19 Social Stratification

Dr. Shyamasri Mohanty

CONTENTS

Learning Outcomes

1. Introduction
2. Rank, Hierarchy & Stratification
3. Theories of inequality
4. Ideologies

Learning Outcomes

After studying this module:

• You will come to know about social stratification.
• You will come to know the concepts of rank, hierarchy and stratification.
• You will come to know about the ideologies behind social stratification.

1. INTRODUCTION

All human societies from the simplest to the most complex have some form of social inequality. Inequality refers to the degree to which culturally valued material and social rewards are given disproportionately to individuals, families and other kinds of groups. Rewards, in terms of wealth, power and prestige form the basis of degrees of inequality. Wealth refers to ownership of or access to valued material goods and or to natural resources needed to produce them. The second reward power is the ability to make others do what you want based on coercion or legitimate authority. The final type of reward is prestige— respect, esteem and overt approval by other group members granted to individuals who they consider meritorious.

It is important to make a difference between social inequality and social stratification. The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities. Social stratification is a particular form of inequality which refers to the presence of social groups which are ranked one above the other, usually in terms of the amount of power, prestige and wealth the members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common identity. They will share a similar lifestyle which to some degree will distinguish them from members of other social strata.

2. Rank, Hierarchy, Stratification

The notions of rank, hierarchy and stratification are not the same but they share something in common. Rank may be ascribed on the basis of descent. In many of the simpler societies persons belonging to certain lines of descent are regarded as superior to others and are entitled to receive some form of respect, and may sometimes have other privileges. The clearest case of such differentiation by rank is that of royal families, the descendants of king and chiefs. A society may be simply divided into royal or nobles and commoners, but there may be much more elaborate ranking systems. In Samoa, for example, every household claims the right to a hereditary title, and all these are ranked in order of precedence on the basis of genealogies that are recited on formal occasions (Lucy Mair, 1965). Again among the Kgatla, a Tswana tribe of Botswana, an elaborate system of ranking allocates every man to his appropriate place. The Tswana tribe is politically dominant over number of people of different tribal origins. Many Tswana tribes of the present day have each been formed by the splitting off, at different times, of members of an existing royal lineage to establish independent chiefdoms. Each of these seceding members took with him a band of retainers of mixed origin, people who had, or whose ancestors had, at some time or the other attached themselves to his service. Later, more outsiders became subjects of Tswana chiefs; sometimes they were conquered, sometimes they offered their allegiance in return for protection. These differences were recognized by them and they categorized their population as ‘sons of chiefs’, ‘servants of chiefs’ and ‘refugees’. They are ranked in order of their genealogical tree. Every chief has a number of sons, only one of them will succeed him. The descendents of this man’s brother are ranked in order of the original brother’s status, which he/they derive from the ranking of their mothers (since all chiefs were polygynous in the olden days). In each generation a new series of such ranks is created. The brothers of any chief (and their descendants) are ranked above those of chief’s father and their descendants. In important public discussions people speak in order of seniority, and wherever a number of Tswana members are together they know who the senior is, and the rest accept his leadership (Lucy Mair, 1965). Such a system may be called hierarchical; which mean relationships of authority and obedience, superiority and subordination, while rank in itself simply implies status. Rank and authority commonly go together. The Nuers accept the ranking of their society according to age set membership, but no Nuer would dream of taking orders from another just because the man belonged to a senior age set. In England no commoner thinks that a titled person has the right to tell him what to do, and what not to do though Dukes, Earls, Marquises and Barons are placed in their allotted position in Westminister Abbey when kings are crowned and they do not defer to one another in this order in everyday life. The army in contrast, is a hierarchy; an officer of higher rank can give order to any officer of lower rank (Lucy Mair, 1965).

The most elaborate system of social stratification is that of the Hindu Caste system. This system is based on the idea of ‘pollution’. The idea is that the people who live in such a way as to avoid pollution have higher status than those who incur it. Certain substances are conceived as polluting, and people whose occupations require them to handle these are of low caste. Every caste is called by the name of some occupation, though only a minority of members of any caste follows the occupation after which it is called. Caste membership is hereditary and people should not marry outside their own caste. According to Hindu theology there are five divisions running through all society: Brahmans or priests, Kshatriyas or worriers, Vaishyas or traders and Sudras or servants; and at the bottom of the scale the ‘untouchables’, the people whose very touch or even their shadow is held to be polluting to members of higher castes. In practice, there are innumerable sub-divisions of these castes, which are ranked in different order in different localities. The cultural expression of the caste hierarchy is everywhere the same, namely that members of a higher caste or sub-caste show their superiority by refusing to accept food from members of lower castes. Each caste has its own street in a village. In a small local community there is typically one dominant caste, the members of which own the land. Members of other castes either work for them as labourers, or perform services for the whole community, such as barbering or sweeping the streets, which are thought to involve pollution; in return they are rewarded at harvest time a share of the produce of the land.

Another example of stratified society is that of class society described by sociologists mostly and is characterized by certain kinds of division. This division is based on Karl Marx theory of class conflict. According to Marx society is divided in two classes defined by their relationship to the means of production is land, machines and other means, and the others are exploited by it. Marx identified a division of society into exploiters and the exploited at every historical period. The essential division of class in the technical sense and other divisions of stratified society is that divisions into classes are based on occupation and income; whereas in African societies it is based on ‘race’ (that is supposedly descent). Of course special occupations are assigned in practice to the members of different social strata in these societies too. But here status determines occupation where as in a class system occupation determines status and in such a system there is more room for individuals to achieve a higher status than that of their parents (Lucy Mair).

3. Theories of Inequality

Many sociologists and anthropologists apply two kinds of theories to analyse stratification. One holds that a high degree of inequality in the distribution of rewards is necessary, morally justified and beneficial to all members of society. Unless society offers unequal rewards for unequal talents and efforts, the most talented people will have no incentive to put their talents to work for the welfare of all. This view is called functional theory.

A contrary view holds that a high degree of inequality is not only immoral but robs the whole society of the benefits of much of its potential talent, which lies undeveloped in many of those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Stratification is not beneficial to society as a whole, but only to elites who benefit the most. This is known as the conflict theory.

Functional theory

The functional theory holds that inequality is necessary for society to motivate its most resourceful and hard working members to perform its most important roles. Some roles require more skills and training than others. The more the skill required to perform a role, the fewer the number of qualified people to perform those roles. Thus, functionalists argue that unequal rewards are effective ways to select most eligible persons to perform socially valuable roles.

Functionalists view that inequality is not only socially useful but also morally justified. They assume that there are certain basic needs or functional prerequisites which must be met if society is to survive. Functionalists maintain that a certain degree of order and stability are essential for the operation of social system. To sum up, Functionalists are primarily concerned with the function of social stratification with its contribution to maintenance and well being of the society.

Conflict Theory

The conflict theory starts from the objections to the functionalism. They claim that stratification is based on control over productive resources such as land, labour and technology. Once the elites gain control over the resources, they get other people to do the tasks that benefits them most. This type of control varies between different kinds of economic systems. In ancient preindustrial states and chiefdoms the noble class controlled the land and the commoners had to pay tax and labour in return for the privilege of using it. In parts of feudal Europe, the serfs were tied to their estate and ordinarily had strong rights over the land they worked, but they still had to contribute a certain number of days of work or a certain amount of their harvest to their lord per year.

As per capitalist economic system, Karl Marx—the nineteenth century ‘father’ of conflict theory argued that the capitalist societies include only two fundamental classes—members of capitalist class or the ‘bourgeoisie’ and the working class or the ‘proletariat’. The capitalists buy the labour they need to operate their capital to sell goods and make profit; the workers do the jobs they need to support their families. According to Marx, the goods the workers produce must be worth more in the market than the workers themselves receive in wages or else there would be no profit for the capitalists. The difference between the amount the capitalists receive for the goods they sell and their costs (including the amount they pay their workers) is profit.

4. Ideologies

While analyzing stratification one comes across a basic question; how does such high degrees of inequalities persist in stratified societies? Resentment, rebellion and occasional attempts of revolution occur in all parts of the world. Many powerless and poor people do not simply accept their position in the social hierarchy. Inequality is a major source of social unrest. Argueably, global economic inequality and concerns about cultural imperialism are to some extend responsible for international terrorism as ethnic conflicts and religious ideologies are in existence. Use of coercion and oppression to maintain wealth and power potentially reduces the honour and esteem of one of the three rewards offered by stratification. Further stratification system that rely mostly on force seem to be short lived. It is the ideology that reinforces the stratification in a society.

In many stratified societies ideologies are based on religion. In this context, we can cite the example of ‘Divine Right of Kings’ from the feudal Europe. In many ancient civilizations such as the Aztec, the Inca, the Japanese and the Egyptian ruler himself was believed to be a divine or semi divine being. In traditional India, the beliefs about reincarnation and pollution were so intertwined with the caste system that they rendered its inequalities both explicable and legitimate. In ancient complex chiefdoms of Hawaii, there was a marked social distinction between the noble and the commoner class. The nobility was viewed as endowed with a super natural power called ‘mana’. Mana was partly hereditary, and within a single family the eldest child inherited most of the mana from his or her parents. The highest ranking noble, the paramount chief, was believed to be descended from one of the gods of the islands through a line of eldest sons. This descent gave him the right to rule because he had more mana than anyone in the chiefdom. Other nobles were relatives of the paramount chief and were also endowed with mana. Mana gave the chiefs the power to curse those who were disloyal or disobedient or violated some taboo, which further reinforced their authority. Hawaiians believed that the prosperity of chiefdom and everyone in it depended on the performance of certain religious rituals held in grand temples. Commoners did not have enough mana to enter a temple, only priests and nobles perform the rituals needed to ensure prosperity. Everyone in the chiefdom thus relied on the social elite for their wellbeing (Peoples and Bailey 2011).

The above examples illustrate a few ways religion serves ideological functions in some societies. In modern societies, ideologies are more secular in orientation, because effective ideologies must be compatible with people’s overall cultural ideas about how their society works. In the United States, Americans’ ideas about the social and economic usefulness of inequality, about the fairness of unequal rewards for unequal talents and efforts, and about how the well-to-do achieved their wealth are often interpreted as secular ideologies.

Summary

• Social stratification is the form of inequality found in every society
• It states that culturally valued material and social rewards are not distributed evenly.
• Stratification is different from rank and hierarchy.
• Rank is the status ascribed mostly on the basis of descent.
• Hierarchy is the relationship of authority and obedience, superiority and subordination.
• Stratification refers to inequality based on ascribed (caste) or achieved (class) status.
• Stratification is mostly based on certain ideologies.