Class

Class is an open system. Vertical mobility is free under this system. There is no barrier to moving from
one status to another. Status is based on achievement. It is determined by a person’s talents, wealth,
money, intelligence, power, education, income, etc. There is no inheritance in parental status.

Many societies have class structures including the modern ones. A person is born into a social ranking in
this stratification system but can move up or down from it much easier than in caste systems or slave
societies. This step in either direction is mainly the product of, or lack of, a person’s own actions,
experience, and skills. While in caste or slave societies these qualities do not support upward
movement, they also encourage upward movement in class societies. Class systems are by far the most
flexible of the three stratification systems discussed so far, indicating they have the most vertical
mobility. 

Also, the sociologist Max Weber had a lot to say about stratification class systems. Such structures are
based on three dimensions of stratification, he wrote: class (which we will call richness), strength, and
prestige. Wealth is an individual or family’s total value, including income, stocks, bonds, real estate, and
other assets; power is the ability to influence others to make your bidding, even if they don’t want to;
and prestige refers to the status and esteem of others

Caste
Place under the caste system is inherited. It is birth-based, it is purely an ascribed status. Once those
positions are assigned, they cannot in any way advance and improve their social status. As a major type
of social stratification caste thus does not facilitate vertical social mobility. Caste is a hereditary
endogamous social group in which the rank and accompanying rights and obligations of a person are
assigned to a group based on their birth. For example, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudra Caste.

In a caste system, people are born into unequal groups based on the status of their parents and remain
in these groups for the rest of their lives. For many years, the best-known caste system has been in
India, where, underpinned by Hindu belief that one’s fate is accepted in life, several major castes
dictated one’s life chances from the moment of birth, especially in rural areas. 
After India gained independence from Britain in 1949, the untouchables were granted equal rights by its
new constitution. The caste system was further disrupted by modern technology and migration into
cities, as members of various castes now had more contact with each other. Nevertheless, caste
discrimination remains a problem in India and highlights the continuing impact of its conventional social
stratification structure. (Berger, 2009)

Even in today’s time, the system is so weak and there is no voice of Dalits. Even after the Atrocities
Prevention Act in 1989, the story of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange who lost all his family in the Khairlanji killings
tells the lack of implementation of acts by government. The underlying question of the higher castes and
the lower castes in the country remains prevalent

Gender:

Like caste and class gender is another kind of social stratification system. Gender, perhaps is the oldest

and permanent source of social differentiation. But within the broad hierarchy of caste and class, gender

cuts across caste and class. In present day Indian society caste, class and gender are dynamic

phenomena which vary between groups, communities and regions. Recent years have witnessed a

thorough and widespread discussion on gender. It has claimed critical address within ender as a concept

and as a set of practices has occurred during the last three decades.

The origin of the concept gender can be traced to the 19th century women’s movement and in Marxism.

But it seems to have first appeared among American Feminists who wanted to reject biological

determinism. Feminists prefer the term gender than sex.

But the term gender means much more than sex and more inclusive than sex. It is a socially constructed

category rather than biologically determined. The gender of a man is masculine and a woman is

feminine. Neither a man nor a woman is sex alone. Gender refers to the socially constructed and

culturally determined role that men and women play in their day-to-day lives. Gender is the most potent

significant and enormously useful analytical concept used by the feminists.

It is a matter of social ascription, a socio-cultural construction and provided a deeper analysis of

inequalities existing between male and female. It refers to the social institutionalization of sexual

difference. In feminist literature gender is not a value free concept rather a value loaded term and has

acquired new dimensions. It is a conceptual tool for analysis and is used to highlight different structural

relationships of inequality between men and women. As a socially constructed differences and relations

between males and females it very from time to time and from place to place.

Gender is defined as the social construction of relations between women and men and among various

groups of women and men. Feminist consider gender as the socio-cultural manifestation of being a man

or a woman.

Theory of stratification

Karl Marx
Karl Marx based his conflict theory on the idea that modern society has only two
classes of people: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Bourgeoisie are the owners
of the means of production: the factories, businesses, and equipment needed to
produce wealth. The Proletariat are the workers.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies exploit workers. The owners
pay them enough to afford food and a place to live, and the workers, who do not realize
they are being exploited, have a false consciousness, or a mistaken sense, that they
are well off. They think they can count on their capitalist bosses to do what was best for
them.

Marx foresaw a workers’ revolution. As the rich grew richer, Marx hypothesized that
workers would develop a true class consciousness, or a sense of shared identity based
on their common experience of exploitation by the bourgeoisie. The workers would unite
and rise up in a global revolution. Once the dust settled after the revolution, the workers
would then own the means of production, and the world would become communist. No
one stratum would control the access to wealth. Everything would be owned equally by
everyone.

Marx’s vision did not come true. As societies modernized and grew larger, the working
classes became more educated, acquiring specific job skills and achieving the kind of
financial well-being that Marx never thought possible. Instead of increased exploitation,
they came under the protection of unions and labor laws. Skilled factory workers and
tradespeople eventually began to earn salaries that were similar to, or in some
instances greater than, their middle-class counterparts.
Max Weber
Max Weber took issue with Marx’s seemingly simplistic view of stratification. Weber
argued that owning property, such as factories or equipment, is only part of what
determines a person’s social class. Social class for Weber included power and prestige,
in addition to property or wealth. People who run corporations without owning them still
benefit from increased production and greater profits.

Prestige and Property

Weber argued that property can bring prestige, since people tend to hold rich people in
high regard. Prestige can also come from other sources, such as athletic or intellectual
ability. In those instances, prestige can lead to property, if people are willing to pay for
access to prestige. For Weber, wealth and prestige are intertwined.

Power and Wealth

Weber believed that social class is also a result of power, which is merely the ability of
an individual to get his or her way, despite opposition. Wealthy people tend to be more
powerful than poor people, and power can come from an individual’s prestige.