8 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

Social Stratification: A review of theories and conclusions

Brittani Sommer Université libre de Bruxelles

Brussel, Belgium.

Abstract

In ahead of schedule social orders, individuals shared a typical social standing. As social orders

developed and turned out to be more intricate, they started to hoist a few individuals. Today,

stratification, a framework by which society positions its individuals in a chain of command, is the

standard all through the world. All social orders stratify their individuals. A stratified society is one in

which there is an unequal circulation of society's prizes and in which individuals are organized

progressively into layers as indicated by the amount of society's prizes they have. To comprehend

stratification, we should first comprehend its starting points. The theories of the social stratification

have been put light on by this work. Various conclusions for its present scene in the various societies

have been conceptualized.

Keywords- Social stratification, social inequality, social welfare, social sciences, civilizations

Chasing and Gathering Societies

Chasing and assembling social orders had little stratification. Men chased for meat while ladies

accumulated consumable plants, and the general welfare of the general public relied on upon every one

of its individuals sharing what it had. The general public all in all embraced the raising and socialization

of youngsters and shared nourishment and different acquisitions pretty much just as. Thusly, no

gathering rose as preferred off over the others.

Plant, Pastoral, and Agricultural Societies

The development of green and peaceful social orders prompted social imbalance. Surprisingly,

gatherings had solid wellsprings of sustenance: agricultural social orders developed plants, while

peaceful social orders trained and reproduced creatures. Social orders became bigger, and not

everything individuals needed to be included in the generation of nourishment. Peaceful social orders

started to create more sustenance than was required for insignificant survival, which implied that

individuals could do things other than chase for or develop nourishment.

Division of Labor and Job Specialization

Division of work in horticultural social orders prompted work specialization and stratification. Individuals

started to esteem certain employments more profoundly than others. The further somebody was from

genuine farming work, the all the more profoundly he or she was regarded. Unskilled workers turned

into the slightest regarded individuals from society, while those occupied with "high culture, for

example, workmanship or music, turned into the most regarded.

9 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

As essential survival needs were met, individuals started exchanging merchandise and administrations

they couldn't accommodate themselves and started gathering belonging. Some gathered more than

others and picked up eminence in the public eye therefore. For a few individuals, gathering belonging

turned into their essential objective. These people went on what they needed to future eras, gathering

riches under the control of a couple bunches.

Industrialized Societies

The Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain in the mid-1700s, when the steam motor came into

utilization as a method for running different machines. The ascent of industrialization prompted

expanded social stratification. Industrial facility proprietors procured laborers who had relocated from

country zones looking for employments and a superior life. The proprietors abused the specialists to end

up well off, making them work extend periods of time in perilous conditions for low wages. The crevice

between "the wealthy" and "the poor" augmented.

The Improvement of Working Conditions

By the center of the 1900s, specialists had started to secure rights for themselves, and the working

environment got to be more secure. Wages rose, and laborers had something they had never had:

purchasing force. They could buy homes, autos, and an incomprehensible exhibit of customer

merchandise. Despite the fact that their monetary achievement was nothing contrasted with that of

their managers, the crevice between the two was narrowing, and the working class became more

grounded.

In the meantime, new types of imbalance grabbed hold. The expanding refinement and productivity of

industrial facility machines prompted the requirement for an alternate sort of specialist—one who

couldn't just work certain sorts of hardware however could likewise read and compose. The order of the

talented laborer was conceived. A talented specialist is educated and has experience and skill in

particular zones of generation, or on particular sorts of machines. Conversely, numerous incompetent

specialists could neither read nor compose English and had no particular preparing or mastery. The

division emerged in the middle of talented and incompetent laborers, with the previous getting higher

wages and, as some would say, more prominent professional stability.

Postindustrial Societies

The ascent of postindustrial social orders, in which innovation bolsters a data based economy, has made

further social stratification. Less individuals work in processing plants, while more work in

administration commercial enterprises. Training has turned into a more huge determinant of social

position. The Information Revolution has additionally expanded worldwide stratification. Despite the

fact that new innovation considers a more worldwide economy, it additionally isolates all the more

unmistakably those countries who have entry to the new innovation from the individuals who don't.

10 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

Hypotheses of Stratification

For quite a long time, sociologists have investigated social stratification, its underlying drivers, and its

consequences for society. Scholars Karl Marx and Max Weber differ about the way of class, specifically.

Different sociologists connected conventional structures to stratification.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx construct his contention hypothesis with respect to the thought that current society has just

two classes of individuals: the bourgeoisie and the working class. The bourgeoisie are the proprietors of

the method for creation: the production lines, organizations, and gear expected to deliver riches. The

low class are the laborers.

As per Marx, the bourgeoisie in industrialist social orders abuse specialists. The proprietors pay them

enough to bear the cost of nourishment and a spot to live, and the laborers, who don't understand they

are being abused, have a false awareness, or a mixed up sense, that they are fortunate. They think they

can rely on their industrialist managers to do what was best for them.

Marx predicted a specialists' upheaval. As the rich developed wealthier, Marx estimated that specialists

would build up a genuine class awareness, or a feeling of shared personality in light of their basic

experience of abuse by the bourgeoisie. The laborers would unite and ascend in a worldwide upheaval.

When the dust settled after the unrest, the laborers would then claim the method for creation, and the

world would get to be socialist. Nobody stratum would control the entrance to riches. Everything would

be claimed just as by everybody.

Marx's vision did not work out as expected. As social orders modernized and became bigger, the

common laborers turned out to be more taught, procuring particular occupation abilities and

accomplishing the sort of money related prosperity that Marx never thought conceivable. Rather than

expanded abuse, they went under the security of unions and work laws. Gifted assembly line laborers

and tradespeople inevitably started to win pay rates that were like, or in a few cases more prominent

than, their white collar class partners.

Max Weber

Max Weber brought issue with Marx's apparently oversimplified perspective of stratification. Weber

contended that owning property, for example, plants or gear, is just piece of what decides a man's social

class. Social class for Weber included influence and notoriety, notwithstanding property or riches.

Individuals who run enterprises without owning regardless them advantage from expanded creation and

more prominent benefits.

11 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

Distinction and Property

Weber contended that property can bring distinction, since individuals tend to hold rich individuals in

high respect. Esteem can likewise originate from different sources, for example, athletic or scholarly

capacity. In those cases, distinction can prompt property, if individuals are willing to pay for access to

notoriety. For Weber, riches and glory are entwined.

Influence and Wealth

Weber trusted that social class is additionally an aftereffect of force, which is just the capacity of a

person to get his or her way, regardless of restriction. Rich individuals have a tendency to be more

intense than destitute individuals, and influence can originate from a singular's renown.

Illustration: Arnold Schwarzenegger delighted in glory as a weight lifter and as an on-screen character,

and he was additionally gigantically affluent. When he was chosen legislative head of California in 2004,

he turned out to be capable also.

Sociologists still consider social class to be a gathering of individuals with comparative levels of riches,

distinction, and influence.

Davis and Moore: The Functionalist Perspective

Sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore trusted that stratification serves a vital capacity in the

public arena. In any general public, various assignments must be proficient. A few errands, for example,

cleaning lanes or serving espresso in an eatery, are moderately straightforward. Different errands, for

example, performing cerebrum surgery or planning high rises, are entangled and require more

knowledge and preparing than the basic undertakings. The individuals who perform the troublesome

undertakings are in this way qualified for more influence, renown, and cash. Davis and Moore trusted

that an unequal circulation of society's prizes is important to urge individuals to tackle the more

entangled and critical work that required numerous years of preparing. They trusted that the prizes

joined to a specific employment mirror its significance to society.

Melvin Tumin

Humanist Melvin Tumin brought issue with Davis and Moore's hypothesis. He couldn't help

contradicting their presumption that the relative significance of a specific occupation can simply be

measured by the amount of cash or glory is given to the general population who performed those

employments. That suspicion made recognizing essential occupations troublesome. Were the

employments innately critical, or would they say they were vital on the grounds that individuals got

incredible prizes to perform them?

Worldwide Stratification

Is every general public stratified, as well as in a worldwide point of view, social orders are stratified in

connection to each other. Sociologists utilize three general classes to signify worldwide stratification:

12 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

most industrialized countries, industrializing countries, and minimum industrialized countries. In every

classification, nations vary on an assortment of variables, however they likewise have contrasting

measures of the three essential parts of the American stratification framework: riches (as characterized

via area and cash), influence, and distinction.

The nations that could be viewed as the most industrialized incorporate the United States, Canada,

Japan, Great Britain, France, and the other industrialized nations of Western Europe, all of which are

free enterprise. Industrializing countries incorporate the greater part of the nations of the previous

Soviet Union. The slightest industrialized countries represent about portion of the arrive on Earth and

incorporate right around 70 percent of the world's kin. These nations are essentially horticultural and

have a tendency to be described by compelling destitution. Most of the occupants of the minimum

industrialized countries don't possess the area they ranch, and numerous need running water, indoor

pipes, and access to therapeutic consideration. Their future is low when contrasted with occupants of

wealthier nations, and their rates of disease are higher.

Theories of Global Stratification

A few hypotheses imply to clarify how the world turned out to be so profoundly stratified.

Imperialism

Imperialism exists when an effective nation attacks a weaker nation keeping in mind the end goal to

adventure its assets, in this manner making it a province. Those nations that were among the first to

industrialize, for example, Great Britain, could make settlements out of various remote nations. At one

time, the British Empire included India, Australia, South Africa, and nations in the Caribbean, among

others. France moreover colonized numerous nations in Africa, which is the reason in nations, for

example, Algeria, Morocco, and Mali French is talked notwithstanding the nations' indigenous dialects.

World System Theory

Immanuel Wallerstein's reality framework hypothesis placed that as social orders industrialized, private

enterprise turned into the predominant monetary framework, prompting the globalization of free

enterprise. The globalization of private enterprise alludes to the appropriation of free enterprise by

nations around the globe. Wallerstein said that as free enterprise spread, nations around the globe

turned out to be firmly interconnected. For instance, apparently remote occasions that happen on the

opposite side of the world can profoundly affect every day life in the United States. On the off chance

that a terrorist assault on a Middle Eastern oil pipeline interferes with creation, American drivers wind

up paying more for fuel in light of the fact that the expense of oil has risen.

Neocolonialism

Humanist Michael Harrington utilized the term neocolonialism to depict the propensity of the most

industrialized countries to misuse less-created nations politically and monetarily. Effective nations offer

products to less-created nations, permitting them to keep running up gigantic obligations that take years

13 ©IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences.

Vol.1, Issue 02 (October 2015). www.research-advances.org

to pay off. In this manner, the most created countries pick up a political and financial favorable position

over the nations that owe them cash.

Multinational Corporations

Some of the time, multinational companies, vast organizations that work together in various diverse

nations, can abuse powerless or poor nations by scouring the globe for modest work and shabby crude

materials. These organizations regularly pay a small amount of what they would pay for the same

merchandise and workers in their nations of origin. Despite the fact that they do add to the economies

of different nations, the genuine recipients of their benefits are their nations of origin. Multinational

companies keep the worldwide stratification framework set up.

Conclusion

A few sociologists, in any case, like to consider America a kaleidoscope, with an enormous assortment of

individuals meeting up to make a field of hues, rich with every individual's sexual orientation, race,

religion, work, instruction, premiums, and ethnic foundations.

This may sound like an ideal, concordant circumstance. In any case, in the United States, as in social

orders far and wide, individuals' disparities result in a more various society as well as lead to contrasts in

the way they are dealt with, the open doors accessible to them, the amount of cash they acquire, and

the extent to which others regard them. These distinctions make layers, or strata, in the public arena.

How stratification happens and the impacts it has on individuals are real worries of sociologists.

References

Barkow, J. H. (1992). Beneath new culture is old psychology: Gossip and social stratification.

Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press.

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. (1958). Social class and mental illness: Community study.

Kerbo, H. R. (2006). Social stratification.

Lenski, G. E. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. UNC Press Books.

Parsons, T. (1940). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification.American Journal of

Sociology, 841-862.

Parsons, T. (1953). A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. New York.

Rosen, B. C. (1956). The achievement syndrome: A psychocultural dimension of social

stratification. American Sociological Review, 203-211.

Tumin, M. M. (1967). Social stratification (Vol. 5). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

stratified

EnglishPronunciationAdjective

AntonymsTranslationsVerb

Hyphenation: strat‧i‧fied

stratified (not comparable)

1. arranged in a sequence of layers or strata2. (of society) having a class structure

unstratified

arranged in a sequence of layers

Galician: estratificado mGerman: geschichtet (de), Schicht- (de)

Spanish: estratificado (es), apilado (es)

having a class structure

German: selektiv (de), klassenselektiv,klassistisch

Spanish: selectivo, elitista (es), clasista

Contents

English

Pronunciation

Adjective

Antonyms

Translations

Verb

stratified

1. simple past tense and past participle of stratify

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=stratified&oldid=54755570"

This page was last edited on 6 October 2019, at 02:23.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using thissite, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Social stratificationSocial stratification refers to a society's categorization of its people into groups based on socioeconomicfactors like wealth, income, race, education, ethnicity, gender, occupation, social status, or derived power(social and political). As such, stratification is the relative social position of persons within a social group,category, geographic region, or social unit.[1][2][3]

In modern Western societies, social stratification is typically defined in terms of three social classes: the upperclass, the middle class, and the lower class; in turn, each class can be subdivided into the upper-stratum, themiddle-stratum, and the lower stratum.[4] Moreover, a social stratum can be formed upon the bases of kinship,clan, tribe, or caste, or all four.

The categorization of people by social stratum occurs most clearly in complex state-based, polycentric, orfeudal societies, the latter being based upon socio-economic relations among classes of nobility and classes ofpeasants. Historically, whether or not hunter-gatherer, tribal, and band societies can be defined as sociallystratified, or if social stratification otherwise began with agriculture and large-scale means of social exchange,remains a debated matter in the social sciences.[5] Determining the structures of social stratification arises frominequalities of status among persons, therefore, the degree of social inequality determines a person's socialstratum. Generally, the greater the social complexity of a society, the more social stratification exists, by way ofsocial differentiation.[6]

OverviewDefinition and usageFour underlying principlesComplexitySocial mobility

Theories of stratificationHistorical

Karl MarxMax WeberC. Wright Mills

Anthropological theoriesKinship-orientation

Variables in theory and researchEconomicSocial

GenderRaceEthnicity

Global stratificationSee alsoReferences

Contents

Further readingExternal links

Social stratification is a term used in the social sciences to describe the relative social position of persons in agiven social group, category, geographical region or other social unit. It derives from the Latin strātum (plural'; parallel, horizontal layers) referring to a given society's categorization of its people into rankings ofsocioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, social status, occupation and power. In modernWestern societies, stratification is often broadly classified into three major divisions of social class: upper class,middle class, and lower class. Each of these classes can be further subdivided into smaller classes (e.g. "uppermiddle").[4] Social may also be delineated on the basis of kinship ties or caste relations.

The concept of social stratification is often used and interpreted differently within specific theories. Insociology, for example, proponents of action theory have suggested that social stratification is commonlyfound in developed societies, wherein a dominance hierarchy may be necessary in order to maintain socialorder and provide a stable social structure. Conflict theories, such as Marxism, point to the inaccessibility ofresources and lack of social mobility found in stratified societies. Many sociological theorists have criticizedthe fact that the working classes are often unlikely to advance socioeconomically while the wealthy tend tohold political power which they use to exploit the proletariat (laboring class). Talcott Parsons, an Americansociologist, asserted that stability and social order are regulated, in part, by universal values. Such values arenot identical with "consensus" but can indeed be an impetus for social conflict, as has been the case multipletimes through history. Parsons never claimed that universal values, in and by themselves, "satisfied" thefunctional prerequisites of a society. Indeed, the constitution of society represents a much more complicatedcodification of emerging historical factors. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf alternately note the tendencytoward an enlarged middle-class in modern Western societies due to the necessity of an educated workforce intechnological economies. Various social and political perspectives concerning globalization, such asdependency theory, suggest that these effects are due to changes in the status of workers to the third world.

Four principles are posited to underlie social stratification. First, social stratification is socially defined as aproperty of a society rather than individuals in that society. Second, social stratification is reproduced fromgeneration to generation. Third, social stratification is universal (found in every society) but variable (differsacross time and place). Fourth, social stratification involves not just quantitative inequality but qualitativebeliefs and attitudes about social status.[6]

Although stratification is not limited to complex societies, all complex societies exhibit features of stratification.In any complex society, the total stock of valued goods is distributed unequally, wherein the most privilegedindividuals and families enjoy a disproportionate share of income, power, and other valued social resources.The term "stratification system" is sometimes used to refer to the complex social relationships and socialstructures that generate these observed inequalities. The key components of such systems are: (a) social-institutional processes that define certain types of goods as valuable and desirable, (b) the rules of allocation

Overview

Definition and usage

Four underlying principles

Complexity

The 1911 "Pyramid of CapitalistSystem" cartoon is an example ofsocialist critique of capitalism and ofsocial stratification

that distribute goods and resources across various positions in the division of labor (e.g., physician, farmer,‘housewife’), and (c) the social mobility processes that link individuals to positions and thereby generateunequal control over valued resources.[7]

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, social groups or categories of people between the layers orwithin a stratification system. This movement can be intragenerational (within a generation) orintergenerational (between two or more generations). Such mobility is sometimes used to classify differentsystems of social stratification. Open stratification systems are those that allow for mobility between, typicallyby placing value on the achieved status characteristics of individuals. Those societies having the highest levelsof intragenerational mobility are considered to be the most open and malleable systems of stratification.[6]

Those systems in which there is little to no mobility, even on an intergenerational basis, are considered closedstratification systems. For example, in caste systems, all aspects of social status are ascribed, such that one'ssocial position at birth persists throughout one's lifetime.[7]

In Marxist theory, the modern mode of production consists of twomain economic parts: the base and the superstructure. The baseencompasses the relations of production: employer–employee workconditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations.Social class, according to Marx, is determined by one's relationship tothe means of production. There exist at least two classes in any class-based society: the owners of the means of production and those whosell their labor to the owners of the means of production. At times,Marx almost hints that the ruling classes seem to own the workingclass itself as they only have their own labor power ('wage labor') tooffer the more powerful in order to survive. These relationsfundamentally determine the ideas and philosophies of a society andadditional classes may form as part of the superstructure. Through theideology of the ruling class—throughout much of history, the land-owning aristocracy—false consciousness is promoted both throughpolitical and non-political institutions but also through the arts andother elements of culture. When the aristocracy falls, the bourgeoisiebecome the owners of the means of production in the capitalistsystem. Marx predicted the capitalist mode would eventually giveway, through its own internal conflict, to revolutionary consciousnessand the development of more egalitarian, more communist societies.

Marx also described two other classes, the petite bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The petite bourgeoisieis like a small business class that never really accumulates enough profit to become part of the bourgeoisie, oreven challenge their status. The lumpenproletariat is the underclass, those with little to no social status. This

Social mobility

Theories of stratification

Historical

Karl Marx

includes prostitutes, beggars, the homeless or other untouchables in a given society. Neither of these subclasseshas much influence in Marx's two major classes, but it is helpful to know that Marx did recognize differenceswithin the classes.[8]

According to Marvin Harris[9] and Tim Ingold,[10] Lewis Henry Morgan's accounts of egalitarian hunter-gatherers formed part of Karl Marx' and Friedrich Engels' inspiration for communism. Morgan spoke of asituation in which people living in the same community pooled their efforts and shared the rewards of thoseefforts fairly equally. He called this "communism in living." But when Marx expanded on these ideas, he stillemphasized an economically oriented culture, with property defining the fundamental relationships betweenpeople.[11] Yet, issues of ownership and property are arguably less emphasized in hunter-gatherer societies.[12]

This, combined with the very different social and economic situations of hunter-gatherers may account formany of the difficulties encountered when implementing communism in industrialized states. As Ingold pointsout: "The notion of communism, removed from the context of domesticity and harnessed to support a projectof social engineering for large-scale, industrialized states with populations of millions, eventually came tomean something quite different from what Morgan had intended: namely, a principle of redistribution thatwould override all ties of a personal or familial nature, and cancel out their effects."[10]

The counter-argument to Marxist's conflict theory is the theory of structural functionalism, argued by KingsleyDavis and Wilbert Moore, which states that social inequality places a vital role in the smooth operation of asociety. The Davis–Moore hypothesis argues that a position does not bring power and prestige because itdraws a high income; rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the availablepersonnel is for one reason or another scarce. Most high-income jobs are difficult and require a high level ofeducation to perform, and their compensation is a motivator in society for people to strive to achieve more.[13]

Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx's ideas but rejected the possibility of effective communism,arguing that it would require an even greater level of detrimental social control and bureaucratization thancapitalist society. Moreover, Weber criticized the dialectical presumption of a proletariat revolt, maintaining itto be unlikely.[14] Instead, he develops a three-component theory of stratification and the concept of lifechances. Weber held there are more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from bothfunctionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system. He emphasizes the difference between class, statusand power, and treats these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on socialaction. Working half a century later than Marx, Weber claims there to be four main social classes: the upperclass, the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual working class. Weber's theory more-closely resembles contemporary Western class structures, although economic status does not currently seem todepend strictly on earnings in the way Weber envisioned.

Weber derives many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining the social structure of Germany.He notes that, contrary to Marx's theories, stratification is based on more than simple ownership of capital.Weber examines how many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet had strong politicalpower. Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were Jewish. Weberintroduced three independent factors that form his theory of stratification hierarchy, which are; class, status,and power:

Class: A person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individualachievement.[15] Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor instratification. Weber notes how corporate executives control firms they typically do not own;Marx would have placed these people in the proletariat despite their high incomes by virtue ofthe fact they sell their labor instead of owning capital.Status: A person's prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber notes that politicalpower is not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one's individual status. Poets or saints,

Max Weber

for example, can have extensive influence on society despite few material resources.Power: A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others, particularly in theirability to engage social change. For example, individuals in government jobs, such as anemployee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a member of the United States Congress,may hold little property or status but still wield considerable social power.[16]

C. Wright Mills, drawing from the theories of Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, contends that the imbalanceof power in society derives from the complete absence of countervailing powers against corporate leaders ofthe Power elite.[17][18] Mills both incorporated and revised Marxist ideas. While he shared Marx's recognitionof a dominant wealthy and powerful class, Mills believed that the source for that power lay not only in theeconomic realm but also in the political and military arenas.[17] During the 1950s, Mills stated that hardlyanyone knew about the power elite's existence, some individuals (including the elite themselves) denied theidea of such a group, and other people vaguely believed that a small formation of a powerful elite existed.[17]

"Some prominent individuals knew that Congress had permitted a handful of political leaders to make criticaldecisions about peace and war; and that two atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan in the name of theUnited States, but neither they nor anyone they knew had been consulted."[17]

Mills explains that the power elite embody a privileged class whose members are able to recognize their highposition within society.[17] In order to maintain their highly exalted position within society, members of thepower elite tend to marry one another, understand and accept one another, and also work together.[17][18][pp. 4–5] The most crucial aspect of the power elite's existence lays within the core of education.[17] "Youthful upper-class members attend prominent preparatory schools, which not only open doors to such elite universities asHarvard, Yale, and Princeton but also to the universities' highly exclusive clubs. These memberships in turnpave the way to the prominent social clubs located in all major cities and serving as sites for important businesscontacts."[17][18][p. 63–67] Examples of elite members who attended prestigious universities and were membersof highly exclusive clubs can be seen in George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both Bush and Kerry weremembers of the Skull and Bones club while attending Yale University.[19] This club includes members ofsome of the most powerful men of the twentieth century, all of which are forbidden to tell others about thesecrets of their exclusive club. Throughout the years, the Skull and Bones club has included presidents, cabinetofficers, Supreme Court justices, spies, captains of industry, and often their sons and daughters join theexclusive club, creating a social and political network like none ever seen before.[19]

The upper class individuals who receive elite educations typically have the essential background and contactsto enter into the three branches of the power elite: The political leadership, the military circle, and the corporateelite.[17]

The Political Leadership: Mills held that, prior to the end of World War II, leaders ofcorporations became more prominent within the political sphere along with a decline in centraldecision-making among professional politicians.[17]

The Military Circle: During the 1950s-1960s, increasing concerns about warfare resulted in topmilitary leaders and issues involving defense funding and military personnel training becominga top priority within the United States. Most of the prominent politicians and corporate leadershave been strong proponents of military spending.The Corporate Elite: Mills explains that during the 1950s, when the military emphasis wasrecognized, corporate leaders worked with prominent military officers who dominated thedevelopment of policies. Corporate leaders and high-ranking military officers were mutuallysupportive of each other.[17][18][pp. 274–276]

C. Wright Mills

Mills shows that the power elite has an "inner-core" made up of individuals who are able to move from oneposition of institutional power to another; for example, a prominent military officer who becomes a politicaladviser or a powerful politician who becomes a corporate executive.[17] "These people have more knowledgeand a greater breadth of interests than their colleagues. Prominent bankers and financiers, who Millsconsidered 'almost professional go-betweens of economic, political, and military affairs,' are also members ofthe elite's inner core.[17][18][pp. 288–289]

Most if not all anthropologists dispute the "universal" nature of social stratification, holding that it is not thestandard among all societies. John Gowdy (2006) writes, "Assumptions about human behaviour that membersof market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and thatsocial stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples.[12] Non-stratified egalitarian oracephalous ("headless") societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political oreconomic status, class, or even permanent leadership.

Anthropologists identify egalitarian cultures as "kinship-oriented," because they appear to value socialharmony more than wealth or status. These cultures are contrasted with economically oriented cultures(including states) in which status and material wealth are prized, and stratification, competition, and conflict arecommon. Kinship-oriented cultures actively work to prevent social hierarchies from developing because theybelieve that such stratification could lead to conflict and instability.[20] Reciprocal altruism is one process bywhich this is accomplished.

A good example is given by Richard Borshay Lee in his account of the Khoisan, who practice "insulting themeat." Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) toprevent him from becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then distributed evenly among the entiresocial group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is proportional to the size of the kill. Leefound this out when he purchased an entire cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased forweeks afterward about it (since obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing off).[21]

Another example is the Australian Aboriginals of Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island, off the coast ofArnhem Land, who have arranged their entire society—spiritually and economically—around a kind of gifteconomy called renunciation. According to David H. Turner, in this arrangement, every person is expected togive everything of any resource they have to any other person who needs or lacks it at the time. This has thebenefit of largely eliminating social problems like theft and relative poverty. However, misunderstandingsobviously arise when attempting to reconcile Aboriginal renunciative economics with the competition/scarcity-oriented economics introduced to Australia by European colonists.[22]

The social status variables underlying social stratification are based in social perceptions and attitudes aboutvarious characteristics of persons and peoples. While many such variables cut across time and place, therelative weight placed on each variable and specific combinations of these variables will differ from place toplace over time. One task of research is to identify accurate mathematical models that explain how these manyvariables combine to produce stratification in a given society. Grusky (2011) provides a good overview of thehistorical development of sociological theories of social stratification and a summary of contemporary theoriesand research in this field.[23] While many of the variables that contribute to an understanding of socialstratification have long been identified, models of these variables and their role in constituting social

Anthropological theories

Kinship-orientation

Variables in theory and research

stratification are still an active topic of theory and research. In general, sociologists recognize that there are no"pure" economic variables, as social factors are integral to economic value. However, the variables posited toaffect social stratification can be loosely divided into economic and other social factors.

Strictly quantitative economic variables are more useful to describing social stratification than explaining howsocial stratification is constituted or maintained. Income is the most common variable used to describestratification and associated economic inequality in a society.[7] However, the distribution of individual orhousehold accumulation of surplus and wealth tells us more about variation in individual well-being than doesincome, alone.[24] Wealth variables can also more vividly illustrate salient variations in the well-being ofgroups in stratified societies.[25] Gross Domestic Product (GDP), especially per capita GDP, is sometimesused to describe economic inequality and stratification at the international or global level.

Social variables, both quantitative and qualitative, typically provide the most explanatory power in causalresearch regarding social stratification, either as independent variables or as intervening variables. Threeimportant social variables include gender, race, and ethnicity, which, at the least, have an intervening effect onsocial status and stratification in most places throughout the world.[26] Additional variables include those thatdescribe other ascribed and achieved characteristics such as occupation and skill levels, age, education level,education level of parents, and geographic area. Some of these variables may have both causal and interveningeffects on social status and stratification. For example, absolute age may cause a low income if one is tooyoung or too old to perform productive work. The social perception of age and its role in the workplace,which may lead to ageism, typically has an intervening effect on employment and income.

Social scientists are sometimes interested in quantifying the degree of economic stratification between differentsocial categories, such as men and women, or workers with different levels of education. An index ofstratification has been recently proposed by Zhou for this purpose.[27]

Gender is one of the most pervasive and prevalent social characteristics which people use to make socialdistinctions between individuals. Gender distinctions are found in economic-, kinship- and caste-basedstratification systems.[28] Social role expectations often form along sex and gender lines. Entire societies maybe classified by social scientists according to the rights and privileges afforded to men or women, especiallythose associated with ownership and inheritance of property.[29] In patriarchal societies, such rights andprivileges are normatively granted to men over women; in matriarchal societies, the opposite holds true. Sex-and gender-based division of labor is historically found in the annals of most societies and such divisionsincreased with the advent of industrialization.[30] Sex-based wage discrimination exists in some societies suchthat men, typically, receive higher wages than women for the same type of work. Other differences inemployment between men and women lead to an overall gender-based pay-gap in many societies, wherewomen as a category earn less than men due to the types of jobs which women are offered and take, as well asto differences in the number of hours worked by women.[31] These and other gender-related values affect thedistribution of income, wealth, and property in a given social order.

Economic

Social

Gender

Race

Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of observable biologicaldifferences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systemsin which different races are perceived to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based onpresumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. In a given society, those who share racialcharacteristics socially perceived as undesirable are typically under-represented in positions of social power,i.e., they become a minority category in that society. Minority members in such a society are often subjected todiscriminatory actions resulting from majority policies, including assimilation, exclusion, oppression,expulsion, and extermination.[32] Overt racism usually feeds directly into a stratification system through itseffect on social status. For example, members associated with a particular race may be assigned a slave status,a form of oppression in which the majority refuses to grant basic rights to a minority that are granted to othermembers of the society. More covert racism, such as that which many scholars posit is practiced in morecontemporary societies, is socially hidden and less easily detectable. Covert racism often feeds intostratification systems as an intervening variable affecting income, educational opportunities, and housing. Bothovert and covert racism can take the form of structural inequality in a society in which racism has becomeinstitutionalized.[33]

Ethnic prejudice and discrimination operate much the same as do racial prejudice and discrimination in society.In fact, only recently have scholars begun to differentiate race and ethnicity; historically, the two wereconsidered to be identical or closely related. With the scientific development of genetics and the humangenome as fields of study, most scholars now recognize that race is socially defined on the basis of biologicallydetermined characteristics that can be observed within a society while ethnicity is defined on the basis ofculturally learned behavior. Ethnic identification can include shared cultural heritage such as language anddialect, symbolic systems, religion, mythology and cuisine. As with race, ethnic categories of persons may besocially defined as minority categories whose members are under-represented in positions of social power. Assuch, ethnic categories of persons can be subject to the same types of majority policies. Whether ethnicityfeeds into a stratification system as a direct, causal factor or as an intervening variable may depend on the levelof ethnographic entrism within each of the various ethnic populations in a society, the amount of conflict overscarce resources, and the relative social power held within each ethnic category.[34]

The world and the pace of social change today are very different than in the time of Karl Marx, Max Weber, oreven C. Wright Mills. Globalizing forces lead to rapid international integration arising from the interchange ofworld views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.[35][36] Advances in transportation andtelecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the telegraph and its modern representation theInternet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and culturalactivities.[37]

Like a stratified class system within a nation, looking at the world economy one can see class positions in theunequal distribution of capital and other resources between nations. Rather than having separate nationaleconomies, nations are considered as participating in this world economy. The world economy manifests aglobal division of labor with three overarching classes: core countries, semi-periphery countries and peripherycountries,[38] according to World-systems and Dependency theories. Core nations primarily own and controlthe major means of production in the world and perform the higher-level production tasks and provideinternational financial services. Periphery nations own very little of the world's means of production (evenwhen factories are located in periphery nations) and provide low to non-skilled labor. Semiperipheral nationsare midway between the core and periphery. They tend to be countries moving towards industrialization andmore diversified economies.[39] Core nations receive the greatest share of surplus production, and peripherynations receive the least. Furthermore, core nations are usually able to purchase raw materials and other goods

Ethnicity

Global stratification

from noncore nations at low prices, while demanding higher prices for their exports to noncore nations.[40] Aglobal workforce employed through a system of global labor arbitrage ensures that companies in core countriescan utilize the cheapest semi-and non-skilled labor for production.

Today we have the means to gather and analyze data from economies across the globe. Although manysocieties worldwide have made great strides toward more equality between differing geographic regions, interms of the standard of living and life chances afforded to their peoples, we still find large gaps between thewealthiest and the poorest within a nation and between the wealthiest and poorest nations of the world.[41] AJanuary 2014 Oxfam report indicates that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealthequal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people.[42] By contrast, for2012, the World Bank reports that 21 percent of people worldwide, around 1.5 billion, live in extreme poverty,at or below $1.25 a day.[43] Zygmunt Bauman has provocatively observed that the rise of the rich is linked totheir capacity to lead highly mobile lives: "Mobility climbs to the rank of the uppermost among coveted values-and the freedom to move, perpetually a scarce and unequally distributed commodity, fast becomes the mainstratifying factor of our late modern or postmodern time."[44]

Age stratificationCaste systemClass stratificationCultural hegemonyDominance hierarchyEgalitarianismElite theoryElitismGini coefficientGlobalization

IntersectionalityMarxismMicroinequityReligious stratificationSocial classSocial inequalitySocioeconomic statusSocial justiceSystems of social stratificationThe Power Elite

1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/what-is-social-stratification/ (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/what-is-social-stratification/). Missing or empty|title= (help)

2. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Barkan)/06%3A_Social_Stratification/6.0S%3A_6.S%3A__Social_Stratification_(Summary) (https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Barkan)/06%3A_Social_Stratification/6.0S%3A_6.S%3A__Social_Stratification_(Summary)). Missing or empty |title= (help)

3. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-social-stratification-3026643 (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-social-stratification-3026643). Missing or empty |title= (help)

4. Saunders, Peter (1990). Social Class and Stratification (https://archive.org/details/socialclassstrat0000saun). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-04125-6.

5. Toye, David L. (May 2004). "The Emergence of Complex Societies: A Comparative Approach"(http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/1.2/toye.html). World History Connected. 11 (2).

6. Grusky, David B. (2011). "Theories of Stratification and Inequality" (http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2011_chunk_g978140512433125_ss1-273#citation). In Ritzer, George and J. Michael Ryan (ed.). The Concise Encyclopedia ofSociology. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 622–624. Retrieved 23 June 2014.

See also

References

7. Grusky, David B. & Ann Azumi Takata (1992). "Social Stratification". The Encyclopedia ofSociology. Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 1955–70.

8. Doob, Christopher. Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society (1st ed.), PearsonEducation, 2012, ISBN 0-205-79241-3

9. Harris, Marvin (1967). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture (https://books.google.com/books?id=TlgVAAAAIAAJ). Routledge. ISBN 0-7591-0133-7.

10. Ingold, Tim (2006) "On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band," in Richard B. Lee andRichard H. Daly (eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, p. 400. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4

11. Barnard, Alan (2006) "Images of hunters and gatherers in European social thought," in RichardB. Lee and Richard H. Daly (eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, p.379. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60919-4

12. Gowdy, John (2006). "Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market". In Lee, Richard B.and Richard H. Daly (ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. CambridgeUniversity Press. pp. 391–393. ISBN 0-521-60919-4.

13. Davis, Kingsley; Moore, Wilbert E. (1945-04-01). "Some Principles of Stratification". AmericanSociological Review. 10 (2): 242–249. doi:10.2307/2085643 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2085643). JSTOR 2085643 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085643).

14. Holborn, M. & Langley, P. (2004) AS & A level Student Handbook, accompanies the SixthEdition: Haralambos & Holborn, Sociology: Themes and perspectives, London: CollinsEducational

15. Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: PearsonCanada Inc. p. 243.

16. Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology, Tenth Edition. Thompson Wadsworth.17. Doob, Christopher (2013). Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-205-79241-2.18. Mills, Charles W. (1956). The Power Elite (https://archive.org/details/powerelite000mill).

London: Oxford University Press.19. Leung, Rebecca. "Skull and Bones" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-576332.html).

Frontline (CBS) (accessed 12/03/2012).20. Deji, Olanike F. (2011). Gender and Rural Development. London: LIT Verlag Münster. p. 93.

ISBN 978-3643901033.21. Lee, Richard B. (1976), Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their

Neighbors, Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.22. Turner, David H. (1999), Genesis Regained: Aboriginal Forms of Renunciation in Judeo-

Christian Scriptures and Other Major Traditions, pp. 1-9, Peter Lang.23. Grusky, David B (2011). "The Past, Present and Future of Social Inequality." In Social

Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective (Second Edition) (http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/grusky/article_files/past_present_future_social_inequality.pdf)(PDF). Boulder: Westview Press. pp. 3–51.

24. Domhoff, G. William (2013). Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. McGraw-Hill. p. 288. ISBN 978-0078026713.

25. Perry-Rivers, P. (October 2014). "Stratification, Economic Adversity, and EntrepreneurialLaunch: The Converse Effect of Resource Position on Entrepreneurial Strategy".Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 40 (3): 685. doi:10.1111/etap.12137 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12137).

26. Collins, Patricia Hill (1998). "Toward a new vision: race, class and gender as categories ofanalysis and connection" in Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements andTheoretical Debates. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 231–247.

Grusky, David B. (2014). Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in SociologicalPerspective (4th edition). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0813346717.

27. Zhou, Xiang (2012). "A Nonparametric Index of Stratification". Sociological Methodology. 42(1): 365–389. doi:10.1177/0081175012452207 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0081175012452207).

28. Friedman, Ellen & Jennifer Marshall (2004). Issues of Gender. New York: Pearson Education,Inc.

29. Mason, K. & H. Carlsson (2004). "The Impact of Gender Equality in Land Rights onDevelopment". Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement. HumanRights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement. New York.

30. Struening, Karen (2002). New Family Values: Liberty, Equality, Diversity. New York: Rowman &Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1231-3.

31. Mies, Maria (1999). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the InternationalDivision of Labour. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

32. Henrard, Kristen (2000). Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection: IndividualHuman Rights, Minority Rights and the Right to Self-Determination. New York: Springer.ISBN 978-9041113597.

33. Guess, Teresa J (July 2006). "The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racismby Consequence" (https://semanticscholar.org/paper/15f6f3e42e761c26f0a6832c59c9e7c51258ce76). Critical Sociology. 32 (4): 649–673. doi:10.1163/156916306779155199 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F156916306779155199).

34. Noel, Donald L. (Autumn 1968). "A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification". SocialProblems. 16 (2): 157–172. doi:10.2307/800001 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F800001).JSTOR 800001 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/800001).

35. Al-Rodhan, R.F. Nayef and Gérard Stoudmann. (2006). Definitions of Globalization: AComprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. (http://www.sustainablehistory.com/articles/definitions-of-globalization.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20121119215401/http://www.sustainablehistory.com/articles/definitions-of-globalization.pdf) 2012-11-19 at theWayback Machine

36. Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and SocietyLondon: Sage. ISBN 978-0803983243 p. 8.

37. Stever, H. Guyford (1972). "Science, Systems, and Society". Journal of Cybernetics. 2 (3): 1–3.doi:10.1080/01969727208542909 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01969727208542909).

38. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and theOrigins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

39. Paul Halsall Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html), August 1997

40. Chirot, Daniel (1977). Social Change in the Twentieth Century (https://archive.org/details/socialchangeintw00chi_ex4). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

41. "2013 World Population Data Sheet" (http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2013/2013-world-population-data-sheet.aspx). Population Research Bureau. 2013. Retrieved 27 June 2014.

42. Rigged rules mean economic growth increasingly "winner takes all" for rich elites all over world(http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/rigged-rules-mean-economic-growth-increasingly-winner-takes-all-for-rich-elites). Oxfam. 20 January 2014.

43. Olinto, Pedro & Jaime Saavedra (April 2012). "An Overview of Global Income InequalityTrends" (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/isp/publication/inequality-in-focus). Inequalitty inFocus. 1 (1).

44. Bauman, Z. (1988) Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity

Further reading

Solon, Gary (March 2014). "Theoretical models of inequality transmission across multiplegenerations" (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18790.pdf) (PDF). Research in Social Stratificationand Mobility. 35: 13–18. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2013.09.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rssm.2013.09.005).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_stratification&oldid=993035497"

This page was last edited on 8 December 2020, at 13:11 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using thissite, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

External links