béteille 1977: 129) has limited our understanding of how stratification systems undergo change, and also of the tensions that exist within any given stratificatory order. ‘When classes, for instance, are seen along the geographical model then we only observe the passive layering of crust upon crust. Our attention is riveted primarily to the quantitative dimension of variance between different classes. This quantitative factor is premised on a certain kind of unanimity. It is impossible to argue that a person with a lower income belongs to a more affluent class than the person whose income is much higher. There can hardly be disagreement on matters of this kind. Likewise, a manager has more power than the foreman, and the foreman has more power than the worker on the shop-floor. Much as one may find this kind of power hierarchy, its existence cannot be denied. ‘The fact that such quantitative hierarchizations are possible in some instances sets the tone for the establishment of social order. Once drawn into a system of stratification which employs such quantifiable criteria, there is litele scope to challenge hierarchical rankings from within. It would be508 THE OXFORD INDIA COMPANION To SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY absurd for workers to say that they have more power than the managers. Likewise, it would be nonsensical for a beggar to claim more wealth than a millionaire. There is a general acceptance by those included within the hierarchy that the positioning accurately reflects the criterion on which the gradations are based. While itis possible to arrive at such a consensus in hierarchies of this kind, it is nevertheless also true that there are often disputes in the relative rankings of grades that are contiguous with one another. This is especially so in the case of rankings with respect to power or status, but not quite as obvious in rankings of wealth. This is primarily because the criterion in the case of wealth is so easily and ostensibly quantifiable. There can nevertheless be social mobility within a ranked order provided it is one chat is allowed for by the hierarchy in question. The gradation based on class in a capitalist society is considered to be one such open system of stratification. Care should be taken not to conflate all class- based hierarchies as belonging to an open system. In feudal societies class. boundaries were firm and mobility across them often invited severe reprisals. This is where the distinction between open and closed stratificatory systems becomes relevant. Open and Closed Systems of Stratification: Variations in Mobility Strategies In an open system of stratification, mobility is an accepted property of the system. On the other hand, in a closed system of stratification, mobility is strongly discouraged. In such cases ideological wars have to be waged by the aspirants in their bid for upward mobility. In doing so the basis on which low rank was accorded earlier has to be de-legitimized. This would imply that a hitherto low-ranking class must necessarily step out, of its location within the ranked hierarchy and energize an ideology of difference in order to justify and legitimize its quest for upward mobility. In an open system of stratification it is possible to move up by simply obeying the internal order of rank differentiation. Here the hierarchy may be fixed and firm, but individuals can go up or even down the hierarchy. For example, in a modern bureaucratic establishment a person can rise from being a clerk to a manager, a manager to an executive directors, and so on. Biographically, there are no reasons why a person cannot aspire to the highest position if the stated qualifications required to fill a position in a hierarchy are satisfied. In a closed system of stratification a person may be strong and brave and yet, because of the accident of birth, not considered a rightful member of the warrior class. In a closed system of stratification, therefore, ascribedMORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 508 characteristics such as those of caste, colour, or religion are absolutely central, This being the case, it is quite clear thar the issue of whether a system of stratification is open or closed also tells us whether this system is one that draws sustenance from quantitative hierarchies or from qualitative differences. In the former there is greater acquiescence within, regarding the hierarchy, and in the latter the hierarchy, or ranked order, is constantly disputed. This is because in an open system of stratification the criterion is indisputable, Even though everyone may want to be rich, a poor person must accept the reality of being poor. A worker may resent being powerless in a factory, but must acquiesce to the fact that those who belong to the category of foreman or ‘manager have a lot more power than he does. Just as everyone may want to be tall and slim, the hierarchy of height and weight cannot he questioned, no matter how we regret our physical shape and size. In a closed system of stratification, the first principle of distinction is a qualitative one which is then hierarchized. Hierarchization does nor come naturally where distinctions are qualitative to begin with. When the differences between the various estates, castes, or races are elaborated there is no scope for movement from one race to the other, or from lone caste to the other. Thus when these castes, races, oF estates are hierarchized, the criterion of hierarchy has to be imposed from outside and can have no justifications within. The significance of this is not easy to grasp, as there is a pervasive belief that the ordering of estates or races is primarily hierarchical. It is because such a view has been prevalent for a long time that the nature of social mobility between closed and open systems of stratification has not been fully appreciated. Once it is realized that closed systems of stratification are premised on differences first and hierarchy later, one understands why attempts at mobility in such systems are always so strongly ideological in their thrust. It has never quite occurred to most of us that the march of upward mobility in a closed system of stratification must wade through strong headwinds that are built on differences. These differences, once again, are basically incommensurable and uncankable in character. This point needs to be constantly reinforced if a comprehensive understanding of social stratification is to be arrived at. In a closed system of stratification the hierarchy does not have the complicity of all those who are deemed to be within it. In an open system of stratification, where the basis for the hierarchy is quantitative, one’s inclusion at any particular level is above dispute. The only way it is possible to dispute a quantitative hierarchy is to reject it entirely and oppose it in the language of difference, To make the claim of being rich or powerful without actually occupying these positions would only be self-delusionary. But it is always possible to reject the power of the rich510 THE OXFORD INDIA COMPANION To SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY or of the powerful by claiming alternative standards of morality, probity, and social order. To do this the language of difference needs to be invoked. Before we go further down this road, itis necessary to take stock of our earlier claim that stratification must include both hierarchy and difference. This is because ic is not just quantifiable ranked order that we are always talking about; very often, ranked orders are imposed on what is inherently incapable of being ranked. The reality is that differences posit logically equal categories whose intrinsic relationship is horizontal in character. To then force them into a vertical hierarchy requires an extraneous agency—which is usually that of political power. Blacks can be characterized as occupying a lower station not because black is an inherently inferior colour, but because in a racist society the White population controls power and uses colour as an idéological weapon of subjugation. Likewise, in the caste system, or in the division between estates, there is nothing intrinsic in each of these categories that makes them superior to others. Logically, castes such as the Baniyas or Kshatriyas are separate and equal, but it is political power that decides which castes will be superior to which other castes, or which estate shall have precedence over other estates. We find the justification for including differences and not just hierarchy because it helps us to understand how closed systems of stratification are different from open ones, and how mobilization strategies in one must necessarily diverge from the other. As the divergence between open and closed systems of stratification lies primarily at the level of mobility, the conceptual distinction between hierarchy and difference is crucial. Ir tells us why mobility is far from routine in closed systems of stratification, but built into open stratificatory systems. It also helps us to be faithful to the raison d'etre of different kinds of stratification and at the same time to elucidate their divergent mobility paths. Open and closed systems of stratification are not always discrete historical stages but can be closely intertwined at the empirical level. This is because in every open system of stratification there is a point beyond which mobility is made extremely difficult. This is often in defiance of the system, and indicates chat elements of difference have entered the picture. Itis often believed that closed systems of stratification give way to open ones as we move from feudalism to modern industrial capitalist economies. There is no doube that modern industrial societies are what they ate because of the tremendous dynamism and social mobility they allow. Even Marx acknowledged this tremendous liberating role of capitalism. Yet as there are always imperfections in every system as well as attempts to protect one’s bailiwick from competition—indeed, as there are always attempts to findMORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 511 security in an insecure world—a closure is constantly sought in what is legally and formally a formal system. By the same token, closed systems of stratification have also witnessed tremendous upheavals and dynamism, but these have usually gone unnoticed because of the glacial pace of change. In contemporary times, however, this change can no longer be concealed largely because of the dominating forces of modernization and industrialization. That modernization has not only brought machines but, more crucially, changed relations between people, is the reason why the presence of such contemporaneous forces has given a fillip to mobilizations within hitherto closed systems of stratification. ‘The most important effect has been the opening up of the village economy and the concomitant freedom of the lower orders from economic bondage to rural oligarchs or members of the ancient regime. That modernization and the breakdown of the natural economy have enabled communities, classes, and castes to move out of eatlier categories of stratification does not mean that these earlier strata have lost their ideological force or sentimental power. Caste identities are still very strong even as castes are no longer locally confined. Legal justifications for upward caste mobility may be drawn from the liberal language of political democracy, but the emotional charge behind such drives is derived from strong caste loyalties. The fact, however, remains that caste mobility is now much more of a routine affair than it ever was in the past. What one must then pay attention to in any concrete study of stratification is how the open and closed systems interact with each other. This does not deny the fact that one form of stratification is probably dominant at any one point in time of any society. It could well be the case thar different sectors of a society may well diverge from one another in this respect. In which case it becomes all the more important to see the interaction between open and closed stratificatory systems and not confine them to separate slots in any empirical investigation. Caste Mobility: Re-examining the Renouncer Closed and open systems of stratification are usually exemplified with reference to India and America respectively. Caste in India and the open mobile class structure of America are paradigm cases of the two contrasting systems of stratification. Though the caste system is a prime example of a closed form of an ascription-based system of stratification, it is not as if no ry had ever taken place in Indian history. But every time it did happen, it aroused a lot of opposition and resentment from the entrenched and powerful castes. The Rajputs and the Gujar Pratiharas between the eighth and tenth centuries, and the Marathas and Jats between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, fought their way to the top by conducting a series of