Page 24 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Basic Concepts Relating to Stratification

3. Why must their compulsory character be enforced by sanctions ? Notes
4. Is this in fact the case in all historical societies ?
Dahrendorf claims that such questions weaken the rigidities of inequality. However, he observes
that “the origin of social inequality lies neither in human nature nor in historically dubious
conception of private property. It lies rather in certain features of all human societies, which are
(or can be seen as) necessary to them”. Differentiation of social positions in terms of the division
of labour or the multiplicity of roles is a universal feature of all societies. However, evaluative
differentiation of ranks or social positions based on scales of prestige and income is not
correspondingly universal and inevitable.
According to Dahrendorf, social stratification is a very real element of our everyday lives. It is a
system of distributive system, i.e., a system of differential distribution of desired and scarce
things. Besides honour and wealth, prestige and income, legitimate power, patronage or the
distribution of power as a reward for certain deeds or virtues could be considered as criteria of
differential ranks. Following Weber’s distinction between power and authority, Dahrendorf
observes that power and power structures logically precede the structures of social stratification.
Thus, explanation of inequality lies in power structures. In other words, norm, sanction and
power are closely related phenomena in the explanation of social inequality. Inequality is a reality.
The idea of a perfectly egalitarian society is unrealistic and terrible.
W.G. Runciman also asks the question : “What exactly should be meant by social inequality ?” The
obvious answer to this question is that the rich and the poor are found everywhere and in all
societies, and so are the strong and the weak in every known society. In every epoch, inequality
has been a burning issue, and efforts have also been made to reduce its magnitude. The fact is that
social inequalities are diverse and intricate as viewed by Runciman. He writes : “If social inequalities,
of any kind, are to be either evaluated or explained, they must be first of all distinguished by
reference to the numbers of separate dimensions in which the members of societies are collectively
ranked above or below one another - that is, the meaning to be given to ‘social stratification’ as
such.” Based on such a definition of social inequality, and agreeing with Weber’s triology of
“class, status and party”, Runciman affirms class, status and power as three crucial dimensions of
social inequality (stratification). We would discuss this classification later on while explaining the
Weberian approach.

2.2 Hierarchy and Social Exclusion to Stratification
Hierarchy

Ordinarily, the term ‘hierarchy’ is used for ordering of social units as superior and inferior or
higher and lower. Race and caste are considered as natural hierarchies as both imply an ordering
of endogamous groups having unchanging hereditary membership. On the basis of endogamy
caste and race have some similarities, but the two are based on distinct and different principles,
and the actual functioning of the two is also not similar.

Hierarchy as a principle of ranking or ordering signifies for more rigidity and staticness
compared to the terms like stratification, differentiation, class and power.

Louis Dumont on Hierarchy
Famous French sociologist Louis Dumont has given a big boost to the concept of hierarchy while
explaining India’s caste as a system of rigid and static system of stratification. Dumont’s well-

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 19