Siobhain Bowen Social Inequality
Sociology 16/01/03
Inequalities exist in all types of societies. Even in the simplest cultures where variations in wealth or property are non-existent, there are inequalities between individuals, men and women, the young and the old. To describe inequalities, sociologists speak of social stratification. Social stratification lies at the core of society and of the discipline of sociology. Social inequality is a fundamental aspect of virtually all-social processes and a person's position in the stratification system is the most consistent predictor of his/her behaviour, attitudes and life chances. Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences. Though it persists over generations, social stratification is universal but not variable. It involves not only inequality but also beliefs. Some say that it is useful to think of stratification as rather like the geological layering of rocks in earth's surface. According to deSwaan, 'societies can bee seen as consisting of strata in a hierarchy, with the more favoured at the top and less privileged at the bottom.'
Therefore it is not the cognitive psychology of how much individuals recognise each other but the sociological problem of how groups of people are distinguished from one another. Therefore, the problems that of inequality and the many forms of stratification is all perceptibly different because people are socially formed. Though they may originate in fixed characteristics at birth; in society today there are unequal social relations of three types of power, property, and prestige. Social differences become social stratification when people are ranked hierarch ally along some dimension o inequality. Members of the various layers of strata tend to have common life chances of lifestyles and may display an awareness of common identity and these characteristics further distinguish them from other strata. It is safe to say that all large complex societies are stratified, although there is some disagreement as to whether the same can be said about all simple or tribal societies. There are theories of stratification for example: Functional theory of stratification when argues that stratification is universal, because societies need the best qualified people to undertake crucial tasks and have to reward them accordingly or because social order and integration require a measure of stratification.
Social stratification systems can be founded on a variety of social characteristics; for example, social class, race, gender, birth or age. They can be ranged from those that are essentially to do with prestige and status, for example to those that are more to do with economic characteristics such as social class. Modern societies are likely to emphasize economic characteristics while traditional, ancient or feudal societies will be founded rather more on statue characteristics. All societies however will be a mixture of the two. In the USA for instance, black people are heavily over misrepresented in the poorest stratum; thus a status characteristic ethnicity- is heavily bound up with an economic one- social class. Looking around the world at the extent of social inequality, we might wonder how societies persist without distributing their resources more equally. One key reason for the remarkable persistence of social hierarchies is that they are built on ideology, cultural beliefs that serve to notify social stratification. Any beliefs, for example, the claim that the rich are clever while the poor are lazy are ideological to the extent that they bolster the dominance of wealth and suggest that poor people observe their plight.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) along with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber shared a dual interest in abstract philosophical issues and the concrete reality of everyday life. Because of Marx's criticisms to existing institutions, he was exiled from Germany and would never receive a traditional academic career. Marx met Engel's; a fellow sociologist and the two instantly became friends. Both attended secret meetings of an illegal coalition of labour unions known as the communist league. A year later the communist manifesto was born in which they argued that the masses of people who have no resources other than their labour ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Karl Marx (1818-1883) along with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber shared a dual interest in abstract philosophical issues and the concrete reality of everyday life. Because of Marx's criticisms to existing institutions, he was exiled from Germany and would never receive a traditional academic career. Marx met Engel's; a fellow sociologist and the two instantly became friends. Both attended secret meetings of an illegal coalition of labour unions known as the communist league. A year later the communist manifesto was born in which they argued that the masses of people who have no resources other than their labour (the proletariat) should unite to fight for the overthrow of capitalist societies. In the words of Marx, 'the history of all hitherto existing society if the history of class struggles...the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite.' (Feur, 1959:41) In Marx's analysis, society was divided amongst classes that clash in pursuit of their own interests. Within the Communist Manifesto, Marx continuously divided society into two main groups, 'society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing eachother-bourgeoise and proletariat.' (Marx: 204) With the increase of markets and machinery revolutionising the country; each workshop (proletariat) began to see and experience division of labour while the bourgeoisie was reaping the benefits. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie knew and ahs for a long time developed revolutions, in modes of production for exchange. Agreeing wit Marx, I would have to say that the bourgeoisie played a revolutionary part for they had the upper hand to put an end to all feudal patriarchal idyllic relations. The ideas of Marx and Weber have influenced many other areas on the discipline most of Marx's were concerned with stratification and above all with social class, 'yet he failed to provide a systematic analysis of the concept of social class. Marx's concept of class thus has to be recon structured from the body of his writings as a whole.' Marx took capitalist societies to ask for channelling wealth and power into the hands of a few, all the while defining the practice as simply 'a law of the market place.' Apart from the political revolution that his work fostered, Marx's significance is profound for he emphasized the group identifications and associations that influence an individuals place in society.
The inequalities of power are based on shared values. Power is legitimate authority in that members of society as a whole generally accept is as just and proper. It is accepted as such because those in position of authority use their power to pursue collective goals, which derive from a societies central values.
Unlike Marx, Weber insisted that no single characteristic, such as class, totally defines a person's position within the stratification system. Instead, writing in 1916, he identified three analytically distinct components of stratification, class, status and power. Weber used the term class to refer to people who have similar levels of wealth and income. For example, certain workers in the USA try to support their family through jobs that pay the federal minimum wage. According to Weber definition, these wage earners constitute a class because they have the same economic position and fate. Although Weber agreed with Marx on the importance on the economic dimension of stratification he argued that the actions of individuals and groups could not be understood solely in economic terms. Agreeing with Weber, he was right in pointing out that we can not analyse much of our social behaviour by the same criteria we use to measure weight and temperature. According to Weber, 'in context, status, class honour is normally expressed by the fact that above all else a specific style in lie can be expected from all those who wish to belong to the circle.' (Weber 180-252)
Agreeing with Weber it is through the development of status that is essentially a question of stratification of status resting upon usurpation. Meaning that having such usurpation is almost the normal order of status honour. Weber used the term status group to refer to people who rank the same in prestigious life style. An individual gain status through membership in a desirable group, such as the medical profession. But status is not the same as economic class standards. In our culture, a successful pickpocket may be in the same income class as a college professor but the thief is widely regarded as a member of low status group whereas the professor holds high status. Foe Weber the third major component of stratification reflects a political dimension. Power is the ability to exercise ones will over others. In the USA, power stems from membership in particular, influential groups such as corporate boards of directors, government bodies and interest groups. In Weber's view then, each of us has not one rank in society but three. One position is a strict system reflects some combination of class, status and power. Each factor influences the other two and in fact the ranking on these three dimensions often tend to coincide. JFK came from an extremely wealthy family, attended exclusive prepatory schools, graduated from Harvard and went on to become president of the United States. Like Kennedy, many people from affluent backgrounds achieve impressive status and power.
Durkheim, like Marx and Weber, had witnessed at first hand the rapid social transformation of Europe during the 19th century. He made pioneering contributions to sociology, including the important theoretical work on suicide. Above all, Durkheim will be remembered for his insistence that behaviour must be understood within a larger social context not just individualistic terms. In "The Division of Labour" Durkheim described morality as the 'least' indispensable, the strictly necessary, and the daily bread, without which societies cannot exist. (Durkheim: 1893) Durkheim argued against Spencer that social order in industrial societies could not adequately be explained as an outcome of contractual agreement between individuals motivated by self interest because the pursuit of self interest would lead to social instability, as manifest in various forms of social order found in primitive and modern societies. In his views the growing division of labour in industrial societies as workers became much more specialized in their tasks led to what he called Anomie. Anomie refers to the loss of direction that a society feels when social control of individual behaviour has become ineffective. The state anomie occurs when people have lost their sense of purpose or direction during a profound social change. In the 'Division of Labour' it was not about a question of extracting ethics from science, but rather establishing "the sense of ethics" treating the facts of moral life according to the methods of positive science. According to Durkheim, the key dimension of change is a society's division of labour or specialised economic activity. AS Weber explained, modern societies specialise in order to promote efficiency. Durkheim fills in this picture by showing us that members of modern societies count on the efforts of tens of thousands of others; most of them complete strangers to secure the goods and services they need everyday.
In the 'Division of Labour' Durkheim focused on the distinction between traditional and modern society. The diversity and complexity of human civilisations was encompassed by their simple distinction, which stressed evolution away from the mechanical solidarity that characterised primitive societies; and towards the sophisticated organic solidarity that would provide the basis of harmonious integration in industrial society. Durkheim argued that primitive societies were 'segmental' in that they were just the aggregation of kin groups into clans and tribes. These large groups had little or real cohesion since each unit could be self sufficient as hunters/agriculturalists. Hence, like a worm society was divided into similar segments, social cohesion depends on rigid collective norms governing behaviour in every detail so that total conformity was ensured. Mechanical solidarity was the term that Durkheim used to convey this rigidity of social formation. In contrast to his contemporaries, Durkheim did not portray traditional primitive society as an ideal, harmonious integrated unity. For Durkheim modern society was not inevitably fragments by the breakdown of tradition community. Instead the evolution of society provided for a more stable and sophisticated social cohesion.
The most important them in 'The Division of Labour' is Durkheims distinction between the mechanical and organic solidarity. It is thorough this contrast that Durkheim develops his diagnosis of the pathological condition of modern society. But his concept of the 'general evolution of societies' as a tree on which 'societies are situated lower or higher (Durkheim 1969c: 246) reflected the widespread evolutionary concept of a scale of organisational forms. Mechanical or segmented societies were homogeneous with a very basic division of labour and therefore, for Durkheim, represented 'social species' love on the evolutionary tree. On the other hand, organic solidarity is heterogeneous, with a complex and differentiated division of labour, based on specialization, diversification and cooperation. The organic division of labour increases the extent of interdependency thus individuals will more likely be linked closer to each other than in mechanical societies. 'If there is one truth that history has settled beyond doubt, it is that religion embraces an ever diminishing part of social life.' (Durkheim 1933:49) In the place of a unitary collective conscience, organic societies are (as with Spencer) integrated through contractual relationships. (1933) unlike Spencer, these contrasts and economic exchanges generally depend upon normal ties that are deeper and reach far beyond the short moments during which exchange is made. (1933:27) Finally, the state emerges as the 'organizing centre' of a differentiated society and guarantor of individual liberties since the state articulates and mediates divergent and conflicting values of class and occupation.
Social stratification lies at the core of society and of the discipline of sociology. Social inequality is a fundamental aspect of virtually all-social processes and a person's position in the stratification system is the most consistent predictor of his/hr behaviour, attitudes and life chances. Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences. Marx, Weber and Durkheim all shared a dual interest in abstract philosophical issues and the concrete reality of everyday life. Together all three had witnessed at first hand the rapid social transformation of Europe during the 19th century.
