Social stratification

Social stratification refers to the way people are ranked and positioned in society. The division of

people into different groups around us that we see based on mainly the wealth, power, and

prestige they hold is called "social stratification." The more wealth, power, and prestige one

holds, the higher their position in the social hierarchy. The YouTube documentary also shows

this concept. The message of the documentary was to show inequality among the upper-class and

lower-class people that arises from the modern-day class system of stratification. Now I will try

to analyze these scenes of stratification by using the major theoretical (Functionalist, Conflict

and Interactionist) perspectives of sociology.

The documentary shows how the upper class of society is only getting wealthier while the lower

class of society is only getting poorer. The wealthy are enjoying all the facilities, and the poor
are finding it difficult to afford the basic facilities to survive. The level of inequality between the

classes is substantial. The wealthy hold all the wealth, prestige, and power. So, they are using the

resources of society to their advantage. The conflict theory of sociology stands on the same

premise as the documentary. Karl Marx believed that social stratification developed as a result of

people's involvement in production. In his theory, there were two classes of people. One was the

capitalists that owned factories, and the other was the workers that worked in them. The

relationship between these two classes was exploitive in nature. The ones with the means of

production made a profit. So, they rose through the ranks of society, and the workers barely had

any improvement in their lives. Thus, we also see in the documentary that in Kenya, more malls

and factories are being built in place of housing shelters, foodbanks, educational institutions, and

employment sectors. So, according to conflict theory, the rich are using their power, prestige,

and wealth to benefit themselves rather than create opportunity for the poor, and this causes the

rising inequality.

A functionalist perspective will now justify the existence of these inequalities. The functionalist

theory addresses stratification by representing the innately unequal value of different jobs.

Sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore put forward this theory. They view certain

positions in society as more valuable than others. People who are qualified to assume these

positions should be rewarded more than people in positions beneath them. For example, a heart

surgeon's job is more important than a rickshaw-puller's job as it requires more qualification. So,

if the reward for both of these jobs were the same, no one would go through all the effort to be a

doctor. As this job requires more skills, it also comes with more incentives and rewards. The rich

have reached a place in the upper class because they are more skilled and qualified. So,

according to the Davis-Moore thesis, the greater the functional standing of a social role, the
greater the reward must be. Thus, the trash and garbage sorters of Kenya and America in the

documentary are in this social position because they are not skilled and qualified enough.

The interactionist perspective will view social stratification among people of different social

classes based on their income level, background, and even tastes in food, music, and clothing

that create social class. Symbolic interactionists also note that this concept of "social class" arises

based on the social standing of people. People take part in conspicuous consumption, which is

the purchase and use of certain products to make a social statement about their status. For

example, the documentary shows an artist in America who sells his art to the rich even though

that art is made from recycled trash. The rich buy it to make a social statement rather than for its

artistic value. In addition, the wealthy in Kenya construct shopping malls and expensive

restaurants to demonstrate their social standing. Thus, all these symbols of stratification are

highlighted by the interactionist perspective.

To conclude, all the perspectives recognize the inequality that is prominent among the upper and

lower classes. In my opinion, the extent of social inequality shown in the documentary is harmful

to society as a whole because the differences have reached a point where one class deals with life

and death situations on a daily basis and the other doesn’t even recognize them.