Social Stratification & Mobility

Variation is a fundamental characteristic of human societies, with individuals and social groups exhibiting distinct differences. This differentiation is a prevalent aspect of society, and it inherently gives rise to diversity and inequality. Consequently, societal stratification is a universal phenomenon, manifesting itself in all human societies. In these stratified systems, individuals are organized into various layers or strata, each with its own hierarchy of superiority, inferiority, and equality. Those positioned at the apex of these strata typically wield more power, enjoy higher prestige, and possess greater privileges than those situated in lower strata.

Concepts

1. Equality

In sociology, the notion of equality is prescriptive, meaning that it advocates for fairness and justice without necessitating the elimination of diversity. Even though humans exhibit diverse traits and characteristics, the core principle asserts that all individuals possess equal moral worth. Consequently, under equitable conditions, everyone is entitled to equal rights and opportunities.

Types of equality:

Formal equality. Legal and political equality i.e. all people can take part in the race. Emerged with capitalism as a protest against the feudal order. It argues that unless socio-economic equality is ensured, legal and political equality are meaningless.
Equality of opportunity. The initial conditions which shape our prospects must be equally accessible to all. All start the race at the same place. Meritocratic inequality is justified as all have equal chance to be unequal.
Equality of outcome. Marxist/Utopian idea, all must finish the race together despite the difference in effort put in the race. It’s the Marxist solution to the eventual loss of equality in case of equality of opportunity.
Functionalists view equality of opportunity as functional and anything beyond it as dysfunctional. They hold that it robs people of incentive and coercion would be needed to enforce equality of outcome.

2. Inequality

Social inequality pertains to the presence of disparate opportunities and rewards among various social positions or statuses within a given group or society. Individuals are socially assessed with regard to their perceived superiority or inferiority, which, in turn, results in unequal distributions of wealth, prestige, and power.

Stratification represents a form of social inequality characterized by the hierarchical arrangement of groups based on unequal distribution of societal rewards. This stratification can be further categorized as follows:

Conflict theories posit two potential models: cumulative, where the three rewards of wealth, prestige, and power overlap (as in the Marxian model), or dispersed, where these rewards may not consistently overlap (as seen in the Weberian model).

Andre Beteille introduces a distinction between harmonic stratification, where societal norms legitimize inequality (as observed in caste systems), and dis-harmonic stratification, where norms advocate for equality, but reality reflects inequality.

Gerhard Lensky offers a perspective centered on the group’s point of view. When a group aligns symmetrically on all three reward axes, it experiences status consistency or status crystallization. Asymmetry across these axes results in status inconsistency, often leading to conflicts. Additionally, Lensky highlights the role of power in wealth accumulation, elucidating how surplus appropriation unfolds over time.

Poverty & Deprivation

Debate revolves around whether poverty is to be understood in relative or absolute terms.

Absolute poverty is characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education, and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services. (UNDP)
Marx said that since stratification is cumulative the non-ownership class face absolute poverty in all spheres of wealth, prestige and power.

The second area of contention revolves around whether poverty should be narrowly defined solely in terms of material scarcity. Some sociologists argue that poverty is primarily characterized by a deficiency in material resources, while others contend that it encompasses more than just material deprivation.

The latter perspective conceives poverty as a multidimensional form of deprivation with various facets, notably including the scarcity mindset. It’s worth noting that the scarcity mindset, which tends to prioritize immediate consumption over delayed gratification, imposes limitations on the effectiveness of macro-level poverty-alleviation measures. However, given its prevalence among humans, addressing this trait within systemic frameworks becomes imperative. This underscores the importance of having sociological theories that are both causally and meaningfully comprehensive.

Peter Townsend was one of the people who led the movement to define poverty in terms of relative deprivation. He asserted that:

Poverty can be defined objectively and applied consistently only in terms of the concepts of relative deprivation.
He justified this saying that society determines and conditions people’s needs and efforts, even for food. Ex. tea is closely tied with British lifestyles, even though it is “nutritionally worthless” but “psychologically and socially essential”.
Argues that it was necessary to move beyond consumption to examine how resources affected participation in the lifestyle of a community i.e. how it affects exclusion.

Herbert Gans – Positive functions of poverty

Applied Mertonian functional analysis to study poverty.
Poverty provides a group willing to serve as a peacetime army.
Poverty allows the upper classes with an outlet for charity.

In his Reference Group theory, Merton emphasized that deprivation isn’t solely rooted in objective circumstances but is instead shaped by subjective perceptions of deprivation when compared to one’s reference group, as illustrated by Samuel Stouffer’s findings in the US Army study.

On the other hand, Conflict Perspectives argue that poverty and social exclusion stem from society’s failure to equitably allocate resources and offer equitable opportunities.

Causes:

Failings of the welfare state.
Social structures such as stratification are the cause of this.
Marxists hold that poverty and exclusion are the consequences of a capitalist system.

Social exclusion pertains to the processes through which individuals can become isolated from complete engagement in broader society. It directs our focus towards a wide array of factors that hinder individuals or groups from accessing opportunities available to the majority of the population. To lead a fulfilling and participatory life, individuals must not only meet their basic needs for sustenance, clothing, and shelter but also have equitable access to essential goods and services, encompassing education, healthcare, transportation, insurance, social security, and even the ability to engage with law enforcement and the legal system.

Some features of social exclusion are:

It is a structural feature of society.
It is involuntary, i.e. exclusion is practiced regardless of the wishes of the excluded.
Prolonged experience of discriminatory behaviour often produces a reaction on the part of the excluded who then stop trying for inclusion.After they stop trying for inclusion they may no longer desire to be allowed in the Hindu temple or religious events. But this does not mean that social exclusion is not being practiced. The point is that the exclusion occurs regardless of the wishes of the excluded.

Ruth Levitas came up with three major discourses on why people are excluded from society.

Moral Underclass Discourse. Says that the excluded are seen as deviant, immoral, impulsive, welfare dependent, unhealthy, polluting (in case of India) and criminal.
Social Integrationist Discourse. Exclusion is seen as an outcome of exclusion from the paid labour market.
Redistributionist Discourse. Mainly about power and the way it is exercised. Looks into the structural causes of exclusion.

Amartya Sen says that exclusion involves 4 components:

The excluded.
Institutions from which they are excluded.
Agents of exclusion.
Processes used for exclusion.

Christine Bradley lists the major ways of social exclusion in India:

Geographical segregation. Dalits usually live separately from the rest of the village.
Intimidation.
Physical violence.
Barriers to entry. Mainly transaction costs and documentation requirements.
Corruption.

Impacts of social exclusion:

Deprivation – social, economic, educational, cultural, and political.
Social stigma and marginalisation.
Fear psychosis among the excluded. Ex. the Rohingya migrants from Myanmar.
Inequality, poverty, unemployment, and forced migration.
Deteriorating quality of life.
Scarcity mindset.

Theories of Stratification

These theories try to define four things:

Cause.
Structure.
Consequences.
Desirability.

Conflict Perspective

Marx

Creation of surplus and unequal access to surplus thus resulting in two classes. Aware of reality of multiple classes but for his works he considered only two classes.
Stratification is cumulative for Marx.
Stratification is based on in-built exploitation in class societies and is de-humanizing. Pauperisation, polarisation, and homogenisation leads to conflict and revolution.

Supplements Marxist ideas rather than supplanting them.

Structure of stratification (and class) is based on access to market rewards. Weber divides society into 4 classes based on their ability to access market.
Stratification is dispersed between class, power and status groups according to Weber. Unequal prestige hierarchy leads to formation of status groups. Quite often status hierarchy overlaps with class hierarchy, but not always. Status groups may cut across classes preventing homogenisation.
Weber agrees that stratification leads to exploitation which leads to conflict but revolution is only one of the possibilities. Even after a revolution, stratification won’t be removed due to unequal power among members.
Stratification is exploitative and thus undesirable, but it is universal in capitalist economies. In pre-capitalist economies only status differentiation exists.

Structural-Functionalist Theory

Consensus Perspective

Functionalist theorists tend to ignore structure of stratification in society, they are only concerned with the cause and consequences of any social item. SF theory holds that stratification results because of unequal distribution of rewards due to unequal talent.

Parsons

Value consensus needed in society. Society has some dominant values, those who perform better in terms of those values rewarded more, thus creating stratification.
Stratification acts as motivation to conform to societal values.
Unequal power desirable as DoL is essential.
Also stratification is universal as value consensus must be maintained in society.

Davis & Moore

Universal need in societies for effective role allocation and performance.
Some roles are more important than others (based on functional uniqueness and/or dependence). Stratification required for functional role allocation: most talented people to the most important roles.
As important roles require longer periods of training, they require greater sacrifice of time and money. Therefore, higher rewards are required to motivate talented people to work towards these roles.
Higher rewards also act as a continuous motivator for effective performance.
Effective role allocation and performance are the consequences of stratification.
It is desirable and universal as every society has the need, the need for speed.

Critique of Sructural Functionalist Theories

Merton: Unachievable goals lead to deviance. Making stratification dysfunctional.
Melvin Tumin critiqued Davis & Moore’s theory in detail.
There are no objective ways of measuring talent and the importance of roles.
Those with more power get more rewards. Not related to functional importance of roles.
Inequality not always motivating. It can act as a barrier too, ex: survival before sacrifice for unprivileged. Scarcity mindset.
Those who occupy highly rewarded posts erect barriers to recruitment. Ex. Judicial recruitment in India is restricted by the collegium system.
He said that only when perfect equality of opportunity is in place will stratification be functional, otherwise it acts as a barrier to the installation of the very same equality of opportunity.
In terms of sacrifice for training, Tumin said that there are a lot of perks of being a student, free time, opportunity for self-development etc.
In terms of money loss he says any loss during the training can be easily made up in the first 10 years of economic activity.
Gerhard Lensky said that stratification is both integrative and exploitative.

Social mobility entails the act of transitioning within the social framework. When this movement involves shifts along the social hierarchy, it’s termed vertical mobility, which can encompass both upward and downward shifts. On the other hand, altering one’s position within the social structure without changing their placement in the hierarchy is termed horizontal mobility.

The degree to which mobility is encouraged or restricted depends on societal norms. In open societies, mobility is typically promoted, while closed societies tend to limit it. It’s essential to recognize that no system is entirely open or closed, and universally, people aspire to achieve greater equality.

Pace of mobility may be different too:

Intra-generational. Ex. Ambani, Jobs, Gates became very rich in their own lifetime.
Inter-generational. Ex. jati status upgradation, sanskritisation, etc.

Causes of Mobility

Fox and Miller conducted a study focused on mobility, specifically examining the transition of blue-collar workers into white-collar occupations. Their research identified that the highest levels of mobility were achieved when five specific factors converged simultaneously.

High economic growth.
Expansion of education access.
Urbanization.
Political stability.
Achievement orientation.

Three longitudinal studies (same sample over long periods of time) were conducted in Britain to provide comparative perspectives on mobility. They are the Glass Study, the Oxford Study and the Essex Study.

1. Glass Study – 1949

David Glass played a pivotal role in formulating the widely adopted 7-class model utilized in all three studies. His research revealed that while there was significant absolute mobility, the majority of mobility observed was limited to short-range transitions. Notably, in the 1949 sample, there were no instances of individuals moving from class 7 to class 1, highlighting the rigidity of such mobility.

2. Oxford Study – 1972

The findings indicated a continued rise in absolute mobility. Additionally, it was observed that 7% of individuals from class 7 had transitioned to class 1, representing the most extensive form of mobility achievable. However, relative rates of mobility remained unequal, with 45% of class 1 members having fathers who also belonged to class 1.

3. Essex Study – 1984

This study expanded its scope to encompass women’s mobility and assessed mobility based on childhood supporters rather than solely the father. The findings revealed that one-third of individuals in class 1 had working-class backgrounds. However, individuals with upper-class origins were still seven times more likely to remain in the upper class. The gender disparity was even more pronounced, as upper-class women were found to be 14 times more likely to maintain their upper-class status.

Why does Mobility Occur?

Growth of occupations with high rewards.
Greater access to education.
Declining fertility in upper class.
Political stability (Pax Romana, Pax Brittanica)
High achievement orientation.
Urbanisation and rise of services.
NOTE: Inclusive economic development is a direct indicator of social mobility.
Consequences of Mobility
Leads to economic growth. Upwardly mobile people are more efficient.
Leads to cultural homogenisation. Ex. denims (a blue-collar cloth).
Reduces conflict and increases innovations in society.
Breakdown in class divisions. Polarisation decreases.
Anomie results.

Vertical mobility, as noted by Pakulski and Waters, contributes to the formation of status and positional hierarchies rather than strictly class-based hierarchies. This dynamic has a transformative impact on traditional systems, even within closed social structures, promoting change and evolution.