Dimensions of Social Stratification
Stratification is a social ranking system involving relations of superiority and inferiority. Stratification is the creation of layers (or strata) of people who possess unequal shares of scarce resources such as income, wealth, power, and prestige. Each of the layers in a stratification system is a social class–a segment of a population whose members hold similar amounts of scarce resources and shared values, norms, and an identifiable lifestyle. Karl Marx and Max Weber made the most significant early contributions to the study of social stratification.
Karl Marx explained the importance of the economic foundations of social classes. However, social stratification refers to clearly defined social strata whose members have a common economic position and hence shared interests are central to Marxist theory.
The nature of class:
Marx used the term “class” to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems. For him, a class is a social group whose members stand in a common relationship to the means of production and how people gain a livelihood. Marx’s concept of class has thus a polarised character, i.e. a ruling class and a subject class. The former exploits and oppresses the subject class by its ownership and control of the means of production. A class, therefore, exists in opposition to another.
Thus during epochs preceding the rise of capitalism, the means of production consisted primarily of land and the instruments to raise crops or pastoral animals. In those societies, therefore, the two main classes were those who owned the land (aristocrats, gentry or slave-holders) and those actively engaged in producing from it (slaves, serfs and free peasantry). Similarly, in the capitalist era, there are two main classes:
The bourgeoisie or the capitalist class which owns the means of production (i.e. factories, machinery and the wealth or capital needed to buy them).
The working class or the proletariat, whose members own only their labour power and are obliged to sell it to the bourgeoisie in return for wages.
The relationship between classes, according to Marx, is one of dependency and conflict. Thus in a capitalist society, the capitalists depend on the labour power of wage labourers to carry on production, while the wage labourers must sell their labour power to survive. However, this mutual dependency of the two classes is not a relationship of equal reciprocity but a relationship of exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. Therefore, there is a conflict of interests between the oppressor and oppressed classes. All stratified societies have therefore been marked by conflict between social classes. The development of society is determined by the outcome of this class conflict. The Communist Manifesto opens with the epoch-making statement: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Thus taking class struggle as the driving force of social change, Marx explained that in a capitalist society, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will lead to the abolition of classes and the establishment of a classless, communist society.
The complexity of class systems:
Although Marx’s theory shows a two-class structure, he recognizes that actual class systems are much more complex. In addition to the two basic classes, there exist what Marx calls intermediate or transitional classes, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry. But the chief class conflict, according to Marx, takes place between two classes. Marx also recognizes splits which occur within classes: within the upper class between financial capitalists and industrial manufacturers, between small businesses and big corporations, and competition between workers.
Class consciousness:
Though classes are defined by their common economic position, an essential condition for the existence of a class, according to Marx, is that there must be a germ of class consciousness, an elementary sense of common interest and shared opposition to other classes. A class may exist “in itself” without being a class “for itself.” According to Marx, a class that has come into being but is not yet conscious of its fundamental interests is a class in itself. When it becomes aware of its real community of interest, manifesting in practice and organizing itself, it is a class for itself. This “subjective” dimension of class is very important, for, as Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire, the vast mass of peasants “living in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another do not form a class.” Without class consciousness, a class has no more than a potential existence.
In other words, a large group of people does not necessarily represent a social class, even if they share the same economic activity and mode of life. A social class must have a unity consciousness, a feeling of separation from other social classes, and a desire for common action. For there to be a class, the “objective” common economic situation must be supplemented by a “subjective” class consciousness of common interest to wage a common battle against other common special interests which are antagonistic. A class is born in the class struggle. Marx categorically expresses this: “Separate individuals form a class only to the extent that they must carry on a common struggle against another class.”
For Marx, therefore, the basic model is a two-class structure. Though aware of the existence of various groups, he divides the capitalist society into two great classes only- the wage earners (the proletariat) and the capitalists- because these are the only two groups who have truly contradictory images of what society should be and also have a definite political and historical purpose. The mode of existence of the industrial workers determined in capitalist society makes them conscious of their class identity and class solidarity; they gradually realize that capitalists and managers constitute an enduring opponent. They have a conception of an alternative society and, therefore, constitute a “social class in the true sense of the word, a class which is politically and historically defined by a will of its own.” The will of the working class is thus in fundamental opposition to the capitalists. There are various intermediate strata and groups (such as merchants, middle class, and petty bourgeoisie) within and between these two classes, but these groups do not constitute separate classes. In the course of historical development, they will be compelled to join either of the two opposing camps:
The camp of the working class.
The camp of the capitalists.
The outcome of the conflict between the capitalists and the working class would be the abolition of classes and the establishment of a classless communist society. This is, in a nutshell, Marx’s theory of class. It directs our attention towards the objectively structured economic inequalities in society. Class does not refer to the scale of income people enjoy or the beliefs people hold about their position. But to, objective conditions enable some to have greater access to material rewards than others. A further cardinal feature of Marx’s theory of class is that it is not simply a theory of social structure; it is also, and importantly, a theory of social change. It thus radically differs from the functionalist theory of stratification.
On the other hand, Max Weber identified three dimensions of stratification: class, status, and party.
Class:
Weber agrees with Marx that the major class division in capitalist societies is between those who own the means of production and those who do not. Thus those who have control over property will receive the highest economic rewards and enjoy superior life chances (i.e. chances of getting the good things of life things, such as higher education, high standard of living, leisure, freedom, etc. which are highly valued in society). However, Weber emphasizes the importance of the market as the economic basis for class much more than property. For him, the primary cause of inequality in capitalism is market capacity which is the skills brought to the labour market by the employees. Different occupational groups’ various skills and services have different market values. Differences in reward between occupations result from the scarce skill by the occupational group. Weber defines class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy and receive similar economic rewards. Thus, according to Weber, class is determined by an individual’s market situation, which depends on property relations and marketable skills. Accordingly, Weber distinguished the following class groupings in capitalist society:
The propertied upper class (Marx’s bourgeoisie)
The propertyless white-collar workers
The petty bourgeoisie
The manual working class (Marx’s ‘proletariat’)
We can thus see that Weber agrees with Marx that the crucial economic features of capitalism are private ownership of the means of production and markets for goods and services. The crucial difference is that Marx emphasized the first element while Weber emphasized the second.
Status:
Status refers to the differences between social groups in the social honour or prestige they are given by others. Status groups are people sharing a similar status, e.g. doctors, teachers, castes, and sub-castes in traditional Hindu society. Status divisions often vary independently of class divisions.
Possession of wealth normally tends to confer high status, but exceptions exist. Weber cites the case of the newly rich businessman who does not possess the education or “culture” to command high status.
Whereas class is objectively given, status depends on people’s subjective evaluations of social differences. Classes are derived from the economic factors associated with property and earnings. Status is governed by the differences in “styles of life” follow. Differences in property result in groups “life chances” while status differences lead most importantly to differences in “life-styles.” In short, status groups “are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special “styles of life.”
Parties (Power):
Weber’s third dimension of stratification is a party. In modern societies, Weber points out, parties are formed for “the acquisition of social power” and can influence stratification independently of class and status. Parties are groups which are specifically concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in the interests of their membership Parties, Weber says, “may represent interests determined through ‘class situation’ or ‘status situation.’ But they need be neither purely ‘class’ nor purely ‘status’ parties, and frequently they are neither” Parties may appeal to concerns cutting across class differences; for example, parties may be based on religious affiliation or nationalist ideals. Social inequality might be based on political power mobilized through a party.
It has been said that Weber’s theory of stratification is a reaction to Marx’s theory of class. We can say that Weber is the founding father of stratification analysis. Marx, on the other hand, was not a stratification theorist. For him, the oppositions and contradictions found in modes of production were of central importance. On the contrary, Weber developed his ideas on stratification. He emphasized the distinction of stratification's economic, social, and political bases. Thus, he provided a multi-dimensional approach to the study of social stratification.
x
Post a Comment