• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is It Useful To Distinguish Between Three Distinct Ways In Which Society Is Stratified ( Class, Status, Power) As Wever Does?

Extracts from this document...


IS IT USEFUL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THREE DISTINCT WAYS IN WHICH SOCIETY IS STRATIFIED ( CLASS, STATUS, POWER) AS WEVER DOES? It is important to make a distinction between social inequality and social stratification before beginning. The term 'social inequality' simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities. Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. Social differences become social stratification when people are ranked hierarchically along some dimension of inequality, whether this is income, wealth, power, prestige, age, ethnicity or some other characteristic. Members of the various strata which constitute each level of the stratification hierarchy tend to common life chances and life styles and may display an awareness of communal identity, and these characteristics further distinguish them from the other strata's. Clearly, as the egalitarian society remains a dream, all human societies, from the simplest to the most complex, has some form of social inequality. Power, prestige and wealth is distributed unevenly between individuals and social groups. From their different images of society, the founding fathers of sociology had conceptualised the nature of social stratification in entirely different ways. Durkheim concentrated on the functional division of labour and regarded differential remuneration as a reflection of differentially useful contributions to society. ...read more.


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. ...read more.


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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Sociology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Sociology essays

  1. Compare and Contrast Marx and Weber's view on Stratification

    Similarly, in a capitalist era, there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie who own the means of production, and the proletariat whose members own only their labour which they hire to the bourgeoisie in return for wages. Marx made a clear distinction between a 'class in itself' and a 'class for itself'.

  2. I will examine the social class theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber, and ...

    Part of Bourdieu's aim was to undermine the aesthetic theory of Immanuel Kant, which still dominates philosophical aesthetics. Bourdieu argues that Kant's criterion of the distinterestedness of the aesthetic gaze is an essentially middle class phenomenon. Celebrities, such as actors, singers and models particularly the most successful ones, live a

  1. Compare and contrast Karl Marx's and Michel Foucault's analysis of the concept power.

    Foucault argues that power can not be held by 'the people' anymore than it can by politicians or powerful business people. Moreover because power can not be held by groups or individuals Foucault rarely writes about Puissance which "designates something lasting and permanent."

  2. Gender as a form of Social Stratification.

    effects of an institution actively promotes and sustains an unequal position when compared to their white counterparts. There is some support for this position in "Introductory sociology" which states that the 1944 Education Act was designed to allow fair access to schooling for not only boys but also girls.

  1. Are issues of Social Class still relevant in modern society?

    Despite increasing prosperity in the UK, statistics suggest substantial differences between the health and life expectancy of people in opposing socio-economic 'classes', specifically since the 1980s. In his report, Sir Donald Acheson identified certain groups where policies could be implemented to reduce the imbalance.

  2. What are the major dimensions of social stratification?

    They saw stratification as a mechanism whereby some exploits others rather than as a means of furthering collective goals. Marx focused his theory on social strata in terms of the relationship of the means of production. He believed that society was divided into two major classes, the ruling class called


    There are ruthless punishments in place. For example "an upper Brahmin boy and a lower-caste girl were dragged to the roof of a house and hung by members of their own family." (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/caste0801-03.htm.) In other caste systems such as in Japan, again private investigators are hired to be positive that a bride or groom is not of a Baraku family.

  2. Crime and Social class - Hypothesis - 'There is a relationship between social ...

    The main feature in my secondary Data collection is the Marxist view. Primary Data This is one of my interviews. Is crime bad in your area? Yes, it's very bad. Whom do you blame? The parents for not bringing the parents up properly.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work