Various sociological perspectives have looked upon social stratification. But generally it is believed that social stratification is not a function of individual differences, but of society and that it persists over generations. The systems of stratification most commonly seen are perhaps, social classes, status groups – such as the caste system, those with power, ownership of property etc. The functionalist view of stratification is that it is necessary and beneficial. They assume that society ahs certain basic needs or functional prerequisites that must be met to survive. They therefore look to social stratification to see how far it meets these functional prerequisites. Davis and Moore in their article on stratification observed that stratification existed on every level of human society and attempted to explain ‘in functional terms, the universal necessity which calls forth stratification in any social system.’ They saw the hierarchical order caused by unequal skills and merits. And this hierarchy gave incentives to those lower down to try and do better to climb up.
From a Marxist perspective, systems of stratification derive from the relationships of social groups to the means of production. Marx used the term ‘class’ to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems. From the Marxist viewpoint, a class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. The relationship between the major social classes is one of mutual dependency and conflict. The labourers or the proletariats are dependent on the capitalists or bourgeois for their livelihood and wages. On the other hand, the bourgeois are dependent on the proletariat for production. However, the mutual dependency between the two classes is not a relationship of equal or symmetrical reciprocity. Instead, it is a relationship of the exploiter and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed. In particular the bourgeois gains at the expense of the labourers, and there is therefore a conflict between them. Marx’s theory of stratification was thus linked to the capitalist economy and was dependent only on the economic positions of individuals or social groups.
Weber differed only marginally from Marx when he defined as a class a category of men who ‘have in common a specific causal component of their life chances in so far as this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and it is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labour market’. He was even fairly close to Marx's view, though not necessarily to those of latter-day Marxists, when he stated that class position does not necessarily lead to class-determined economic or political action. He argued that communal class action would emerge only if and when the "connections between the causes and the consequences of the 'class situation' " become transparent. Marx would have said when a class becomes conscious of its interests, that is, of its relation, as a class, to other classes. Yet Weber's theory of stratification differs from that of Marx in that he introduced an additional structural category, that of ‘status group’. Classification of men into such groups is based on their consumption patterns rather than on their place in the market or in the process of production. Weber thought Marx had overlooked the relevance of such categorisation because of his exclusive attention to the productive sphere. In contrast to classes, which may or may not be communal groupings, status groups are normally communities, which are held together by notions of proper life-styles and by the social esteem and honour accorded to them by others. Linked with this are expectations of restrictions on social intercourse with those not belonging to the circle and assumed social distance toward inferiors. Weber's sociological notion of a social category is thus dependent on the definition that others give to social relationships. A status group can exist only to the extent that others accord its member’s prestige or degradation, which removes them from the rest of social actors.
Empirically there are fairly high correlations between standing in the class and in the status order. Especially in capitalist society, the economically ascendant class will, in the course of time, also acquire high status; yet in principal, propertied and property less people may belong to the same status group. At certain times, an economically weak element may exercise considerable influence and power because of its pre-eminent status. In Weber's view every society is divided into groupings and strata with distinctive life-styles and views of the world, just as it is divided into distinctive classes. While at times status as well as class groupings may conflict, at others their members may accept fairly stable patterns of subordination. With this twofold classification of social stratification, Weber lays the groundwork for an understanding of pluralistic forms of social conflict in modern society and helps to explain that why only in rare cases are such societies polarised into the distinct opposing camps.
In regard to the analysis of power in society, Weber again introduces a pluralistic notion. Although he agrees with Marx in crucial respects, he refines and extends Marx's analytical scheme. For Marx, power is always rooted in economic relations. Those who own the means of production exercise political power either directly or indirectly. Weber agreed that quite often, especially in the modern capitalist world, economic power is the predominant form. But he objects that ‘the emergence of economic power may be the consequence of power existing on other grounds.’ For example, men who are able to command large-scale bureaucratic organisations may wield a great deal of economic power even though they are only salaried employees. Weber understands by power - the chance of a man, or a number of men ‘to realise their own will in communal action, even against the resistance of others.’ He shows that the basis from which such power can be exercised may vary considerably according to the social context, that is, historical and structural circumstance. Hence, where the source of power is located becomes for Weber an empirical question, one that cannot be answered by what he considers Marx's dogmatic emphasis on one specific source. Moreover, Weber argues, men do not only strive for power to enrich themselves. ‘Power, including economic power, may be valued 'for its own sake.' Very frequently the striving for power is also conditioned by the social 'honour' it entails.’
Having looked at all three – class, status and power, is it really more useful to distinguish between them when explaining social stratification? Weber’s theories on social stratification are far from being clear-cut. He just states the various hierarchies lead to the from of various social groups, but does not pin point anything definite. Just as status groups can both divide and cut across class boundaries, hold on power also can divide and cut across classes and status groups. Weber’s analysis of classes, status groups and power suggests that no single theory can pin point and explain their relationship. Thus, I feel that, while examining social stratification, it is better to reconcile these three different ways of stratification – class, status and power, instead of trying to distinguish between them.
-----------------------X--------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Cosner, L.A. (1977) ‘Masters of Sociological Thought : Ideas in
Historical and Social Context’, New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich
- Craib, I. (1997) ‘Classical Social Theory’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pg. 123-133)
-
Parkin, F. (1978) ‘Social Stratification’ in T. Bottomore and R. Nisbet (eds.) A History of Sociological Analysis, New York: Heineman
- Tumin, M. (1967) ‘Social Stratification : the forms and functions of inequality’ , Englewood Cliffs; London: Prentice-Hall
