1):

stratification (Lat.,=made in layers), layered structure formed by the deposition of

sedimentary rocks. Changes between strata are interpreted as the result of fluctuations in
the intensity and persistence of the depositional agent, e.g., currents, wind, or waves, or
in changes in the source of the sediment. Changes in the mineral composition between
two adjacent layers will often result in two layers of distinctly different color. Changes in
the texture of the sedimentary particles from one layer to another (as from sand to gravel)
result in the development of prominent stratification. In shales, stratification can be seen
by the tendency of the rock to split into thin flakes, caused by the parallel arrangement of
the tiny clay mineral fragments. Initially, most sediments are deposited with essentially
horizontal stratification, although the layers may later be tilted or folded by internal earth
forces. Persistent, regular stratification is a reflection of the persistence and regularity of
the depositional agent. Agents such as broad ocean or atmospheric currents tend to
produce widespread and uniform strata, whereas currents that operate over limited areas
and show evidence of turbulence, such as stream currents or irregular wind patterns, form
irregular strata.
)

)2: Social stratification

In sociology and other social sciences, social stratification refers to the hierarchical
arrangement of individuals into divisions of power and wealth within a society.
Stratification derives from the geological concept of strata - rock layers created by
natural processes. The term most commonly relates to the socio-economic concept of
class, involving the "classification of persons into groups based on shared socio-
economic conditions ... a relational set of inequalities with economic, social, political and
ideological dimensions."[1]

In modern Western societies, stratification is broadly organized into three main layers:
upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each class may be further subdivided into
smaller classes (e.g. occupational).[2] These categories are particular to state-level
societies as distinguished from, for instance, feudal societies composed of nobility-to-
peasant relations. Stratification may also be defined by kinship ties or castes. For Max
Weber, social class pertaining broadly to material wealth is distinguished from status
class which is based on such variables as honor, prestige and religious affiliation. It is
debatable whether the earliest hunter-gatherer groups may be defined as 'stratified', or if
such differentials began with agriculture and broad acts of exchange between groups.
One of the ongoing issues in determining social stratification arises from the point that
status inequalities between individuals are common, so it becomes a quantitative issue to
determine how much inequality qualifies as stratification
3): Karl Marx
Main articles: Marxism, Historical materialism, and Base and superstructure

In Marxist theory, the capitalist mode of production consists of two main economic parts:
the Base and the Superstructure. The base comprehends the relations of production —
employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property
relations — into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. In
the capitalist system, the ruling classes own the means of production, which essentially
includes the working class itself as they only have their own labour power ('wage labour')
to offer in order to survive. These relations fundamentally determine the ideas and
philosophies of a society, constituting the superstructure. A temporary status quo is
achieved by various methods of social control employed, consciously or unconsciously,
by the bourgeoisie in the course of various aspects of social life. Through the ideology of
the ruling class, false consciousness is promoted both through ostensibly political and
non-political institutions, but also through the arts and other elements of culture. Marx
believed the capitalist mode would eventually give way, through its own internal conflict,
to revolutionary consciousness and the development of egalitarian communist society.

According to Marvin Harris[4] and Tim Ingold,[5] Lewis Henry Morgan's accounts of
egalitarian hunter-gatherers formed part of Karl Marx and Engels's inspiration for
communism. Morgan spoke of a situation in which people living in the same community
pooled their efforts and shared the rewards of those efforts fairly equally. He called this
"communism in living." But when Marx expanded on these ideas, he still emphasized an
economically-oriented culture, with property defining the fundamental relationships
between people.[6] Yet, issues of ownership and property are arguably less emphasized in
hunter-gatherer societies.[7] This, combined with the very different social and economic
situations of hunter-gatherers may account for many of the difficulties encountered when
implementing communism in industrialized states. As Ingold points out: "The notion of
communism, removed from the context of domesticity and harnessed to support a project
of social engineering for large-scale, industrialized states with populations of millions,
eventually came to mean something quite different from what Morgan had intended:
namely, a principle of redistribution that would override all ties of a personal or familial
nature, and cancel out their effects."[5]

• 4): Class: A person's economic position in a society. Weber differs from Marx in
that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification. Weber noted how
managers of corporations or industries control firms they do not own; Marx would
have placed such a person in the proletariat.
• Status: A person's prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted
that political power was not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one's
individual status. Poets or saints, for example, can possess immense influence on
society with often little economic worth.
• Power: A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For
example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, or a member of the United States Congress, may hold little property
or status but they still hold immense power.[9]