Introduction to Sociology/Stratification

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

This home/shanty in Jakarta is illustrative of the extreme economic stratification and disparity that exists around the world today.

[edit] Introduction

Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of people in a society. This chapter focuses on economic stratification; meaning how people are differentiated based upon their wealth (and/or power).

[edit] Historical Stratification

Stratification is common in the animal kingdom and some form of stratification has probably always existed among humans (initially it was probably limited to gender stratification). With the development of food and other surpluses resulting from technological advances in agriculture and manufacturing, some people began to accumulate more resources or wealth than others. Thus, the origins of economic stratification are situated in the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to horticultural/pastoralist societies.^[1][2][3]

The idea that there should be equality in society is relatively new, emerging in the 17th and 18th centuries in the writings of Hobbes and Locke, among others. Their thinking helped people realize that inequality was the result of the actions and intentions of social institutions and specific groups and not the will of divinity. These writers were instrumental in laying the foundations for the modern social sciences.

This graph illustrates where children born in the top and bottom deciles of income earners end up when they are adults.^[4]

Despite some claims to the contrary, people are generally not poor because they choose to be or because they decide not to pursue opportunities that would help them out of poverty (e.g., education). Poverty is usually the result of forces outside the individual. For instance, 31% of children born into families in the bottom 10 percent of income earners in the US end up in the bottom 10% of income earners as adults, as depicted in the above graph.^[4] Only 1.3% go from "rags" to "riches". Most children born to poor parents end up poor. However, when they are given chances to move up the social class hierarchy, often through structural changes in society, they end up moving up. ^[5]

Before you read the rest of this chapter, you should ask yourself why children born into poor families tend to remain poor? Is it because the children want to be poor or is it because there are structural impediments that prevent the children from moving up the social class structure?

[edit] Social Class

The most common delineation of economic groups in societies is that of social classes, ranging from the poor or under-class to the rich or upper-class. Alternative systems of economic stratification include: (1) caste systems (which have traditionally combined additional factors, including religion and tradition); (2) clan systems, in which an individual's status is determined by his clan's status; (3) slavery; and (4) the hierarchical structure in communist countries. Because class based systems of stratification are more common around the world today (an artifact of capitalism), it will be the primary approach used in this chapter.

To begin, this chapter explores what it means to be poor. It then turns to stratification in society, focusing on multiple levels of stratification at the global level and within the U.S.

[edit] Socioeconomic Status

Building on the ideas of Max Weber, who saw three main dimensions of stratification (class, status, and party), contemporary sociologists often define stratification in terms of socioeconomic status (or SES). There are a variety of ways to measure SES, including educational attainment, income, wealth, and occupational prestige. These measures reflect three characteristics of individuals: power, property, and prestige. These three characteristics combine to indicate someone's social class or socioeconomic status.

Hillary Clinton with husband Bill Clinton as she is sworn in as a U.s. Senator

[edit] Power

Power refers to someone's ability to get others to do his/her will, regardless of whether or not they want to. Legitimate power, power given to individuals willingly by others, is called authority. Illegitimate power, power taken by force or the threat of force, is called coercion. Weber^[6] delineated three types of authority:

• Traditional authority is authority derived from tradition. It is authority passed down from generation to generation, often through a lineage (e.g., monarchies).
• Legal-rational authority is authority derived from a legal system that is generally widely accepted by those who will be subject to the authority of the individual chosen based upon the laws that regulate the decision. This is the system used in most democracies and republics, like the U.S.
• Charismatic authority is authority derived from one's force of personality. Charismatic individuals are individuals imbued with power to attract followers, like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Joseph Smith, Jr.

[edit] Property

Property, as used in this context, refers to the sum total of one's possessions as well as their regular income. Property goes beyond income as a measure of social class as it reflects the accumulated wealth (e.g., homes, stocks, bonds, savings) in addition to one's earning potential. Property is a better overall measure of social class than income as many individuals who are considered wealthy actually have very small incomes. A good example of this is the founders and current CEO of Google - Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt. All three individuals receive an annual salary of just $1, but each has property (stock) worth more than a billion dollars.^[7]

[edit] Prestige

Prestige refers to the reputation or esteem associated with one's position in society. Prestige used to be associated with one's family name, but for most people in developed countries prestige is now generally tied to one's occupation. Occupations like physicians or lawyers tend to have more prestige associated with them than occupations like bar tender or janitor. An individual's prestige is closely tied to their social class - the higher the prestige of an individual (through their occupation or maybe family name), the higher the social class.

[edit] The Connection Between Power, Property, and Prestige

While it is possible for an individual to have only one of these indicators of social class (e.g., lots of property but no power or prestige), that is seldom the case. These three indicators tend to go hand-in-hand or lead to each other. A good example of this is former U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. President Clinton was raised by a single mother in Arkansas. He was not born into a wealthy family with lots of power, property, or prestige. Over time, as President Clinton worked his way up the social hierarchy, he gained prestige - as a Rhodes Scholar, lawyer, politician, governor, and eventually as President of the United States. This prestige translated into power, especially as president. But since leaving office, the prestige has also translated into property. When President Clinton left the White House in 2001 he and his wife had very little money and substantial debt from legal bills. But between 2001 and 2008, President Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, earned a combined total of $109 million dollars.^[8] Almost half of that money is a direct translation of prestige into property - President Clinton regularly receives more than $250,000 as a public speaker delivering speeches to groups of interested parties. Additionally, both of the Clintons received substantial monetary advances from book publishers to write books; this is a perquisite generally reserved for prestigious individuals. Thus, the Clintons illustrate how prestige can become property, which can, in turn, become power.

[edit] Class-Based Discrimination

In addition to the many disadvantages that come with having less power, property, and prestige, it is not uncommon for people in lower social classes to experience discrimination. Discrimination can range from more subtle forms, like utilities requiring deposits from people who live in poorer neighborhoods, to more violent forms like violence against the homeless (e.g., Charles Marovskis beat two homeless men to death in Tampa, FL in 1998 because he believed their poverty made them inferior).^[9]

[edit] Objective vs. Subjective Poverty

There are two notions of poverty that are often confused, objective poverty and subjective poverty. Objective poverty refers to the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live (see also poverty line). Objective poverty is contrasted with subjective poverty, which is when people feel some sense of deprivation resulting from their lower social standing or position near the bottom of a social hierarchy relative to others. Individuals who are subjectively poor have sufficient funds to survive but do not have as many resources as other members of their society, resulting in a sense of being poor despite having enough to survive.

While there are no clear statistics on the number of people who feel some sense of subjective poverty, there is a substantial amount of information on individuals who live in objective poverty:

• 1/6 of the world's population (1 billion people) live on less than $1 per day (source)
• 11 million children die each year from diseases and other causes that are poverty related (source)
• women and children are the most affected by poverty (source)
• malnutrition, an indicator of objective poverty, has lasting effects on biological and mental development (source)

[edit] Global Inequality

Green indicates high development; yellow and orange indicate a medium level of development; red and grey indicate a low level of development.

At the international level, comparisons in economic stratification are made between different countries. While it is still common to hear countries described as first-world or third-world, this system of classification is outdated and has been replaced with the terms developed and developing (or, alternatively, post-industrial, industrialized, and industrializing).

One of the clearest measures of development in a country is the United Nations Human Development Index. The Index examines numerous aspects of social life in the countries around the world, combines measures of those aspects into a single number, then orders the numbers, producing an index ranging from high development to low development. Aspects of society included in the Human Development Index include:

• life expectancy at birth
• literacy rates
• GDP

The United Nations provides comprehensive data on trends in economic and other forms of stratification within countries over time (see here).

[edit] U.S. Inequality

A surprising characteristic of the United States for many people is that the U.S. has a large proportion of its population that lives in poverty. It is necessary to note that poverty can be measured in a number of ways (see poverty line), but by the standards used by the U.S. Census Bureau (see below), roughly 12.5% of the United States population live on or below the poverty line. That translates into close to 35 million people (source). Additional evidence of the poverty that exists in the U.S. is a recent finding that 7% of 5th graders in the U.S. have been homeless at one point; the percentage is higher for Americans of African descent and the poorest families are closer to 11%.^[10]

Stratification tends to be localized into specific areas. This map shows stratification in Hillsborough County, Florida, where Tampa is located. The darker areas are more affluent and the lighter areas are poorer.

Despite a pervasive belief in the U.S. that anyone can become rich (see Rags to Riches and Horatio Alger), intergenerational mobility in the United States is fairly rigid. There is some class movement, but very little for people at the very top and bottom of the economic ladder. The majority of children born to parents with the lowest incomes remain in the bottom third of incomes as adults. Also, as noted above, the chances of moving from the bottom 10% of earners in the U.S. to the top 10% is about 1%.^[4] Someone's ethnic background can further show a strong correlation to this finding: 17% of American children of European descent, born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution remain there as adults, but a higher figure of 42% of the children born to Americans of African descent remain in the bottom fifth. The little movement that occurs takes place in the middle of the distribution.^[11]

Another illustration of economic stratification in the United States is the prevalence of food insecurity. In 2006, 10.9% of U.S. households were "food insecure," meaning they lacked enough money or other resources to purchase sufficient food.^[12] About 4% of households are very insecure in food provisioning, meaning members of the family are going hungry. Four percent of Americans is just over 12 million people.

The discussion of sociological theories relating to stratification below helps explain this economic disparity.

[edit] UK Inequality

One way in which British society clearly reflects stratification is in the accumulation of wealth across generations. Students who attend private schools in the UK end up making 30% more later in life than do students who attend state schools.^[13] When you factor in socioeconomic characteristics like parents' income and level of education, students who attend private schools make 20% more later in life. What leads to the advantages associated with private school attendance is unclear, but the authors suggest it may be the connections (referred to as the 'Old Boys' network') that the pupil makes at private school that are often crucial to occupational success among societal elites.

[edit] Theories of Stratification

Two classic approaches to social stratification provide interesting insights into this phenomenon, structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. A third approach, dependency theory, has roots in and extends Marxist thought and conflict theory by applying that approach to the world at a global/international level.

[edit] Structural-Functionalism

The structural-functional approach to social stratification asks the same question of social stratification that it does of the other components of society: What function or purpose does stratification serve? Underlying this question is the assumption that stratification serves some purpose because it exists in virtually every society (though it is almost non-existent in hunter-gatherer societies). The resulting answer is often that it must exist in society in order to facilitate stability and equilibrium; some level of hierarchical organization must be necessary in order for complex societies to function. Additionally, the structural-functional approach argues that positions higher in the social hierarchy must be of more functional importance to the society, which is why they result in greater rewards. In other words, according to this perspective, it makes sense for the CEO of a company whose position is more important functionally to make more money than a janitor working for the same company.

There are several obvious problems with this approach to social stratification. First, the answer to the function of stratification of society results in an answer that is guilty of begging the question. The answer only exists because the question is asked the way that it is; it is assumed from the asking of the question that there must be a function, thus, a function is found. The second major problem with this approach is that it assumes social stratification is necessary for the functioning of society. While it may be the case that only hunter-gatherer societies have existed with minimal stratification and no complex societies have developed a purely egalitarian system, it should not be assumed that such a system is impossible. The third significant problem with this approach is that it supports the status quo of existing systems, regardless of how the power of the ruling group is derived (e.g., totalitarianism, dictatorship, oligarchy, etc.). While it may be the case that social stratification facilitates the stability of societies, the structural-functional approach falls short in developing lucid arguments to that end.

[edit] Social-Conflict Theory and Marxism

The social-conflict approach to stratification sees social hierarchies, like most other elements of society, as embodying inequality (which is virtually by definition in this instance). The conflict theory approach argues that individuals at the top of social hierarchies are there at the expense of people in lower positions. People higher up in the hierarchy will use their power to strengthen both the hierarchy and their standing in it.

Marx also argued that individuals at the top of the hierarchy develop ideologies to justify their positions. People generally wish to feel they are just, worthy, and sensible. When they recognize that they are at the top of the social hierarchy and see the enormous disparity between what they have and what others have, this can lead to the development of elaborate systems of justification, like religion and racial discrimination.^[14] These ideologies also have justifications for the statuses of individuals lower in hierarchy. Once such systems are in place, people of similar status reinforce each others position within the group because they accept similar ideologies. This leads to the belief that status, as related to an individual's view of themselves, equally applies to those people at the top of society and at the bottom.

A particularly clear example of the social-conflict perspective is Marx's early analysis of capitalism. Marx argued that positions in the social hierarchy were directly related to an individuals' relationship to the means of production. Individuals in the upper-class are the owners of the means of production or bourgeoisie. Those who produce goods (or services) through contractual employment for their labor, the proletariat, are members of the lower or working classes.

In Marxist theory the capitalists rise to the top of the social hierarchy controlling the means of production and the proletariat are therefore placed in a position that involves them entering into a contract for their labor power. Marx viewed this as exploitation since the cost of hiring labour and the prices of the goods produced were controlled by a small elite. Marx believed the proletariat would eventually rise up in protest against their exploitation. Marx believed that society was following an "evolutionary" path through different political and economic stages and that the final stage would be when the workers of the world developed a collective conscience or universal sense of injustice that would lead them to overthrow the ruling class of capitalists and institute a new socio-economic system, communism.

The astute student may be asking why such a revolution did not occur in every capitalist society. Of course, some communist revolutions did occur: the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, and Vietnam are all examples of countries where communist revolutions took place. But there are a number of non-communist countries that have not experienced revolutions in their economic systems, the U.S. being a prime example. If, as Marx proposed, the exploitation of the proletariat would ultimately lead to the overthrowing of the capitalists at the top of the social hierarchy, one is left asking why this has not happened in the U.S. The answer lies in the concessions made by capitalists to proletariats who joined together as labor unions to fight for worker's rights.

In a truly capitalist society, the only restrictions placed upon capitalists would be the restrictions they place upon themselves. In other words, if a capitalist wanted to have her laborers work 20-hour shifts, in a true capitalist society, there would be no restrictions preventing such practices. The U.S. is not a true capitalist society in this sense. The federal and state governments have instituted legislation limiting the labor practices of corporations and capitalists, including:

• regulated working hours
• minimum wage requirements
• laws against child labor
• mandated working conditions

Many of these concessions have resulted from the efforts of organized labor unions.

To return, then, to the question posed above, revolution has been averted through the gradual transformation of capitalist societies into more socialistic societies. By improving the working conditions and wages of the proletariat, capitalists have been able to prevent the over-throwing of the capitalist system.

[edit] Dependency Theory of Global Stratification

Dependency theory is the body of theories that propound a worldview suggesting the wealthy countries of the world need a peripheral group of poorer countries to remain wealthy.

As depicted in the diagram, wealthy nations are seen as the core countries; poorer nations are seen as the peripheral countries (with some countries falling in between). Core countries extract resources from the periphery countries and eventually return those resources as manufactured goods. This works to maintain the superiority of the core countries by stripping the periphery countries of their natural resources and forcing them to buy manufactured goods at high prices - the proceeds going to the people and corporations of the core countries. Thus, poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labour, a destination for obsolete technology, and export markets for the wealthy nations. Without the poorer, peripheral nations, the wealthy, core countries could not have the standard of living they enjoy.

The theory contends that core countries actively, but not necessarily consciously, perpetuate a state of dependency through various policies and initiatives. This state of dependency is multifaceted, involving economics, media control, politics, banking and finance, education, sports, and all aspects of human resource development. Any attempt by the dependent nations to resist the influences of dependency will result in economic sanctions and/or military invasion and control. While military invasion is somewhat rare, dependency of the periphery countries on the core countries is strongly enforced by the wealthy nations setting the rules of international trade and commerce.

Another example of the extreme poverty experienced in some parts of the world. Dependency Theory would attribute this poverty to the exploitation of periphery countries by core countries.

The system of dependency was likely created with the industrial revolution and the expansion of European empires around the world due to their superior power and wealth. Some argue that before this expansion exploitation and dependency was internal to countries, with the major economic centres dominating the rest of the country (for example southeast England dominating the British Isles, or the Northeast United States dominating the south and east). Establishing global trade patterns in the nineteenth century allowed this system to spread to a global level. This resulted in the isolation of the wealthy from both the dangers of peasant revolts and rebellions by the poor. Rather than turn on their oppressors as stated in Marx's theories of communist revolutions, the poor could no longer overthrow the system put in place by wealthy countries and thus the less developed nations have become engulfed in an economic and political system they have no control over. With the superiority of rich nations established, it is difficult, if not impossible, for poorer countries to move away from this system. This control ensures that all profits in less developed countries are taken by the better developed nations, preventing reinvestment and growth.

Dependency theory first emerged in the 1950s, advocated by Raul Prebisch, whose research found that the wealth of poor nations tended to decrease when the wealth of rich nations increased. Dependency theory became increasingly popular in the 1960s and 1970s as a criticism of standard development theory that seemed to be failing due to the continued widespread poverty of large parts of the world.

[edit] Current Research

In 1995 a heat wave hit Chicago, IL. It is estimated that 739 Chicagoans died as a result. Browning, Wallace, and Feinberg (2006)^[15] contrasted income with mortality rates in Chicago and found that economically disadvantaged neighborhoods had higher rates of heat-related deaths during the heat wave. In addition to a straightforward relationship between income disparity and mortality rates was a finding that neighborhoods and communities that were experiencing significant commercial decline prior to the heat wave had mortality rates over six times higher than their mortality rates under average conditions. This study illustrates that economic inequality can significantly impact various aspects of peoples' lives, including peoples' very ability to stay alive.

[edit] References

[edit] Recommended Reading for Students

• Rosenberg, Tina. 2008. “A Payoff Out of Poverty?.” The New York Times, December 21 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/magazine/21cash-t.html (Accessed July 3, 2009).
• Martin, Andrew. 2009. “So Much Food. So Much Hunger..” The New York Times, September 20 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/weekinreview/20martin.html (Accessed September 20, 2009).
  • This article discusses the reasons why nearly 1 billion people continue to suffer chronic hunger despite the fact that there is sufficient food to feed everyone on the planet. It would serve as a good launching point for a discussion on global inequality.

[edit] See Also

The following Wikipedia pages have additional information on stratification:

• social stratification
• economic inequality
• poverty line

• Positive freedom
• Negative freedom
• Millennium Development Goals from the United Nations
• Caste system
• Social inequality
• Elitism
• Theodor Geiger
• Marxism
• Three-component theory of stratification

[edit] External links

• Inequality topic at Worldrevolution.org
• An introduction to dependency theory

← Gender · Family →