Page 12 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH
P. 12

Unit 1: Understanding Social Stratification


            power vary from naked violence to canvassing for votes with money, social influence, the force of  Notes
            speech, suggestion, clumsy hoax, etc.
            Critique
            After discussing various conceptualizations of social stratification, a critique of these becomes
            essential here. However, a somewhat detailed discussion will be taken up in the chapter on
            “Theories of Social Stratification”. Ralph Dahrendorf provides a distinct explanation of social
            stratification. According to Dahrendorf, social stratification is an immediate result of the control of
            social behaviour by positive and negative sanctions. Sanctions always create “a rank order of
            distributive status”. Stratification lies in certain features of all human societies which are necessary
            to them. A society has an authority structure to sustain its system of norms and sanctions. It has
            a system of “institutionized power”. Thus, stratification originates from “closely related trinity of
            norm, sanction and power”. The authority relations are always relations of superordination and
            subordination.





                    How  is ‘Class Situation’ determined ?

            As a critique of the Parsonian, Marxian and Weberian conceptualizations of stratification,
            Dahrendorf’s views on stratification are quite refreshing and logically sound formulation. He
            observes : “A theory of class based on the division of society into owners and non-owners of
            means of production loses its analytical value as soon as its legal ownership and factual control
            are separated.” The differential distribution of positions of authority in societies and their
            institutional orders create social classes and their conflicts. Control over the means of production
            is, therefore, a special case of authority. Classes are an element of social structure, determined by
            authority and its distribution. As such, classes are social conflict groups determined by exercise or
            non-exercise of authority within any imperatively coordinated association.
            A critique of the concept of social stratification is also found in Stanislaw Ossowski’s concept of
            class. According to Ossowski, the classes constitute a system of most comprehensive groups in the
            social structure. The class division concerns with social status connected with a system of privileges
            and discriminations not determined by biological criteria, and the membership of individuals in
            a social class is relatively permanent. What Ossowski has suggested is considerably different from
            the Marxian and the Weberian conceptualizations. It is closer to what is said by Tumin and
            Parsons. Ossowski suggests a scheme of “gradation” to understand social structure. Gradation
            denotes both subjectively evaluated and objectively measured rank. He classifies gradation into
            simple and synthetic categories. Gradation is based on objective criteria, such as income, wealth
            and property, which are bases of class divisions, and it becomes synthetic when two or more
            incommensurable criteria are involved.
            Another critique of the conventional concept of stratification is found in the view that classes are
            subjective categories and strata are objective units. A social class is a group by way of its thinking
            for its position and interests, and a common outlook. Richard Centers considers “class” as a
            “subjective component”, and “stratum” is determined by objective dimensions, such as occupation,
            income, power, standard of living, education, function, intelligence, etc. Class is subjective in
            character, being dependent upon class consciousness (i.e., a feeling of group membership). A
            man’s class is a part of his ego. Such a view of class seems to be quite unconvincing, however, it
            provides a psychological explanation of class and stratification.
            Close to the Dahrendorf’s view on social stratification, is the view held by Gerhard Lenski. Contrary
            to the views presented by Tumin and Parsons, Lenski puts emphasis on causes of social stratification
            rather than its consequences. His focus is on power and privilege rather than prestige. He equates



                                               LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY                                      7
   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17