Introduction to SociologySOC-101

Unit 7 – Stratification and Social Class

Systems of Social Stratification Social stratification

A system in which people are divided into layers according to their relative power, property, and prestige

Refers to the ranking of large groups of people rather than individual people

Every society stratifies its members The degree of inequality varies No matter what system a society may use to divide

people into different layers, gender is always an essential part of the distinctions within each layer On the basis of gender, people are sorted into categories

and given differential access to rewards Social distinctions have usually favored males

Systems of Social Stratification Slavery

Form of social stratification in which some people own other people

Initially slavery was based on debt, punishment for violation of the law, or defeat in battle Many of the first slaves were women, captured after the

defeat of their village Slavery could be temporary or permanent and was

not necessarily passed on to one’s children Typically, slaves owned no property and had no

power This was not universally true, however

Systems of Social Stratification Slavery (con’t)

American colonists first tried to enslave Indians Then turned to Africans, who were being brought to

North and South America by the British, Dutch, English, Portuguese, and Spanish

When American slave owners found it was profitable to own slaves for life, they developed an ideology around the idea and to made slaves inheritable

Although illegal, slavery still exists in places like the Sudan and Mauritania Villages are raided, the men killed, and the women and

children captured and sold

Systems of Social Stratification Caste Systems

Status is determined by birth and is lifelong Ascribed status is the basis of a caste system Caste societies try to make certain that the

boundaries between castes remain firm Practicing endogamy (marriage within their own group) Developing rules about ritual pollution, teaching that

contact with inferior castes contaminates the superior caste

Although abolished by the Indian government in 1949, the caste system remains part of everyday life in India

Systems of Social Stratification Caste Systems (con’t)

This system is based on religion and is made up of four main castes which are subdivided into thousands of specialized subcastes or jati The lowest caste is considered to be "untouchable," and

ablution (washing rituals) is required to restore purity for those contaminated by individuals from this group

An American racial caste system developed in the United States when slavery ended Even in the earlier parts of this century, all whites were

considered higher than all African Americans and in the South, separate accommodations were maintained for each race

Systems of Social Stratification Class system

Form of social stratification based primarily on the possession of money or material possessions

An individual’s initial social class position is based on that of her or his parents (ascribed status)

A class system allows for social mobility—movement up or down the social class ladder—based on achieved status.

Gender cuts across slavery, caste, and class In all societies, gender becomes the basis for the

distribution of the good things available in the society

India’s Caste System

What Determines Social Class? Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Social class is determined by one’s relationship to the means of production—the tools, factories, land, and investment capital used to produce wealth

Modern society is composed of just two classes of people Bourgeoisie (capitalists) own the means of production Proletariat (workers) work for those who own the means

of production As capital becomes more concentrated, the two

classes become increasingly more hostile to one another

What Determines Social Class? Class consciousness develops

Awareness of a common identity based on one’s position in the means of production

According to Marx, this is the essential basis for the unity of workers

Marx believed that the workers would revolt against the capitalists, take control of the means of production, and usher in a classless society However, the workers’ unity and revolution are held

back by false class consciousness—the mistaken identification of workers with the interests of capitalists

What Determines Social Class? Max Weber (1864-1920)

Did not believe that property was the sole basis of a person’s position in the stratification system

Rather he believed that it was property, prestige, and power that determined social class

Property is an essential element However, some powerful people, like managers of

corporations, control the means of production even though they do not own them

Prestige may be derived from ownership of property This may also be based on other factors, such as athletic

skills Power is the ability to control others, even over their

objections

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945,

1953) Functionalists who believed social stratification is

inevitable Society must make certain that its important

positions are filled with qualified people and to guarantee this the society offers them greater rewards

Argued that because society offers greater rewards for its more responsible, demanding, and accountable positions, qualified people compete for them

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Melvin Tumin (1953) criticized the functionalist

view Argued that the importance of a position cannot be

measured by the rewards, and that such an argument is circular There must be independent indicators of importance

Noted that if stratification worked as Davis and Moore describe it, society would be a meritocracy A form of social stratification in which all positions are

awarded on the basis of merit But it does not work this way (e.g., the best predictor of

college entrance is family income, not ability) Also argued that money and fringe benefits are not the

only reasons people take jobs Noted that stratification is dysfunctional, not

functional, to many people

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Conflict theorists stress that conflict, not

function, is the basis of social stratification Every society has limited resources to go around

and each group struggles with one another for those resources

Whenever a group gains power, it uses that power to extract what it can from the groups beneath it.

The dominant group takes control of the social institutions, using them to keep other groups weak and preserve the best resources for itself

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Gaetano Mosca (1896) argued that it is inevitable

that every society will be stratified by power This is because the ruling class is well organized and

enjoys easy communication among its relatively few members

It is extremely difficult for the majority they govern to resist

Society cannot exist unless it is organized Political power developed to get the work of society done

Politics results in inequalities of power because some people take leadership positions and others follow

It is human nature to be self-centered Thus, people in positions of power use their positions to bring

greater rewards to themselves

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Marx argued that the bourgeoisie are in power

because they control society’s resources They are using those resources to benefit

themselves and to oppress those beneath them Modern conflict theorists stress that conflict

between capitalists and workers is not the only important conflict in contemporary society The competition for scarce resources results in

conflict not only between groups from different classes, but also between groups within the same social class E.g., young vs. old and women vs. men

Why is Social Stratification Universal? Gerhard Lenski (1966) offered a synthesis

between functionalist and conflict theories Functionalists are right when it comes to societies

that have only basic resources and do not accumulate wealth Includes hunting and gathering societies

Conflict theorists are right when it comes to societies with a surplus In such societies humans pursue self-interests and

struggle to control those surpluses This leads to the emergence of a small elite who then

builds inequality into the society, resulting in a full-blown system of social stratification

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? Social stratification is maintained within a

nation because elites control ideas and information, maintain social networks, and use force

Ideology can be more effective than the use of brute force in maintaining inequality The control of ideas is used by elites everywhere

to maintain their positions of power—whether in dictatorships or in democracies To the degree that their ideologies are accepted by the

masses, political arrangements are stable Example: divine right of kings

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? Controlling Speech and Information

In a dictatorship, elites use the threat of force to try to control information

In a democracy, they manipulate the media by the selective release of information.

Controlling Technology Technology aids the elite in preserving its position

by enabling them to monitor citizens’ activities without their even being aware that they are being observed

Comparative Social Stratification Great Britain’s class system can be divided

into upper, middle, and lower classes About half of the population is in the lower or

working class Half is in the middle class About 1 percent is in the upper class The British are extremely class conscious

Language and speech patterns are important class indicators

Education is the primary way the class system is perpetuated from one generation to the next

Comparative Social Stratification In the Soviet Union, the ideal of communism—a

classless society—was never realized. The major basis for stratification was membership in

the Communist Party This consisted of top party officials, a relatively small middle

class, and a massive lower class of peasants and unskilled workers

Soviet leaders, frustrated over time with the system’s inability to be economically successful, initiated capitalistic reforms in the hopes of turning things around

The transition to capitalism has taken bizarre twists Some Russians organizing into criminal groups, stealing vast

amounts of state property, amassing great wealth, and intimidating business people

Global Stratification: Three Worlds Until recently global stratification was

depicted using a simple model consisting of First World - industrialized capitalist nations Second World - Communist nations Third World - all the rest of the nations

With the collapse of communism, these terms became outdated, while other models implied moral judgments about levels of development A more neutral framework describes degrees of

industrialization and depicts, on a global level, the three primary dimensions of social stratification: property, power, and prestige.

Global Stratification: Three Worlds Most Industrialized Nations

U.S., Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, and other industrialized nations of western Europe, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

They are capitalistic, although variations exist in their economic systems and their wealth is enormous

The poor in these countries live better/longer than the average citizens in the Least Industrialized Nations

Global Stratification: Three Worlds Industrializing Nations

Include the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries in Eastern Europe

People living in these countries have considerably lower income and a poorer standard of living than people in the Most Industrialized Nations, but better than those living in the Least Industrialized Nations

Least Industrialized Nations Where most people live on farms or in villages

with low standards of living 68 percent of the world’s population lives in these

nations

Process of Global Stratification Colonialism occurred when industrialized

nations made colonies of weaker nations and exploited their labor/natural resources European nations tended to focus on Africa, while

the U.S. concentrated on Central and South America

The more powerful European nations planted their national flags in a colony and sent representatives to run the government

The U.S. planted corporate flags in the particular colony and let corporations dominate the territory’s government

Process of Global Stratification Western imperialism and colonialism shaped

the Least Industrialized Nations Drew lines across a map to divide up their spoils Created states without regard for tribal or cultural

considerations The legacy of European conquests still erupts

in tribal violence Tribes with no history of national identity were

arbitrarily incorporated into the same political boundaries

Process of Global Stratification World System Theory – Immanual Wallerstein

(1974) Believed that countries are politically and

economically tied together There are four groups of interconnected nations

Core nations, where capitalism first developed Semi-periphery nations (Mediterranean area), which are

highly dependent on trade with the core nations Periphery nations (eastern Europe), those mainly

limited to selling cash crops to the core nations, with limited economic development

External area nations (most of Africa/Asia), which have been left out of the growth of capitalism and have few economic ties to the core nations

Process of Global Stratification World System Theory (con’t)

A capitalist world economy (capitalist dominance) results from relentless expansion Even external area nations are drawn into this

commercial web Globalization

The extensive interconnections among nations resulting from the expansion of capitalism

This has speeded up due to new forms of communication and transportation

The consequence is that no nation lives in isolation

Process of Global Stratification Culture of Poverty - John Kenneth Galbraith (1979)

Argued that some nations remain poor because they are crippled by a culture of poverty This is a way of life based on traditional values and religious

beliefs that perpetuate poverty from one generation to the next

Keeps some of the Least Industrialized Nations from developing

Most sociologists find colonialism/world system theory explanations preferable to the culture of poverty theory This is because the later places the blame on the victim But each theory only partially explains global

stratification

Maintaining Global Stratification Neocolonialism

The economic and political dominance of the Least Industrialized Nations by the Most Industrialized Nations

Michael Harrington (1977) asserts that this occurs because the Most Industrialized Nations control markets, set prices, etc. They move hazardous industries into the Least

Industrialized Nations and sell weapons and manufactured goods to the Least Industrialized Nations, preventing them from developing their own industrial capacity

Modern examples: West control of the Middle East

Maintaining Global Stratification Multinational corporations contribute to the

exploitation of the Least Industrialized Nations They exploit these nations directly by controlling

national and local politics, running them as a fiefdom. Multinational corporations work closely with elites of the

Least Industrialized Nations, funneling investments to this small circle of power in exchange for its cooperation

The Most Industrialized Nations are the primary beneficiaries of profits made in the Least Industrialized Nations.

In some situations, multinational corporations may bring prosperity to the Least Industrialized Nations New factories provide salaries and opportunities which

otherwise would not exist for workers in those countries

Maintaining Global Stratification The new technology favors the Most

Industrialized Nations, enabling them to maintain their global domination. The profits of multinational corporations can be

invested in developing and acquiring the latest technology, thereby generating even greater profits

Many of the Least Industrialized Nations do not have the resources to invest in new technology, which creates an even greater gap between the levels of industrialization globally

What is Social Class? Weber defined social class as a large group of

people who rank close to each other in wealth, power, and prestige

Wealth Consists of property (what we own) and income

(money we receive) Wealth and income are not always the same—a

person may own much property yet have little income, or vice versa. Usually, however, wealth and income go together

Ownership of property (real estate, stocks and bonds, etc.) is not distributed evenly 10% of the U.S. population owns 70 percent of the wealth The richest 1% of U.S. families are worth more than the

entire bottom 90 percent of Americans

What is Social Class? Wealth (con’t)

Income is also distributed disproportionately Top 20% of U.S. residents earn 47% of the income Bottom 20 percent receive less than 5% Each fifth of the U.S. population receives approximately the

same proportion of national income today as it did in 1945 The changes that have occurred indicate growing

inequality The richest 20% of U.S. families have grown richer while the

poorest 20% percent have grown poorer Apart from the very rich, the most affluent group in

U.S. society is the executive officers of the largest corporations Their median compensation is $7.6 million a year A CEO’s income is 200 times higher than the average pay

of U.S. workers

What is Social Class? Power

The ability to carry out your will in spite of resistance and is concentrated in the hands of a few—the “power elite” Share the same ideologies and values, belong to the

same clubs, and reinforce each other’s world view No major decision in U.S. government is made

without their approval

What is Social Class? Prestige

The respect or regard people give to various occupations and accomplishments

Occupations are the primary source of prestige Those with the highest prestige pay more, require more

education, entail more abstract thought, and offer greater autonomy

Occupational prestige rankings tend to be consistent across countries and over time

2. For prestige to be valuable, people must acknowledge it The elite traditionally create rules to emphasize their higher

status Status symbols, which vary according to social class, are

ways of displaying prestige In the U.S., they include designer label clothing, expensive cars,

prestigious addresses, and attendance at particular schools

What is Social Class? Status inconsistency

The situation of people who have a mixture of high and low rankings in the three components of social class (wealth, power, and prestige)

Most people are status consistent—they rank at the same level in all three components People who are status inconsistent want others to treat

them on the basis of their highest status, but tend to be judged on the basis of their lowest status

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski determined that people suffering the frustrations of status inconsistency are more likely to be radical and approve political action aimed against higher status groups

Sociological Models of Social Class The number of classes that exist in an

industrial society is a matter of debate There are two main models: one that builds on

the ideas of Marx and the other on those of Weber

Sociological Models of Social Class Erik Wright (1985)

Realized that not everyone falls into Marx’s two broad classes (capitalists and workers) For instance, although executives, managers, and supervisors

fall into Marx’s category of workers, they act more like capitalists

Wright resolved this problem by regarding some people as simultaneously members of more than one class, occupying what he called contradictory class locations

Wright identified four classes: Capitalists, the owners of large enterprises Petty bourgeoisie, the owners of small businesses Managers, the employees with authority over others Workers, who sell their labor to others

Sociological Models of Social Class Dennis Gilbert and Joseph Kahl (1998, 2008)

created a model to describe class structure in the United States and other capitalist countries The capitalist class (1 percent of the population) is

composed of investors, heirs, and a few executives It is divided into “old” money and “new” money The children of “new” money move into the old money class

by attending the right schools and marrying “old” money The upper middle class (15 percent of the population)

is composed of professionals and upper managers Most of whom have attended college or university and

frequently have postgraduate degrees Of all the classes, this class is the one most shaped by

education

Sociological Models of Social Class The lower middle class (34 percent of the population) is

composed of lower managers, craftspeople, and foremen They have at least a high school education

The working class (30 percent of the population) is composed of factory workers and low-paid white collar workers Most have a high school education.

The working poor (16 percent of the population) is composed of relatively unskilled blue-collar and white-collar workers, including those with temporary and seasonal jobs If they graduated from high school, these workers probably did

not do well The underclass (4 percent of the population) is

concentrated in the inner cities and has little connection with the job market Welfare is their main support

Social Class Ladder in the U.S.

Consequences of Social Class Social class affects our health

The lower classes have more sickness and higher death rates This pattern is influenced by unequal access to medical

care

Mental health, too, is affected by social class Studies show that the mental health of the lower

classes is worse than that of the higher classes due to the stresses of poverty

Social class is also a deciding factor in how the mentally ill are treated, with poorer individuals having less access to mental health facilities

Consequences of Social Class Social class plays a role in family life.

Children of the capitalist class are under great pressure to select the right mate in order to assure the continuity of the family line and their parents play a large role in mate selection

Marriages are more likely to fail in the lower social classes; the children of the poor thus are more likely to live in single-parent households

The amount of education increases and the type changes as one goes up the social class ladder Children of the upper classes bypassing public

schools in favor of private education

Consequences of Social Class Religious orientation also follows class lines

Classes tend to cluster in different denominations Patterns of worship also follow class lines

Political views and involvement are influenced by social class as well People in lower classes are more likely to vote

Democrat, and those in higher classes to vote Republican because the parties are seen as promoting different class interests

People in the working class are more likely to be liberal on economic issues and more conservative on social issues

Political participation is not equal People at the bottom of the class structure are less likely

to vote or get involved in politics

Social Mobility There are three basic types of social mobility

Intergenerational mobility - The change that family members make in their social class from one generation to the next As a result of individual effort, a person can rise from one

level to another; but in the event of individual failure, the reverse can be true

Structural mobility - Social changes that affect large numbers of people The economy shifted from factory machines to computers

vast numbers of new jobs were created and shifts from blue-collar jobs to white-collar positions occurred

Exchange mobility - The movement of people up and down the social class system, while, on balance, the proportions remain the same

Social Mobility Studies of social mobility in the United States

have focused on men Compared with their fathers, one-half of all men have

moved up in social class; one-third have stayed in the same place; and one-sixth have moved down

In the past it was assumed that women had no class position of their own; they were simply assigned to the class of their husbands

However, structural changes in the U.S. economy have created opportunities for women to move up the social class ladder One study indicated that women who did move up were

encouraged by their parents to postpone marriage and get an education

Poverty The U.S. government classifies the poverty

line as including families whose incomes are less than three times a low-cost food budget It does take into account family size and cost of

living This line has been criticized for being too low,

many think it should be increased by 50% Any modification of this measure instantly adds or

subtracts millions of people, and thus has significant consequences

Poverty Certain social groups are disproportionately

represented among the poor population Poverty is not evenly distributed among the

states; the poor are clustered in the South more than in other region, and in California more than in other states The poverty rate for the rural poor is slightly higher

than the national average While they show the same racial/ethnic characteristics

as the nation as a whole, the rural poor are less likely to be single parents, are less skilled and less educated

In addition, the jobs available to them pay less

Poverty Race-ethnicity is a major factor in determining

poverty. Although two out of three poor people are white, only 9

percent of whites, 21 percent of Latinos, 25 percent of African Americans and of Native Americans live in poverty

Feminization of Poverty - The sex of the person who heads a family is one of the best predictors of whether or not a family is poor. The major causes of this phenomenon are divorce, births

to unwed mothers, and the lower wages paid to women The percentage of poor people over age 65 who are

poor is lower than the national average Although elderly Latino and African Americans are two to

three times more likely to be poor than elderly white Americans

Poverty Children are more likely to live in poverty than

are adults or the elderly This holds true regardless of race-ethnicity Poverty is much greater among minority children:

29 percent of Latino children and 35 percent of African-American children are poor

Poverty Levels in the U.S.

Poverty In the 1960s, Oscar Lewis suggested that the

poor get trapped in a culture of poverty as a result of having values and behaviors that make them “fundamentally different” from other U.S. residents Research indicates that most poverty is of short

duration, lasting only a year or less, and that most often it is due to a dramatic life change Only 12 percent of poverty lasts five years or more

Since the number of people who live in poverty remains fairly constant, this means that as many people move into poverty as move out of it

About one-fourth of the U.S. population is or has been poor for at least a year

Poverty New federal laws require that states place a

lifetime cap on welfare assistance and require welfare recipients to look for work and take available jobs Defenders of the new rules say that they will rescue

people from poverty In some states the welfare rolls dropped sharply, and

nationally the recipients of welfare decreased by 44 percent Conflict theorists note that welfare rolls declined

during a period of economic prosperity—the poor moved into the workforce as part of the army of reserve workers They predict that welfare rolls will swell once our economy

moves into a recession

Poverty In trying to explain poverty, two choices

compete: individual explanations and social structural explanations Sociologists look to such factors as inequalities in

education, access to learning job skills, racial, ethnic, age, and gender discrimination, and large-scale economic change to explain the patterns of poverty in society

Another explanation focuses on how characteristics of individuals are assumed to contribute to their poverty Sociologists reject explanations that focus on qualities

of laziness or lack of intelligence to explain poverty

Poverty Horatio Alger Myth

Real-life examples of people from humble origins who climbed far up the social ladder reinforces the widely-held belief of most U.S. residents that they have a chance of getting ahead (the Horatio Alger myth), even though this is obviously a statistical impossibility

Functionalists would stress that this belief is functional for society because it encourages people to compete for higher positions, while placing the blame for failure squarely on the individual