Social Stratification: Concept

& Approaches
SO1508
Course Requirement

Before going into specifics of social stratification it is important to take

a step back and look that till now what are we supposed to know. In
other words, the course on social stratification pre-requisite familiarity
with the following concepts –
Course Requirement
• Social change, social mobility,
• Social conflicts and contestation,
• Sociological perspective
• Sociological imagination
• Sociological consciousness and empathy
• Functional perspective of society,
• Marxist or Conflict perspective on society
• Weber theory of social classes
 Course Description
1 2
Examine the theoretical roots Explore nature of inequality as
of stratification (e.g., why does experienced by members of
stratification exist?) different social classes, ethnic
groups, genders, and sexual
orientations (e.g., who has the
power in our society and why?)
3
Analyse social institutions that
maintain stratification (e.g.,
why does stratification
persist?) and determine what,
if anything, can be done about
stratification (e.g., is
stratification inevitable?)
A good grasp of social stratification is necessary
for

For social understanding

For public policy making
of social issues

For understanding Developing new social

sociological constructs innovations
Social Stratification
• Defined and elaborated area in the domain of sociology

• Attracted the major attention of from theorists and social scientists from the very
beginning

• Understanding stratification of society is like understanding the qualitative and

quantitative aspects of layers of rock before taking major excavations
Social Stratification
• Social stratification is multidimensional concept.

• Far from being limited to just social class, race/ethnicity, sex/gender,

or sexual orientation, stratification is a system of interacting
inequalities that help shape individual’s and groups’ life chances.
Social Stratification
• Social stratification is one of the form of social inequalities in society.
Even without social stratification there could be social inequalities in
society.
• Important nature of social stratification are – social, historical, empirical
and consequential
• The term stratification is derived from word stratum which means layer
Social Stratification
• Important features of SS-
o Differentiation in society
o Ranking in society
• These two aspects of understanding the question of social stratification are-
1. underlying social mechanisms that either generate, sustain or inhibit the
structure of inequalities
2. how different societies are from each other and how they over the periods of
time have responded to these stratification in respect to social changes and
mobilities
Social Stratification
• Ranking in society happens based on various grounds- like, money, power, prestige, etc.
• Sociologist have elaborate view on this – how social ranking and recognition get happen and identify in
society.
• According to class position theorists, a sort of subculture originate and develop among the members of
same stratum of society that they in most likelihood identify with and form solidarity.
• Social stratification research has been highly popular among economist as well who have contributed
huge literature with empirical analysis.
• At the heart of the idea of social stratification is understanding the social stratification as a system of
social structures of consequential inequality that are enduring and reproducible (Bottero 2005).
Approaches to Social Stratification
 Major theories of Stratification

INTEGRATION THEORY (OUTCOME FUNCTIONAL

OPERATION AND SPECIALISATION)
CONFLICT THEORY (OUTCOME OF
CONTESTATION OF POWER STRUGGLE IN
SOCIETY)
Functionalist Theory of Stratification
• Functionalist theory of stratification should be seen in the larger context of functionalist
theories of society which seek to explain the working of society.
• Functionalist theory assume that there are certain basic needs or functional prerequisites
in society which is a matter of sacrosanct which must be met if society is to survive.
Maintaining social order, cohesion, and stability are few among them.
• They assume that parts of society is as important as the whole unit.
• According to FTS, social stratification helps to fulfil such needs in the society.
 01
According to TP, order and
stability are the mainstay of the
society which is maintained by
what he called “value-
consensus” in the society. They
are just, right and proper.
Talcott Parsons (TP)
02
Stratification system derives
from common values system.
Accordingly those strived hard in
society accorded highest place
in society and vice versa.
Talcott Parsons
• As per Parsons, in advanced and complex societies like ours, inequities and differential
social status are functional necessities and work in tandem to each other. So, they are
inevitable as a result of high degree of specialisation and demand of planning of
organisational scale.

• In fact, Parsons see it difficult how modern societies operate without differential power
relations and inequalities of power and prestige.
 The Davis and Moore theory clearly and simply outlined the
functional view of social stratification as necessary to meet the
needs of complex social systems. In other words, from a
perspective that considers society as something like an
organism, the theory argued that this organism has needs that
must be met if it is to remain healthy.

The Davis
and Moore
Among these needs is for the most important positions or jobs
in the society to be staffed by the most qualified and competent
people.

Theory
Social stratification is considered a mechanism that ensures that
the need is met
 The Davis 1. Certain positions in any society are
functionally more important than others and
and Moore require special skills to fill them.

Theory
The Davis and Moore Theory
2. Only a limited number of people in any society have the talents that can be trained into
the skills appropriate to these positions.
 The Davis 3. The conversion of talents into skills involves a
training period during which sacrifices of one kind
and Moore or another are made by those undergoing the
training.
Theory
 4. In order to induce the talented people to
The Davis undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training,
their future positions must carry an inducement
and Moore value in the form of a differential-that is,
privileged and disproportionate access to the
Theory scarce and desired rewards the society has to offer.
The Davis and Moore Theory
5. These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and prerequisites attached to, or built
into, the positions, and can be classified into those things that contribute to (a) sustenance
and comfort, (b) humor and diversion, and (c) self-respect and ego expansion.
 6. This differential access to the basic rewards of
The Davis the society has as a consequence the
differentiation of the prestige and esteem various
and Moore strata acquire. It may be said to constitute, along
with the rights and prerequisites, institutionalized
Theory social in- equality: that is, stratification.
 7. Therefore, social inequality among different
The Davis strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods
and the amounts of prestige and esteem they
and Moore receive is both positively functional and inevitable
in any society.
Theory
 The functional theory of social stratification formulated
by Kingsley Davis and Willbert E. Moore conforms to
The salient the following characterisation.
• i) Inevitability of social stratification;
features of • ii) Need for differential intent and ability for
Davis and different functions;
• iii) Differential evaluation of different social
Moore positions and duties:
• iv) Reward based on differential value attached
theory with different functions. and
• v). Values and rewards constituting the social
differential and stratification.
 Melvin M. Tumin
• Tumin produces a comprehensive criticism of their theory.
• He begins by questioning the adequacy of their measurement of the functional importance.
• There is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of positions. It is simply a
matter of subjective opinion and vary from person to person. For example, Tumin cites the
example that work of some workforce labourer is as important as the works of engineers.
Hence, Tumin argues that differential reward to payment and prestige are more function of
differential access to power rather than functional importance of the job.
 Melvin M. Tumin
• Tumin questioned the assumptions and premises of Davis & Moore on various basis, like, (a) how can one
conclude there are limited number of people who can fulfil the jobs o more functional importance than
others (b). An affective method of measuring such competence in terms of talent and ability has not yet
known (c). There is no proof that such an occupancy demands exceptional talents.
• Tumin by citing examples from industrialised societies of West argues that SS rather than incentivising
limit the possibilities of discovery and utilisation of talent. Example of dropout ratio of lower earning
workers from school is strong evidence that lower the class position there is lower possibility to ladder the
higher positions in the society.
• In fact those who are at the higher position works additional hours to produce glass ceiling and erect
barriers in the society.
 Tumin’s Critique
• He doubts the historical validity of the functional importance for the necessarily of social
stratification
• Distinction between the 'less functional' and 'more functional' as drawn by Davis-Moore is also
misleading. This is a 'tautology and unsound procedure' in Tumin's understanding.
• Division of labor is a necessity, but not social differentiation as envisaged by Davis-Moore.
• Tumin conclude that SS by its very nature can never perform the functions. In fact, Tumin
contends that SS appear to be inherently antagonistic to the goal of providing equal opportunity
to all.
 MELVIN M. TUMIN
• Tumin's (1953), pointing out that Social stratification system functions to limit the
possibility of discovery of the full range of talent available in a society because of unequal
access to appropriate motivation, recruitment, and centers of training."
 MELVIN M. TUMIN
• Thus, social stratification systems can function to set only limits upon the possibility of
expanding the productive resources of the society. Also, "To the extent that inequalities in
social rewards cannot be made fully acceptable to the less privileged in a society.
• Social stratification systems function to encourage hostility, suspicion, and distrust among
the various segments of a society and thus to limit the possibilities of extensive social
integration.
 Marxian Perspective on Social
Stratification
• From a Marxian perspective the relationship between the major social classes is one of
mutual dependence and conflict. Thus in capitalist society, the bourgeoisie and proletariat
are dependent but also in conflict to each other.
• According to Ralph Dahrendorf stratification lies neither in human nature nor in a
historically dubious conception of private property. It lies in 'authority structure' of a
society which is necessary for sustaining norms and sanctions.
• 'Institutionalized power‘ based on norms and sanctions creates inequality and hierarchy.
 Weberian Perspective on Social
Stratification
• Like Marx, Weber grounded his analysis in economic terms, however he defined class in
relation to the relationship of individual with market economies. According to Weber
classes develop in market economic in which individual compete for their success. So,
basically a person class situation is his or her market position. Like Marx, he also
conceptualised class division in society based on material possession.
• However, he distinguished many class groups in like, properties upper class, propertyless
white collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie, and the manual working class
The main tasks of this section are:
• (1) outline briefly recent additions to Marxian theory,
• (2) examine some uncritical-conflict theories (primarily that of Dahrendorf), and
• (3) provide a general description of the main components of conflict theories (of all
types) most useful for understanding the nature of inequality and social stratification
in the advanced industrial societies.

CONFLICT THEORIES OF SOCIAL

STRATIFICATION
 • Conflict theorists assume that inequality can be
significantly reduced and that the major source
of inequality in our society is related to the
Conflict historical development of property relations. If
inequality is to be reduced, it must be based on
Theory changing property or class relations, rather than
on a more general conflict of interests "always
found" among human beings.
 • Coser argues that conflict is instinctual for us, so we find it
everywhere in human society.
• There is the conflict of war, but there is also the conflict that
we find in our daily lives and relationships. But Coser also
Coser argues that conflict is different for humans than for other
animals in that our conflicts can be goal related.

Theory of • There is generally something that we are trying to achieve

through conflict, and there are different possible ways of

Stratification reaching our goal. The existence of the possibility of different

paths opens opportunities for negotiation and different types
and levels of conflict.
• Coser sees conflict as a normal and functional part of human
life, he can talk about its variation in ways that others missed,
such as the level of violence and functional consequences.
Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009)
 • German-British Sociologist, Philosopher, Political
Scientist and a liberal politician
Ralf Dahrendorf
• Leading expert on class inequality in modern society
• Class-conflict theorist
-Class-conflict in Industrial society (1959)
-Essay in the theory of Society
• Director of LSE
• Early interest in Marx theory of Justice
Major Assumptions
of Conflict theories
• Conflict theorists assume that inequality can be
significantly reduced and that the major source
of inequality in our society is related to the
historical development of property relations.

• If inequality is to be reduced, it must be based on

changing property or class relations, rather than
on a more general conflict of interests "always
found" among human beings.
 • Accepted major formulation of Marx but also modified it.
Dahrendorf's Conflict • He disagreed on many issues like Revolution and class
conflict
• Dahrendorf also rejected Marx's view that class conflict in
advanced industrial society is based primarily or only on
economic interests.
• He supports his rejection of Marx on this point by
arguing that an upper class no longer owns and
controls the means of production.
• Rather, he accepts the managerial control thesis that
Theory

control is divorced from ownership, with non-owning

managers controlling the economy.
• In addition, Dahrendorf believes that the growth of a
middle class in industrial societies has altered the nature of
economic divisions.
 • Dahrendorf's theory defined class not in terms of
wealth like Marx, but by levels of authority.
• Dahrendorf combines elements from both
Dahrendorf's functional and conflict perspectives to develop
his own theory about class conflict in post-
Conflict Theory capitalist society.
• Dahrendorf agrees with Marx that authority, in
the 19th century, was based on income, and thus
the rich ruled the state. Yet things have changed
from then.
Dahrendorf's Conflict
• Ralf Dahrendorf (1959) begins his
theory by describing the strong and
weak points of Marxian theory, then
adds to Marx's strong points from
Weberian perspective. Dahrendorf
agrees that societies must be viewed
from the perspective of conflict and
Theory

differing interests.
 Question is : Where does Dahrendorf
Dahrendorf's locate the basis of class conflict, if not in
economic interests defined by Marx? It is
Conflict Theory at this point that he adds Weber's insights.
 • All industrial or complex societies do
have some forms of social organization.
Weber called it imperatively coordinated
associations.
• These imperatively coordinated
associations are like bureaucratic
organizations and individuals and
Dahrendorf's organisations are usually attached with
it. .
Conflict Theory • Dahrendorf recognizes all kinds of
individual or group interests. But the
main point is that the means to attaining
these interests are related to authority
positions within imperatively coordinated
associations.
Dahrendorf's Conflict • Dahrendorf, like Merton, looked at latent and manifest
interests and further classified them as unconscious and
conscious interests. He found the connection between
these two concepts to be problematic for the conflict
theory. Dahrendorf believed that the basis of class
conflict was the division of three groups of society:
quasi groups, interest groups, and conflict groups.
Thus, society can be split up into the "command class"
and the "obey class". The command class exercises
Theory

authority, while the obey class not only has no

authority, and but is also subservient to that of others.
Marx and Dahrendorf’s
Perspectives on Class
• Marx believed history to be defined as
class struggle. Marx defined class as the
difference between the dominating class
and those who dominate. He believed that
in modern society there were three types
of classes: Capitalists, workers and petite
Formation

bourgeoisie. The proletariat and the

bourgeoisie are the pillars in the formation
of classes. Marx believed that the battle
between the different classes formed the
concept of class phenomenon.
 • Marx understood that there are
two classes: the rulers who
control the means of production,
Marx and Dahrendorf's and the ruled who worked with
the means of production. Every
perspectives on class society needs both. The conflicts
formation between them causes a
destruction of the existing societal
order so that it can be replaced by
a new one.
Relationship to other • This theory takes only a macrosociological perspective. The
theory fails to address much of social life.[33] In
Classical Theorists increasingly modern, multicultural societies, the contested
concept and construct of identity received growing emphasis
and Perspectives and was the focus of many debates. As a consequence of the
debates over identity, and inevitably in a globalizing,
modern, multicultural world, the issues of citizenship came
into play. Specifically, the discussions analyzed the ways in
which citizenship contributed to the formation and
construction of identities. Dahrendorf's adherence to a
Marxian position seemingly prevented him from
participating in these debates. Absent from Dahrendorf's
theory were any significant discussions of culture, and
therefore, citizenship and identity.
 • The social scientist must
understand not just the latent
and manifest group conflicts
but also the manner in which
group or class interests are
Dahrendorf's distributed in a society. They
should also focus on both
Conflict Theory manifest and latent group
interests to understand the
fundamental aspects of social
stratification.
 The Indian Scenario

No doubt Marxist notions of class and class-conflict have become hallmarks of the
studies of India's agricultural and urban industrial formations.
Today, not the classes such as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but like the pre-
capitalist: independent workers, employers, white -collar employee, and blue -collar
workers are identifiable groups of people.
All these points restrict application of the Marxist approach to the study of social
stratification in Indian society.
To conclude…
We saw that how SS is a contentious topic among sociologists that continue to be
discussed and debated due to their increasing importance in society. Some see it as
an inevitable call of functional importance whereas other see SS as divisive rather
than integrative in nature.
To conclude…
• According to them such system of stratification is based on social
arrangement whereby some one is bound to gain at the expense of others.
They don’t believe that such a system is derived from shared values. We saw
that functional and conflict approach to SS going in the opposite directions.
They not only differ in their approach to SS but also assigning importance to
same thing.