1

Social Stratification

Introduction

Social stratification is one of the important sociological concepts especially in

Bangladesh where many of the socio-economic perspectives of social life depend on

this. Traditionally Bangladesh is the country which is hugely influenced its traditions,

heritage, culture, social norms and values. Social stratification in this is vastly

manifested by the traditional social structure. It is argued that the social feature in

this regard has been changed due to education, community awareness, women

empowerment, and above all globalization. This paper looks first the conceptual

analysis and then explains how the existing social stratification impacts on the socio-

economic and cultural life of Bangladeshi people.

What is social stratification?

The definition of social stratification is varied across the disciplines. In sociology,

social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of social classes, castes and

strata within a society. While these hierarchies are not universal to all societies, they

are the norm among state-level cultures (as distinguished from hunter-gatherers or

other social arrangements). Stratification is a hierarchy of positions with regard to

economic production which influences the social rewards to those in the positions.

It is the hierarchical arrangement and establishment of social categories that may

evolve into social groups and statuses and their corresponding roles. It refers to a

patterned inequality-the division of society in such a way that some people get more

rewards than others. Social stratification is found in all human groups and tends to

be transmitted from one generation to another. It makes ranking some individuals

and groups as more deserving than others; from this a social hierarchy is formed

which is a set of ranked statuses from highest to lowest. It is a form of inequality in

which categories of people are systematically ranked in a hierarchy on the basis of

their access to scarce but valued resources. This is different from social inequality

which is a condition in which people have unequal access to wealth, power and

prestige; and social differentiation which is a process in which people are set apart

for differential treatment by virtue of their statuses, roles, and other social

characteristics. It refers to the ranking of individuals and groups in any given society.

2

Davis and Moore are interested in the relationship between stratification and the rest

of the social order. Stratification is defined as the unequal rights and perquisites of

different positions in a society. They are interested in the system of positions in

society and not the individuals occupying those positions. Their approach is strictly

functionalist in that they argue that is a society is to survive, then a functionally

efficient means of fitting talented individuals to occupations must develop.

Stratification supplies this mechanism. Stratification can be defined various ways,

but most commonly refers to institutionalized inequalities in power, wealth, and

status between categories of persons within a single social system (e.g., classes,

castes, ethnic groups). Status inequalities between individuals are found everywhere,

so how much inequality does it take to qualify as a stratified society?

But most students of social stratification are interested in differences between

categories of persons other than age-classes or genders -- i.e., they treat

inequalities based strictly on age and gender in separate categories. Thus, its

common to see some societies classified as "egalitarian" even though they may be

patriarchal gerontocracies (e.g., some Australian aborigines, many pastoralist

groups), where the elder males have considerably more power and control

substantially more wealth than do others (women, younger men) in the society.

However, the definition of social stratification depends on the particular country’s

social-economic, religions, race, caste, and political situation. For example, we can

see that on the basis of race Indian society is stratified in different forms; it is also

true that there is different stratification on the basis of religions and even on the

basis of race. In Bangladesh this picture is bit different as we can see that the

properties/ economical condition, heredity, and political influences are much stronger

here.

Causes of Stratification

Understanding origins of stratification is difficult, in part because we are virtually

limited to archaeological record for direct evidence on the process

Reason for this is that written records only emerge with stratification (in fact,

evidence suggests that in most cases writing was first developed in order to carry

out two specific functions of stratified societies: maintain tax records, and record

3

genealogies and histories of hereditary rulers). Although there is much that we don't

know about origins of stratification, it is clear that it is a relatively recent

development (e.g., as revealed through study of grave goods, and historical record

of state expansion and conquest of more egalitarian societies). Once they arise,

stratified systems tend to expand at expense of egalitarian systems, but this cannot

explain origins of first stratified systems (i.e., cases of "pristine" state formation).

What drives egalitarian societies towards stratification? Are there ecological

explanations? It is not simply subsistence mode, since some foragers are less

egalitarian than many agricultural and most pastoralist societies.

Attempts to explain cultural evolution of social stratification in ecological terms

generally rely on one or another of two basic approaches:

1. Stratification = solution to an ecological problem

2. Stratification = system by which one class extracts resources from another

These two approaches often termed functional and conflict theories, respectively.

Functional theories focus on benefits to all parties; in contrast, conflict theories argue

that elites benefit at expense of commoners. These two views give diametrically

opposite interpretations of most aspects of social stratification.

What are the five basic viewpoints on why stratification exists?

Natural inevitability which suggests that inequality exists because of natural

differences in people's abilities and is a just system. Structural -functionalist who

states that stratification is useful to society because it enhances stability and induces

members of the society to work hard. Conflict which suggests that stratification

occurs through conflict between different classes, with the upper classes using

superior power to take a larger share of the social resources. Evolutionary which

states that people will share enough resources to ensure the survival of the group

until a surplus exists at which time power determines how the surplus is distributed.

Symbolic Interactionist which calls attention to the importance of symbolic displays

of wealth and power that influence one's definition of self and the importance of

ideas in defining social situations.

The theories of Social Stratification

4

For centuries, sociologists have analyzed social stratification, its root causes, and its

effects on society. Theorists Karl Marx and Max Weber disagreed about the nature of

class, in particular. Other sociologists applied traditional frameworks to stratification.

Karl Marx based his conflict theory on the idea that modern society has only two

classes of people: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the

owners of the means of production: the factories, businesses, and equipment needed

to produce wealth. The proletariat are the workers.

According to Marx, the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies exploit workers. The owners

pay them enough to afford food and a place to live, and the workers, who do not

realize they are being exploited, have a false consciousness, or a mistaken sense,

that they are well off. They think they can count on their capitalist bosses to do what

was best for them. Marx foresaw a workers’ revolution. As the rich grew richer, Marx

hypothesized that workers would develop a true class consciousness, or a sense of

shared identity based on their common experience of exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

The workers would unite and rise up in a global revolution. Once the dust settled

after the revolution, the workers would then own the means of production, and the

world would become communist. No one stratum would control the access to wealth.

Everything would be owned equally by everyone. Marx’s vision did not come true. As

societies modernized and grew larger, the working classes became more educated,

acquiring specific job skills and achieving the kind of financial well-being that Marx

never thought possible. Instead of increased exploitation, they came under the

protection of unions and labor laws. Skilled factory workers and tradespeople

eventually began to earn salaries that were similar to, or in some instances greater

than, their middle-class counterparts.

Max Weber took issue with Marx’s seemingly simplistic view of stratification. Weber

argued that owning property, such as factories or equipment, is only part of what

determines a person’s social class. Social class for Weber included power and

prestige, in addition to property or wealth. People who run corporations without

owning them still benefit from increased production and greater profits. Weber

argued that property can bring prestige, since people tend to hold rich people in high

regard. Prestige can also come from other sources, such as athletic or intellectual

ability. In those instances, prestige can lead to property, if people are willing to pay

for access to prestige. For Weber, wealth and prestige are intertwined. Weber

5

believed that social class is also a result of power, which is merely the ability of an

individual to get his or her way, despite opposition. Wealthy people tend to be more

powerful than poor people, and power can come from an individual’s prestige.

Sociologists still consider social class to be a grouping of people with similar levels of

wealth, prestige, and power.

Sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore believed that stratification serves

an important function in society. In any society, a number of tasks must be

accomplished. Some tasks, such as cleaning streets or serving coffee in a restaurant,

are relatively simple. Other tasks, such as performing brain surgery or designing

skyscrapers, are complicated and require more intelligence and training than the

simple tasks. Those who perform the difficult tasks are therefore entitled to more

power, prestige, and money. Davis and Moore believed that an unequal distribution

of society’s rewards is necessary to encourage people to take on the more

complicated and important work that required many years of training. They believed

that the rewards attached to a particular job reflect its importance to society.

Social Stratification and its impacts on Bangladeshi society

The social stratification in Bangladesh is very much influenced by its roots and

traditions. Although the dynamics of religion largely shaped the context of its

development, the relevance of economic and political factors is no less significant.

The Hindu society in Bengal was built along the caste lines although the widely

known four-fold classification BRAHMAN, KSATRIYA, VAISYA and SUDRA did not emerge in

the classical manner. The two middle castes, Ksatriya and Vaisya, were not visible in

the way they were in other parts of India. In Bengal the main caste division was

between the Brahmans and the non-Brahmans. The latter category was the

admixture of different sub-castes that emerged through unregulated interactions of

different castes. The Brahmans occupied the highest position of the social ladder. As

there were geographical divisions among the Brahmans (RADHA and Barendra

Brahman), there was another category called Kaibarta Brahman. Some proverb says

that the local Brahmans were not skilled in VEDAS and that vacuum was filled in by

the Brahmans who migrated from northern India and became known as Kaibarta

Brahman.

6

The non-Brahman sub-castes were broadly divided into three hierarchical categories:

superior admixture, medium admixture and inferior admixture. The first category

included twenty sub-castes, including karan or kayastha (writer), ambastha or

baidya (traditional physician), TANTI (weavers), ugra (warrior) and others. The

second category included twelve sub-castes like SWARNAKAR (goldsmith), dhibor

(fishermen) etc. And the last category included nine sub-castes like CHANDAL (persons

cremating corpses), chamar (cobblers) and others. Members of the last category

were the untouchables.

Some British colonial administrators first pointed out that the Muslim social

stratification in India was patterned after the Hindu Caste System. However, it

remained a matter of debate how far the basic principles of caste system

(purity/pollution, commensality, endogamy, or hereditary occupation) had

determined the Muslim stratification pattern. James Wise identified eighty castes

among the Muslims as early as the nineteenth century, while Gait found only three.

The latter noticed the clustering of social strata. The three broad clusters included

Ashraf or higher class Muslims, Ajlaf or lower class Muslims, and Arzal or the

degraded classes. The first cluster consisted of Sayed, Sheikh, Pathan and Mughal,

while the next two incorporated as many as fifty occupational castes.

It was noted that endogamy or intra-caste MARRIAGE was followed among Muslims.

The presence of higher caste Muslims in Bengal was much less significant than what

it was in the upper part of India. Social hierarchy among Muslims of Bengal was less

pronounced. Some believed that the majority of the Bengal Muslims were the

converts from the lower caste Hindus; hence steep hierarchy could not emerge

among them. One important consequence of the less rigidity of Muslim stratification

pattern was the opportunity for mobility among the castes. It was possible for a

lower caste Muslim to move into the higher position. Such mobility was largely

propelled by the accumulation of wealth.

The flexibility of Muslim social stratification derived its dynamics from a different

ideological pattern known as sharafati. It alluded to the noble background of a

person. It was more to do with one's pedigree than any deep religious ideology like

Hindu caste system. According to Hindu religious myth, the four castes originated

from the four different parts of Brahman, the supreme lord. It was also predicted

7

that the Brahman caste emanated from the head, while the Sudra, the lowest caste

from the feet. On the contrary, ISLAM did not offer any such interpretation on the

origin of caste. As a result, mobility in Muslim stratification could have been possible

particularly owing to the fact that one could manouvre the history of pedigree.

Agrarian structure played the most important role from an earlier period in the

making of social stratification what gradually assumed the present shape. The largest

bulk of the population lived in the countryside with a small urban counterpart. Those

living in the countryside primarily derived subsistence from AGRICULTURE, and

therefore, one cannot ignore the social relationship grown out of agrarian structure.

ZAMINDARs or the revenue collectors were the most powerful class in the agrarian

structure since the pre-colonial time in Bengal and the new colonial land policy of

1793 did not disturb the basic equilibrium. There was change of hands in land

ownership but the class did not disappear. Below the class of zamindar there was a

vast peasant cultivator class. Subsequent land policy in the colonial period,

particularly the sub-infeudation (MADHYASVATVAS or pattanidari) created intermediate

rent collecting interests resulting in the emergence of numerous agrarian layers,

known as Jotedar, Gantidar, Howladar, or Talukdar, or Bhuiyan, etc. The aggregate

effect of introducing different land tenure measures was the emergence of a highly

stratified society based on land interests.

Agrarian society during the colonial time also witnessed the emergence of a rich

peasant class who happened to occupy an important position in social stratification.

At least one specific development created the pre-condition for the emergence of

rich/proto-capitalist peasants: the market integration of Bengal agriculture with the

global economy particularly with the onset of INDIGO and JUTE cultivation. The rich

peasant class enjoyed economic wealth and power in rural society. On the other

hand, agrarian society during colonial time also went through the process of

proletarianisation/pauperisation with the consequent emergence of landless class.

While different land tenure measures influenced the class composition of the agrarian

structure and in turn social stratification, the growing capitalisation facilitated the

emergence of agricultural wage workers. The social stratification pattern that

emerged during the colonial time comprised the superior landed class, landed

intermediaries with several layers, rich peasants/proto-capitalists, poor

8

peasants/sharecroppers, and agricultural working class coming from the landless and

marginal peasants.

With the introduction of British rule in the urban areas important changes took place

at the level of urban social stratification. A pristine BHADRALOK or gentlemen class

consisted of educated professionals (lawyers, teachers, doctors, engineers, service

holders and others) emerged in urban Bengal reaping the benefits from the new

educational and occupational opportunities. On the other hand, the size of the newly

emerged business class was small and characteristically not comparable with the

bourgeois counterpart of the West. Earlier, the social status enjoyed by the traders

or BANIANs was lesser than the higher caste like the Brahmans and it changed during

the colonial time. Business class also became educated and the vice versa. Landed

aristocracy became the frontrunners among the bhadralok. In terms of lifestyle and

values they presented novel characteristics. In the arenas of art, culture and politics

their novelties were prominent.

One of the significant developments immediately after the partition of the

subcontinent was the abolition of zamindari land system in Bangladesh. Since

historically most zamindars came from the Hindu community, their migration to India

after partition created a sort of vacuum in social structure. The Muslim traditional

wealthy class linked to agriculture came to occupy that vacuum, although it was a

fact that their size was minuscule. The same period also witnessed the strengthening

of the process of emergence of a rich peasant/agraricultural capitalist class owing to

the introduction of agricultural modernisation in the early 1950s and they became

strong contenders for the upper echelon of social stratification. Another important

class that emerged was the educated Muslim middle class who also mastered

sufficient status in society and came to be known as Muslim bhadralok just before

and following the partition.

Traditional institutions like lineage or gushti continued to function during Bangladesh

period. One cannot, however, ignore the difference between rural and urban

stratification pattern in this regard. Rural social stratification has been fashioned

after the status of the economic classes. Wealth is the important determinant of

social status. Land ownership is an important variable for wealth. There are other

manifestations of social status. For example, service holders, teachers and

9

professionals in many areas enjoy higher social status as the member of the

educated class. Nevertheless, material wealth overrides other elements in

determining social status. A person may hold States have some additional

characteristics besides socioeconomic stratification:

1. Centralized and hierarchical/bureaucratic political organization

2. Highly codified legal system of decision-making and enforcement

3. Governmental monopoly on use of lethal force (police, armies)

4. System of economic expropriation (taxation) and redistribution

5. Dense population

6. Large scale (population generally well over 100,000)

7. 7. Complex economic division of labor (occupational specialization)

The capitalist farmers in Bangladesh are wealthy, own land and technology, hire

outside labour and carry out cultivation for the market. Rich peasants are also

wealthy and hire outside labour but they are still engaged in cultivation. Middle

peasants are primarily subsistence cultivators with occasional market participation

and primarily depending on household labour. Marginal peasants combine cultivation

and labour sale to ensure subsistence. The landless people are the wage workers

primarily engaged in agriculture. About three-fourths of rural households belong to

the categories of marginal peasants and landless.

The effect of 'pauperisation', the process that results in the emergence of landless

households without adequate employment, is found quite significant in rural

Bangladesh. In rural stratification there are other traditional groups such as KAMARs

(blacksmiths), SWARNAKARs (goldsmiths), sweepers, TANTIs (weavers), KALUs (oil

pressers, and others who enjoy minimum status. The roles of some of these groups

are now taken over by the professional producers. For example, edible oil comes

from the mill. Economic status of a rural household is found to be subject to mobility

when examined over a long span of time. There are different forces what result in

the changes of the economic condition of rural households. Many surplus producing

rural households gradually turned into subsistence and later deficit households. On

the other hand, many deficit households gradually became surplus ones. Market

forces, demographic forces, inheritance laws, household splitting are some of the

important factors causing such mobility.

10

The rural social stratification in Bangladesh has not always been reflected in the

differences of lifestyles, customs, norms and languages of different classes. Common

features in dresses or languages sometimes blur the differences manifested in social

status. For example, lungi and shirt are the dresses worn by the rural people

irrespective of economic differentiation, though the very poor often do not use shirts

simply because they can not buy them. Social festivals and ceremonies like EID-UL

FITR and EID-UL AZHA are marked by the spirit of community. The notion of samaj or

community spirit in the countryside reduces the effect of social division. Patron-client

relationship also to some extent establishes the relationship between the rich and

the poor. Khandan or lineage status is also taken into account. For example,

Chowdhury, Khandakar, Syed, etc. are known as aristocratic or khandani gushti. At

the time of establishment of matrimonial relationship, the rich prefer the rich. The

differences in social stratification are interpreted by the differences in material

prosperity. Lavish living and extravagant expenses indicate one's wealth

accompanied by status and power. However, upper strata are gradually becoming

educated, and a social difference between the educated and non-educated is

emerging. Gradually, a bhadralok class may also appear in the countryside with a

distinct lifestyle based on modern education, etiquette and culture.

The urban social stratification is beset with important regional variation. While most

district towns are still small and backward, a few are relatively advanced. Three

cities, Dhaka, Chittagong and Khulna, incorporate large industrial and commercial

units along with a vibrant service sector. Cosmopolitanism has come to shape the

nature of social stratification of the community living in those large cities. Modern

classes like corporate executives, civil bureaucrats, professionals, intellectuals, art

workers, industrialists and businessmen emerged in the urban areas. A large labour

force engaged in both formal and informal sectors also characterise the urban

population. Wealth and education largely determine urban social status. The

traditional factor like lineage background has reduced to a level of minimum

significance. Urban lifestyles, dresses, etiquette etc vary along class lines as well as

the recreational activities.

A survey conducted in the late 1980s revealed that the heads of 43.4% households

of Dhaka city were salaried professionals working in government offices,

corporations, banks and private firms and it also included teachers, doctors, lawyers

11

and others. The class composed of large business, medium business and small

business constituted 36.7% while low skill or no skill workers constituted 12.5%.

Another 7.4% was found without any formal occupational involvement and they

comprised housewives, students, unemployed and others. One can stratify the above

four classes into two broad groups and assume that the former two are higher status

groups and the latter two lower status groups. Business people command wealth and

subsequently social status. There is a very close association between social status

and power. The business people significantly control politics. However, all politically

powerful people do not enjoy social status in the eyes of the common people.

Educated people enjoy a fair social status despite the fact that they are not always

rich. The person who can successfully combine wealth and education surpasses

others in terms of enjoying social status. Artists in different branches of art also

enjoy status. Social status enjoyed by the wealthy and the educated are not always

very clearly distinguishable.

To some extent the underlying norm of a community comes to play a role in

determining to whom they will assign more social status. It should not be ignored

that wealth does not always ensure social status. For example, if a person is involved

in some kind of activities stigmatised in the eyes of the society, his wealth matters a

little in the determination of his social status. Recently, mastans (hooligans)

emerged as a social category in both urban and rural areas. They command wealth

and power but are looked down upon by the society.

There are differences in the lifestyles of the different groups of people living in big

cities of Bangladesh. For example, the rich spend pastime in restaurants, clubs and

shopping centres, while the middle class people watch television, visit parks and zoos

or watch sports in stadiums, and the poor often go to cinema halls, take drugs, or

drink country liquor. The rich and the middle wear relatively expensive urban

fashionable dresses. They speak refined Bengali and English. Taking part by the

middle class people in different performing arts has now become the symbol of

status in urban society. Despite the fact that poor industrialization, illiteracy and

POVERTY mark the socio-economic condition of Bangladesh society, processes have

been taking place rapidly towards a transition from traditional to modern social

structure.

12

Modern social Stratification in Bangladesh

Politics Properties/Land Finance

Education

The present/recent frame of social stratification in Bangladesh has changed and

reshaped newly. The main element of this stratification process vastly emerged by

the three (as follows) main factors: Politics, properties/land/finance and education.

This scarification system is significantly influenced by overall socio-economic

conditions in Bangladesh.

Figure: Present form of social stratification in Bangladesh:

Source: Prepared by author

This form of stratification is currently created some sub-sector stratification.

Especially political power comes to the frontier and hold huge power on the

Bangladeshi society. The people who are less educated and have more political

power are controlling many aspects of our life. On the other hand economical well

being/ hold more properties and rich people are still a very big dominant group in

Bangladesh. Education recent gets very good influence on the society. The educated

people are good regard in the society. The general image of the educated people to

the society is going up over time. The educated people are holding god job, getting

more power and controlling our social life.

Conclusions

Social stratification is a complex concept which is being manifested by different

components of social life. The Bangladeshi society is much more dominated by the

traditions, heritage, culture and social processes. Through the recent feature has changed

the styles and forms of social stratification. Still the finance/property and politics are

more dominates in this aspect. But it is also remarkable that education is coming as

significant component as they are holding good position and control on the mass people

in Bangladesh.