Page 256 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 12: Mobility in Closed and Open Systems of Stratification

people into upper class, upper-middle class, lower-upper-middle class, upper-lower class and Notes
lower-lower class. One may not agree with the criteria chosen by Warner and his associates with
regard to the weight given to different and diverse occupations, ‘education, etc., because criteria
such as wealth, power or land owned are far more clearly quantifiable and measurable. “An open
system of stratification is ultimately best suited when mobility and class status are plotted, or can
be plotted, on a single quantifiable variable.” “An open system gets complicated once elements of
incommensurable differences are superimposed on it.”

In an open system of stratification, “hierarchy may be fixed and firm, but individuals
can go up or even down the hierarchy”.

“Generally, America is perceived as an ideal case of an open system of social stratification. In
America, individual is supreme. “This makes it the ideal locale for a system of stratification to
exhibit itself.” America accepts a certain kind of similarity among its people. Gupta states that “in
an open system of stratification upward mobility does not mean that somebody else must lose
status as a consequence”. The assumption is that people are all equal and that mobility occurs to
the extent that people can realize their potentials.

12.2 Closed System of Social Stratification

In a closed system of stratification, caste, race, religion, ethnicity, etc., are central considerations.
Ascribed characteristics are given prime importance in a such system. However, such considerations
are always questioned and disputed. As in an open system, quantity is the main yardstick, quality
is the deciding criterion in a closed system of stratification. Distinctions between groups of people
such as castes/races are elaborated in the closed system. Both difference and hierarchy characterize
such a system. The two together make the system rigid, hence mobility becomes an uphill
endeavour. There have been several mobility movements to effect change in India’s rigid caste
system. Gupta argues that in a closed system of stratification, differences are basic and hierarchy
follows from them. Hierarchy is built after differences. The differences are basically
incommensurable and unrankable in character, hence, upward mobility encounters strong
impediments.
Because of this, mobility is a rare and difficult possibility, and even if it occurs, it is unquantifiable.
Mobility is far from a usual phenomenon in closed system of stratification such as caste and race.
Let us make it clear that a closed system has never been absolutely static, nor an open system is
just opposite of a closed system. At times, an open system develops a tendency of resistance to
change and mobility, and similarly, a closed system under acute forces and pressures, bends
toward change and mobility. Even the caste system was challenged in ancient and medieval
periods, and it showed resilience and dynamism. Today, the intercaste relations, which were the
bedrock of the caste system, have disappeared. Commensal ties have nearly vanished. Connubiality
is becoming weak. But caste identities for non-caste reasons, particularly for political and economic
gains, are becoming stronger. Thus, closed and open systems of social stratification are not poles
apart, the two are relative, and one has some features of the other.

“In a closed system of stratification the hierarchy does not have the complicity of all those
who are deemed to be within it.” The main factor is that rather than an individual, a
group or a sub-group is ranked as higher and lower.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 251