STRATIFICATION

AND

SOCIAL

CLASS

Sociologists use the concept of social stratification to describe the inequalities that exist
between individuals and groups within societies. In other words, stratification is defined as
structural inequalities between different groups of people. Socially stratified systems have 3
characteristics: 1. The rankings apply to social categories of people who share a common
characteristic without necessarily interacting/identifying with one another. 2. Peoples
opportunities depend heavily on how their social category is ranked. 3. The ranks of different
social categories tend to change very slowly over time.
4 basic systems of stratification can be distinguished:
1. Slavery it is an extreme form of inequality where certain people are owned as property by
others. Deprived of almost all rights by law case on southern plantations in US. In other
societies, their position was akin to servants Greek city of Athens. Throughout history, slaves
have fought back against their subjugation hence the systems of slave labour have been unstable.
They eventually broke down partly because of the struggle and partly because people favour
economic incentives more than acting under compulsion.
2. Caste It is a social system in which ones social position is given for a lifetime. Everyones
social status is based on personal characteristics race/ethnicity (skin colour, parental religion
etc). Caste societies are a special type of class society in which class position is ascribed at birth.
Intimate contact with members of other castes is strongly discouraged. Such purity of caste is
maintained by rules of endogamy. In India, the modern capitalist economy brings together people
of different castes together and it becomes difficult to maintain the rigid barriers required to
sustain the caste system. The South African caste system, apartheid rigidly separated black
Africans and Asians from whites who were 15% of the population. They owned virtually all the
countrys wealth and had a monopoly on political power.
3. EstatesThey were a part of European feudalism but also existed in many other traditional
civilizations. In Europe, the highest estate was composed of the aristocracy. The clergy formed
another estate (lower status but distinctive privileges). The commoners formed the third estate
serfs, peasants, merchants. Estates formed a local, rather than a national, system of stratification.
4. Class It is a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which
strongly reflect the type of lifestyle they are able to lead. Eg. Ownership of wealth and
occupation. Classes differ from earlier forms of stratification in four respects:
i. Class systems are fluid. The boundaries b/w classes are never clear cut.
ii. Class positions are in some part achieved. Social mobility i.e. movement upward and
downward the class structure is common.

iii. Class is economically based. Depends on inequalities in the possession of material

resources.
iv. Class systems are large scale and impersonal. Eg. Inequality of pay and working
conditions.
Theories of class and stratification:
The theories developed by Marx and Weber form the basis of most sociological analyses of class
and stratification.
Karl Marxs theory of class conflict:
Although most of Marxs work was concerned with stratification, yet he failed to provide a
systematic analysis of the concept of class. For Marx, industrial capitalism, for all its progressive
elements was founded in an exploitative system of class relations that led to the oppression of the
majority of working people. He said that a social class is a group of people who stand in a
common relationship to the means of production. The two main classes are: those who own the
means of production i.e. the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and those who earn their living by selling
labour to them, i.e. the working class (the proletariat). The relationship is an exploitative one.
Marx reasoned that the workers produce more than is actually needed by employers to repay the
cost of hiring them. The surplus becomes the source of profit, which they put to their own use.
He used the term pauperization to describe the process by which the working class grows
increasingly impoverished in relation to the capitalist class.
Criticism: Marxs characterization of society into two main camps owners and workers
seemed too simple since there are divisions even within the working class. (skilled and unskilled
workers, gender, ethnicity becoming factors leading to internal competition and conflicts). Marx
also saw class consciousness arising from the working class. But people today identify less with
their social class position. Without developing class consciousness there cannot be any concerted
class action hence no communist revolution.
Max Weber: Class, Status and Party:
Like Marx, Weber regarded society as characterized by conflicts over power and resources. But,
unlike Marxs rigid bipolar model, Weber developed a more complex, multidimensional view of
society. Social stratification is not just a matter of class but of status and party also. Status refers
to the differences b/w social groups in the social honor or prestige they are accorded by others.
Status came to be expressed through peoples styles of life. While Marx argued that status
distinctions are the result of class divisions in society, Weber argued that status often varies
independently of class divisions. Eg. Britain (aristocratic families enjoying social esteem even
when all fortune has been lost). Party formation is also an important aspect of power and can
influence stratification independently of class and status. Marx tried to explain both status

differences and party organization in terms of class. Weber argued that even though each is
influenced by them, both can influence the economic circumstances of individuals, thereby
affecting class. While Marx saw social class as the key social division, Weber examined the
interplay b/w class, status and party as separate aspects of social stratification.
Erik Olin Wrights theory of class:
Wright combined aspects of both Marxs and Webers approaches. According to him, there are
three dimensions of control over economic resources in modern capitalist production. 1. Control
over investments or money capital; 2. Control over the physical means of production 3. Control
over labour power.
Ones in the capitalist class have control over all the three whereas ones in the working class,
have control over none. In between these two main classes, are the groups whose position is
more ambiguous managers and white collar workers. These people are in the contradictory
class locations, because they are able to influence some aspects of productions, but are denied
control over others. He terms it so since they are neither capitalists nor manual workers, yet they
share certain common features with each. Wright argues that many middle class workers such as
managers, supervisors enjoy relationships towards authority that are more privileged than those
of the working class. Another factor which differentiates class locations within the middle classes
is the possession of skills and expertise. If they possess some specific skill and expertise in
demand, they will be able to exercise a specific form of power in the capitalist system.

Dipankar Gupta says that stratification takes two forms. One, on a ranked scale where
inequality is the sole defining factor (income, rank etc) and another one where difference in
social categories place people in horizontal blocs. He further contends that if the hierarchy is left
to itself, it will emphasize stability but if the difference is appreciated, it will sow the seeds of
discord within the hierarchical orders. It should be kept in mind that the analyst creates the
categories employed in the study of social stratification. Class would mean different in
everyday language and to a student of social stratification Its treatment would differ as per the
scholars theoretical disposition Marxist, Weberian or functionalist. Social stratification is not
about categorizing people into diverse strata. Rather, it is about providing a basis to understand
social mobility and social order. It tells us about the principles of social stasis and social
dynamics. The relationship between natural differences and social stratification is a complicated
one. There are some natural differences that have no sociological significance but there are also
others which are laden with sociological value. Stratification does not depend solely on natural
differences. Class, status, power are some of the other axes along which stratification occurs.
Every sociologist should be sensitive on how these eminently social features tend to be
naturalized at popular level.

The understanding of social stratification cannot be limited to ranked gradations because they
only tells us about the order and very little about the social mobility and changes within and of
that order. Hence, it becomes necessary to think in terms of differences. Wealth etc can be ranked
since they are easily quantifiable but languages, religions cannot be. If done, one becomes aware
of the dimensions of power and prejudice. There can be social mobility within a ranked order if it
is allowed by the hierarchy in question. E.g. gradation in class in a capitalist society is an open
system of stratification. But in feudal societies class boundaries were firm and mobility across
them invited severe reprisals. This is where the distinction between open and closed system of
stratification becomes relevant. In an open system of stratification, mobility is an accepted
property of the system. In a closed system of stratification, mobility is strongly discouraged. In
an open system, even though the hierarchy is fixed, individuals can go up or down. E.g. modern
bureaucratic system clerk to manager to executive director. But in a closed system, it is
difficult. Only when one realizes that closed systems are premised on differences first and
hierarchy later, one can understand why attempts at mobility are so ideological in their thrust.
Yet, caste identities are still very strong there.
It is necessary to see the interaction between open and closed systems of stratification. Caste in
India and the open class structure in America are examples of the two systems of stratification.
The caste system is a prime example of a closed system but it is not as if no mobility had ever
taken place in Indian history. E.g. It happened through wars, protests etc. In each case, existing
social arrangements were threatened and de-legitimized by attempts at caste mobility. In an open
class system of stratification, mobility is an accepted characteristic of the system. When mobility
is an accepted feature of the hierarchy (open system), then it is individuals who move up or down
within the system, but when it is not, then it is groups or categories that move in unison (closed
system). It is often said that Hinduism allows for individual mobility provided one becomes a
renouncer someone to whom caste rules do not apply. But in practice, it is seen that renouncers
have been deeply implicated in the politics of the caste system.
The reason why American has an open system of stratification and India a closed one is that in
the former, there is an ideological acceptance of a certain degree of similarity whereas in the
latter there is an enormous investment in keeping alive differences. Nevertheless, Gregory
Mantsios in Class in America says that most people in America hate to associate themselves
with class. He examines few of the myths prevailing in the American society, e.g. the US is a
classless society, and the people comprise a middle class nation etc and contends that the reality
is different. Class standings have a significant impact on chances for educational achievement
and that all Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Whenever differences dominate, the system tends to become closed. When a hierarchy is
imposed after giving value to a difference, then this hierarchy is very different from an open
system. In an open system the continuous hierarchy accepts variations in the quantum of a
similar attribute among a given population.

Caste and Race: Though they are manifestations of closed systems, they are not similar to each
other. Race is based in phenotypical biological differences, whereas in the caste system the
natural differences are said to exist in the nature of coded substances that cannot be detected by
the senses. In a racial society, ones attachment to a community increases with the level of
generality. It doesnt matter if one is French, German or English as long as one is White.
Similarly, it doesnt matter whether one is Zambian or Mozambique- they are all considered
Blacks. In caste system, the logic is reverse, different castes have different kinds of interactions
between other castes which have particular effects. Because race differences were quite obvious,
they did not require too many symbolic markers to signal the status and positions within the
hierarchy. But since castes are first differentiated and then capriciously hierarchized on the basis
on supposed natural substances that are not tangible to the senses, there is a greater stress on
ritual and symbolic behavior.
In an open system, protests can take place when mobility is blocked within the system, due to
downturn in business cycle, recession etc. In a closed system, protests come in the form of caste
mobilizations.
Hierarchy and difference in Marx and Weber:
While Marx was an advocate of social change, Weber gave more weight to order and to the
politics of responsibility. For Marx, a class society was characterized by irreconcilable
differences between determinate classes locked into a constitutive contradiction. For him, there
was no point in seeing these classes in a hierarchy. For, it is not as if one can gradually become
more of a capitalist and less of a worker and vice versa. For Weber, in Class, Status and Party,
it was the hierarchy that was the most significant in each of these orders of stratification. He also
saw notions of status and power along lines of hierarchy.
The divergence b/w Marx and Weber can thus be encapsulated in terms of the manner in which
each highlighted questions of hierarchy and difference. Since Weber was drawn closer to
hierarchy, his study of class, status and party privileged order over change. Marx on the contrary
was a champion of difference. This led him to emphasize change over social order and stability.
Stratification is about both hierarchy and difference. If hierarchy strains to establish stability,
social differences constantly pose a threat to order. If we look at hierarchy without difference
then it would impoverish our appreciation of closed and open systems of stratification and with it
our ability to position the elements of dynamism in any social order.