ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about Social Stratification:- 1. Meaning of Social Stratification 2. Characteristics of Social Stratification 3. Dimensions.
Meaning of Social Stratification:
In addition to the aforesaid phenomena of social inequality, there is another type of social inequality which is sociologically more important. These are horizontal divisions of society into various social strata, each stratum marked by socially recognised upper or lower status, more or less, on a permanent basis.
The people who belong to each such stratum constitute a social class. Morris Ginsberg defines social classes “as portions of the community, or collections of individuals, standing to each other in the relation of equality, and marked off from other portions by accepted or sanctioned standards of inferiority and superiority”. The society in which divisions into such social classes exists is known as a stratified society.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
According to Maclver and Page, social stratification implies three features:
(i) A hierarchy of status groups;
(ii) The recognition of the superior-inferior stratification; and
(iii) Some degree of permanence of the structure.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“Borrowed by analogy from the earth sciences, the term ‘social stratification’ has come into general sociological use only since about 1940. However, in contrast to its earth-science usage the sociological usage of the concept of stratification often includes, implicitly or explicitly, some evaluation of the higher and lower layers, which are judged to be better or worse according to a scale of values”.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of social stratification, we may note that the social positions assigned to the various social strata are unequal with regard to property, power, social evaluation and psychic gratification.
‘Property’ refers to the rights one enjoys over goods and services. Thus, one’s income or income-yielding wealth may be considered to be his property. Power’ refers to one’s ability to fulfill one’s needs or meet one’s demands.
Obviously, ‘power’ is inextricably mixed up with property. Greater amount of property means greater power, and less amount of property means less power. ‘Social evaluation’ means the prestige or honour that a person enjoys in the estimation of the society by virtue of his belonging to a particular social stratum.
‘Social evaluation’ thus means that people belonging to a particular stratum may enjoy greater prestige and honour in comparison with people belonging to another stratum. ‘Psychic gratification’ (applicable to people belonging to higher social classes) refers to the satisfaction or pleasure that a person has on account of his possession of power, prestige or property.
Characteristics of Social Stratification:
The following characteristics of social stratification may be noted:
The first characteristic is that it is social in nature.
The social aspect of stratification may be explained with reference to the following:
(a) To say that stratification is social is to emphasise the obvious that one is not talking about biologically caused inequalities,
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(b) The distribution of rewards is governed exclusively by social norms or conventions which may prevail in a society,
(c) The term ‘social’ implies the continuity of these norms affected mainly by socialisation. The division of society into hierarchical status groups is not simply a one-generation affair; it continues from generation to generation.
This can be explained, in part, by the processes of socialisation in terms of which every child is indoctrinated with the values of the class and such values become, in course of time, a part and parcel of his personality structure,
(d) Stratification is dynamic in nature, mainly due to dynamic social forces. Since socialisation is not always perfect and since conformity is not uniform, and further since the values which the society upholds do not remain the same over time, the structure and nature of stratification prevalent in a society always undergo changes,
(e) Social stratification is closely connected with other social institutions. It is affected by and, at the same time, has effects upon such matters as marriage, religion, education, economic structure, political system, etc.
The second characteristic of social stratification is its antiquity. There has not been any society in the past in which social stratification, in some form or other, was not found, not excluding the small wandering bands that characterised society in the earliest days of man. “In such primitive conditions, both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification”.
The third characteristic of social; stratification is its ubiquity. Social stratification is not only an antiquated institution. It is also very much in existence amongst us even today in all parts of the world.
Various forms of-protest movements against existing inequality that disturb the peace and tranquility of all societies around the globe confirm the existence of stratification, including socialist countries and non-literate societies of today. Some form of socially structured and sanctioned inequality of power, property, and prestige is a universal phenomenon.
The fourth characteristic feature of social stratification is its social concomitants which may be expressed in terms of:
(a) Life chances and
(b) Life styles.
a. Life Chances:
What is the meaning of the term ‘life-chance’? “The significance of a class system is that it greatly affects the social rewards of people. The members of a particular class have more or less the same ‘life-chances’, that is, the same probability of securing the good things of life………”
Gerth and Mills are of the view that life-chances include “everything from the chance to stay alive during the first year after birth to the chance to view fine arts, the chance to remain healthy and grow tall, and if sick to get well again quickly, the chance to avoid becoming a juvenile delinquent — and very crucially, the chance to complete an intermediary or higher educational grade”.
If we analyse the above description of life-chance, as suggested by Gerth and Mills, it will be apparent that life-chances are mutually determining, that one life-chance can determine another and vice versa. Thus, if a man is accidentally born into a wealthy family, he can afford to seek education in institutions of renown which, in turn, helps him get a high salaried appointment.
This, again, affords him an opportunity to get good food, to stay healthy and, in case of illness, to get best available treatment He can afford to have exposure to many good things of life — art, music, dance, drama, etc. If, on the other hand, he is born into a family which does not open up these opportunities easily, he is naturally condemned to a lower rung of social fabric. A point should, however, be made here.
It is difficult to say which factor is basic and which is not. It may be wealth in one case in determining life-chance and, in another case, it may be education. The fact remains that social stratification determines life-chances of individuals.
b. Life Style:
What is the meaning of the term life-style?
The term has been variously defined. Broadly, the term denotes a style of life which is distinctive of a particular social status.
These distinctive features may be in terms of places of residence (residential areas in every community have gradations of prestige-ranking), in terms of types of homes (in a factory- town, for example, a particular type of residential building is meant for people belonging to a particular income-bracket), in terms of schooling (people who have had their schooling and the schooling of their children in, say.
La Martiniere, Doon School or some such public school, generally have a higher prestige-ranking than those who were educated in vernacular medium schools), in terms of dress, etc.
Present-day media advertisement for a particular dress material may display it with the caption: This particular dress is meant for a man of culture. You are a man of culture. And so you must have it. Because of this kind of ‘hidden persuasion’, dress occupies a very high place in one’s life-style in modern society.
Life style may be viewed as a sub-culture “which distinguishes one stratum from another within the framework of a commonly shared over-all culture. Such distinctive patterns will be found most likely in those societies with a high degree of concern for status-honor, where individual behaviour is always shaped by a concern for whether it is appropriate for membership in a particular socio-economic level. The pressures to adopt appropriate styles may be sufficiently subtle so that an individual is unaware of the extent to which he orients his choices to considerations of status”.
Dimensions of Social Stratification:
Social stratification is multi-dimensional. It is the case not only in present-day complex societies but it is so in other types of societies and in other historical periods as well. We have seen that in a stratified society, social positions are evaluated according to a scale of values. Among the various criteria of evaluation that appear to be related to class status in our complex society, we may briefly discuss the following.
Only the most important of these criteria or dimensions have been included. The order in which the list has been drawn up does not mean any order of relative importance. In theory, each is as important as every other. In any concrete social situation, however, one may be more important in the determination of behaviour than another.
(a) Wealth, Property or Income:
Wealth is important not only in itself but for what it enables its owners to do. Wealth multiplies his living choices, his life chances, and his opportunities. In addition, wealth, property or high income serve as symbols of success in a society in which material success is upheld as a worthwhile achievement.
An additional observation needs to be made here. Wealth itself may in some case be less important than the manner in which it was acquired. Is the money ‘old’ and ‘dignified’ or ‘new’ and ‘ostentatious’? Sometimes inherited wealth confers a higher prestige than earned wealth.
Further, different ways of earning it are subject to varying evaluations. Honest enterprises are obviously rated high in comparison with criminal enterprises. Sometimes manufacturers have an edge over traders in terms of enjoyment of social esteem. This brings us close to the occupational criterion.
It is obvious; therefore, that wealth or income is not a simple criterion, but rather a relatively complicated one. If we use it as a single criterion of class, ignoring all these considerations, the chances are that we shall arrive at erroneous inferences.
(b) Family or Kinship:
Class status, in general, is a family rather than an individual phenomenon. It also comes to be a hereditary one. That is, class status, once attained, tends to endure through several generations. When class endogamy (i.e. marriage within the class) is encouraged and customarily practiced, class status can be perpetuated over relatively long periods.
(c) Location of Residence:
There is always an ecological correlate of class status. In the U.S.A., for example, areas of residence are demarcated, more or less, on class lines. Consequently, as a person moves up the social ladder, he changes his residence and chooses the area which is appropriate for people of his class. So when one knows the address of a person, one knows at once the status of the person concerned.
The fact that a person lives in a locality, considered respectable in public estimation, adds to his standing in society. In the absence of other criteria, sheer location of residence can sometimes serve as an index of class position.
(d) Duration of Residence:
No one can expect to achieve the highest class status automatically by acquiring substantial ‘property’ and establishing residence in the ‘best’ locality unless he is also a member of an ‘old’ family.
(e) Occupation:
Evaluations of occupational statuses vary widely from society to society and from time to time in the same society. In India, for instance, white collar occupations usually obtain a higher evaluation in comparison with blue-collar occupations. In different societies and in different historical periods, the relative amount of prestige which attaches to a particular productive role or occupation may vary.
“This variability is a result of the fact that the same necessary function in a social system — for example, the military function and roles — may be somewhat differently valued according to the different sets of values that prevail in different social systems and at different times”. The differential evaluation of occupational statuses offers a number of clues to the ideologies that prevail in different cultures.
(f) Education and Knowledge:
In all societies learning, whether sacred or secular, distinguishes those who have it from those who do not.
This is true for three reasons:
(i) Its acquisition requires effort,
(ii) Its possession permits the performance of tasks that would otherwise be impossible,
(iii) The amount of knowledge that individuals acquire, either formally through education, or informally, affects the way they behave.
It may be noted that this dimension of stratification produces effects independently of the other dimensions, and that possession of education and knowledge may help one to acquire control over other dimensions of stratification.
Correlations among Rankings:
All of these criteria tend to make up what we have already noted a distinct life style or manner of living. There is one almost infallible symptom of a shared life style that enables persons otherwise unknown to one another to recognise that they belong essentially to the same class. This system has to do with the culture of eating, and might therefore be called the alimentary index.
Some call it commensalism that is, sharing a common table. The question of who eats with whom will almost invariably disclose the strata of a society. This is to-be found not only in a caste-ridden society like ours, but also in all other stratified societies.
Status Consistency and Status Inconsistency:
Individuals or groups in a society are ranked along several dimensions of social stratification. It is understandable that rankings along several dimensions of social stratification may all be highly correlated with one another (i.e., all high, all medium or all low in rank) or much less highly correlated (some high, some medium, and some low in rank). The former is called an example of status consistency.
That is, the concerned individuals or groups satisfactorily fulfill the requirements of all the criteria which are taken into account in determining social status. The latter is an example of status inconsistency, because according to some criteria one may have a high status, according to some a medium status, and according to some others a low status. A few simple examples will be illuminating.
If, for example, a high caste Brahmin marries a girl belonging to a comparatively lower caste, a status inconsistency is the probable outcome. Likewise, the marriage of the daughter of the nouveaux riches to men of distinguished lineage may give rise to the problem of status inconsistency. The position of the many high-caste Brahmin priests with low occupational prestige is another phenomenon of this nature.
A series of analyses and research studies have been undertaken to investigate social stratification in these-terms. It has been found that status inconsistency results in types of behaviour different from those caused by status consistency. It has also been found that each specific pattern of inconsistency has its own specific consequences.
It has also been found that various kinds of status inconsistency may last long enough and that there is no universal tendency toward status consistency, that is, toward highly positive correlation among the individual’s several rankings.