The book Understanding Culture, Society, and Politics by Atienza et al (2016), describes social

stratification as the “division of large social groups into smaller groups based on categories
determined by economics”. Members of society are arranged in a hierarchical structure based on
their access to or control over basic economic resources; thus, social inequality arises. Wealth,
properties, access to resources and political power, race, gender, religion, influence, and social
relation are some of the bases for social stratification, as explained by Atienza et al. (p.104)
 
Social Exclusion, as stated by the same authors, is the process by which individuals are cut off
from full involvement in the wider circles of society. In the discussion of social stratification and
inequality, social exclusion is a necessary and logical offshoot. People who are socially excluded
due to poor housing, lack of employment, and inferior schools are examples of this concept, thus,
they may lack opportunities for self-improvement, Atienza et al (2016) explained. (p. 104)
 
Systems of Stratifications
 
Closed stratification imposes rigid boundaries between social groups and limits interactions
among members who belong to different social groups or occupy different levels in social
hierarchy; it is resistant to change. Caste system is an example of a closed system, according to
Atienza et al (2016), due to the fact that people under this system are unable to change their
social standing. It promotes belief in fate, destiny, and the will of higher spiritual power, where
people virtually have no opportunities to improve their social position.  It promotes social
inequality. (p. 104)
 
Open stratification, on the other hand, allows more flexibility in social roles. It is based on
achievement and allows movement and interaction between social groups and classes. (p. 104)
 
Atienza et al (2016), defines class system as a stratification based on ownership of resources and
the individual’s occupation or profession. The authors further describe it as one where social
status is based on achievement rather than description and is more open in terms of social
mobility.  Individuals, therefore, are free to move from social class to a higher status in life
through education and employment. Exogamous marriages, or marriages between people from
different status, prevail in this system. Endogamous marriages, or marriages between people
from the same social classes, also exist but are not imposed and are entered freely by the
individuals. (p. 105)
 
Meritocracy is another system of stratification cited by Atienza et al (2016), where social status
is determined by personal effort and merit. Social standing and advancement are determined by
how well persons perform their social role. Ideally, as argued by the authors, high level of efforts
will result in advancement while insufficient effort will lead to a lower social status. (p. 105)
 

B. Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

Sociologists, as cited by Atienza et al (2016) provides three lenses in examining social
stratification: functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic inter-actionism (p. 105).
 Functionalism
The proponents of this view examine how different aspects of society contribute to ensuring
stability and continued function.  They believe that each part or aspect of society serves an
important purpose or function, and that social stratification is based on the intrinsic value of
social activities or roles. In 1945, the Davis Moore Thesis introduced by Kingsley Davis and
Wilbert Moore, postulated that stratification reflects the unequal value of the different types of
work, and that a social role that has greater functional purpose will result in greater reward.
(p.106)
Melvin Tumin, in 1953, presented another viewpoint on the importance of employment on
social stratification, criticizing the Davis Moore Thesis. Tumin, as further cited by Atienza et al,
argued that there are cases where individuals of little talent or skill are able to access better
opportunities or occupy higher positions on society. Tumin saw social stratification as a result of
lack of opportunities for the less privileged sectors of society, preventing qualified people from
occupying important societal roles. (p. 106)
 Conflict Theory
One critical view of social stratification, which considers society as benefiting only a few, is
the conflict theory. Conflict theorists, such as Karl Marx, view stratification as perpetuating
inequality as it is influenced by economic forces and the ownership of factors of production.
(Atienza et al, 2016, pp. 106-107)
Karl Marx viewed society as made up of the Bourgeois or Capitalists, who belong to the elite
and own the factors of production such as resources, land, and businesses; and the proletariat or
workers who belong to the lower class suffering great hardships and provide the manual labor
needed to produce goods. Marx believed that the inequalities brought about by social
stratification lead to class conflict. (Atienza et al, 2016, p. 107)  
 Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism, according to Atienza et al (2016), is another perspective in looking at
stratification.  It refrains from looking into the larger structural factors that define social
stratification and contribute to inequality and poverty.  Instead, it examines stratification from a
micro-level view and attempts to explain how people’s social standing affect their everyday
interactions. Proponents of this perspective that individuals interact with others belonging to
their own social class. Thus, social stratification enables people of similar backgrounds and
interests to group together. (p. 107)
 
Symbolic interactionists observe that people’s appearance reflect their perceived social standing,
giving rise to the theory of conspicuous consumption which refers to buying certain products to
make a social statement about a status. (p.107)