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.