There are four main perspectives one can use to explain social stratification in terms of the basis of it and the role it plays in society as a whole. Each perspective tires to explain the factors that cause social stratification or the dimensions of social stratification. These four main perspectives are the Functionalist perspective, the New Right perspective, the Marxist perspective and the Weberian perspective. The work of Karl Marx and Max Weber were the most important in the development of stratification. Weber’s work, however, because of its accuracy and its reason, was more important than Marx. Whereas the functionalists and the new rights received many criticisms. They saw stratification as a integrative structure whereas Marxist and Weberians saw stratification as a more divisive system than integrative. However, they all saw stratification as inevitable.
Marxists criticized Functionalists and New Rights because they saw stratification as a integrated system. 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 the bourgeoisie and the subject or working class called the proletariat. The ruling class owned the means of production and the subject class owned the labour. As a result, there is a basic conflict of interest between the two classes. Therefore, Marx believed that class form the basis of stratification in society where class is determined by the relationship to the means of productions.
The relationship between the major social classes is one of dependency and conflict. In capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat depend on each other. The bourgeoisie is dependent on the proletariat for their labour for production and to receive capital and the proletariat was dependent on the bourgeoisie for wages. Capital is defined as money used to finance production of commodities for private gain. To Marx, a capitalist society is inherently exploitive. Although the workers are paid for their labour, the work they do is far in excess of the actual wages paid by the capitalists. The difference between the wages paid and the cost of the product, he termed “surplus value” , and this is known as profit to the capitalists. In this way, the capitalists or the bourgeoisie are exploiting the proletariat or the working class. Therefore Marx believes that in all class societies the ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class.
Marx argued that political power comes from economic powers. By this, he means by the superstructure of society is shaped by economic powers, the relation of production would be reproduced in the superstructure and therefore, the ruling class in relation to production would reflect the superstructure. Therefore the political and legal systems would be based on the ruling class interest. He also explain the difference between a “class in itself” and a “class for itself”. A class in itself is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production while a class for itself occurs when a social group fully becomes a class. The members have class consciousness and class solidarity. Class consciousness means that the false class consciousness, a picture created by the ruling class ideology, is now replaced with the real picture of the nature of exploitation and class solidarity is the uniting of the members of a class. Marx believed at the final stage of class consciousness and class solidarity, members will realize that collective action is the only way they can overthrow the ruling class.
Like Marx, Weber also stressed the importance of economic factors in determining the class position of individuals. However, he felt that there were other criteria as well. He saw that stratification as resulting from struggle for economic resources but also prestige and power. He defined class, making a distinction between economic class and social class. Economic class was defined as a persons situation in the economic market whereas social class includes economic class but, in addition, members of the same social class share similar chances of social mobility . He put forward the view that in market economies, people have similar positions because they receive similar economic rewards. However, he argued within the propertyless class, which Marx termed the proletariat, people have a variety of skills that they can market. These different skills may attract different levels of economic rewards and therefore, there is enough difference in economic rewards for more that two classes. In others words, the proletariat can be furthered subdivided. Weber stated four classes in society in stead of two by Marx. These classes were the propertied upper class, the propertyless white-collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class.
Weber also saw along with class, status was a basis of group formation. Status does not depend on the economic circumstances of individuals but status groups may be formed because members share a similar lifestyle, live in the same neighbourhood, attend the same church or go to the same country club. Those that do not meet these types of criteria are excluded from the group even though they may be in the same income bracket as the members of the group. Weber pointed out that a significant feature of such groups is that members are aware of themselves as a group. He also pointed out that status groups can cut across class lines and also create divisions within classes. Weber observations are important in suggesting that status is the basis of group formation rather than class in some cases.
Weber also looked at power in society and saw the struggle for power as also giving rise group formations. According to him, parties are group formations or associations tha seek to acquire and control power. Their aim is to promote the interest and policies of their members. Parties may vary in terms of size and interest. For instance, there may exist specific interest groups such as a Humane Animal Society for certain animals rights. A particular ethnic group may have an Improvement Association and so on. All these parties may have membership that is drawn from several economic levels or their interest may be exclusive to a particular status group. In concluding, Weber agreed with Marx that economic factors are the basis in determining the class situation of individuals. He, however, believes that their status situation and also their struggle for power are other important factors that influence class situation.
Functionalists seek to explain how stratification is functional to society as a whole. They believe that society have basic needs or “functional prerequisites” that must be met to maintain a certain a degree of order and stability for society to survive. One functionalist, Talcott Parsons, argue that stratification systems derived from “common values”. If values exist, then it so that individual are placed in some form of ranked order where those who perform these values successfully would be ranked highly. He believed stratification was inevitable because value consensus was an essential component of all societies and therefore, stratification would result from the rankings of individuals in terms of common values. He stated that in industrialized societies where there is a high division of labour, some will specialize in planning and organizing while others will be instructed. This would lead to inequality in terms of power and prestige where those who plan and organize others would have a higher status than those instructed by them. This is accepted because it is seen as just and proper by members of society and therefore the use of power serves the interest of society as a whole.
Other functionalist, Davis and Moore believe that stratification is a mechanism of role allocation and performance. It places the most talented persons with the most important positions in society. These important positions are determined by two factors. One is the degree that the position is unique or a one of a kind where no other position can perform the same functions and the other factor is the degree that other positions depend on it.
The New Right perspective is one of Peter Saunders, who believes that the system which rewards different positions unequally can be beneficial to society in that it can motivate people to work. In a society where rewards are equally distributed, force must be used to get people to work. Saunders identified three types of equality. One was legal equality where all members were entitled to the same laws and rules. Another was equality of opportunity where persons have equal chance to become unequal. The last was equality of outcome which he did not accept because this would lead to injustice.
In summarizing these perspectives, one may state that the Marxist and Weberian perspective were more important in terms of its reasoning. They each saw stratification as a divisive structure. Marx stressed that economic factors determined the class position of persons. He saw economic class as the result of group formation in society. Weber agreed with him but also identified two more factors for group formation. These were status and power. Unlike Marx and Weber, Parsons and Davis & Moore, functionalists, believe that stratification is as an integrated structure. Parsons believe that it is derived from common values and if they exist, then the persons who perform successfully are ranked higher in society. Therefore stratification is inevitable because value consensus is essential to all societies and therefore stratification would result in the ranking of individuals in terms of common values. Davis and Moore saw stratification as a mechanism of role allocation and performance where it places the most talented persons into the most important positions and these positions are determined by two factors which are the degree of uniqueness and the degree of dependency. Saunders of the New Right perspective, believed that stratification as beneficial to society by motivating people to work because of the unequal distribution of rewards. He states in societies where there is equal distribution of rewards, force must be used to get people to work. He also identifies three different equalities in society, i.e. legal equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
In concluding, it can be said that the best perspective was Weber’s perspective. He identified three reasons for group formation. These were social/economic class, status, and power. Therefore on can conclude that these are the major dimensions of social stratification.
