Page 61 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes Weber cites example of “caste” as a status group. Status distinctions are guaranteed not merely by
conventions and laws, but also by rituals. Castes are status groups, and there is a combination of
ideal and material factors in caste. Each caste has a style of life of its own. Weber says that the
decisive role of a “style of life” in “status honour” means that status groups are the specific fearers
of all “conventions”. “Stylization” of life originates from status groups.
“Classes” are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by
special “styles of life”. An “occupational group” is also a status group. For example, Brahmins are
a status group as they perform priestly functions. However, technological change and economic
transformation threaten stratification by status pushing the class situation into the foreground.

What do you mean by Status Circle ?

Power (Parties)
“Classes” are found in economic order, “status groups” are seen in the sphere of the distribution
of honour, and these two influence each other, and also the legal order, and are influenced by it.
But “parties” live in a house of power. Thus, Weber asserts autonomy and interdependence of
class, status and power.
Action by “parties” is oriented toward acquisition of social “power”, that is to say, toward
influencing a communal action, no matter what its contents may be. In principle, “parties” may
exist in a social club, as well as in a “state”. The communal actions of “parties” always mean a
socialization. They are directed to a goal. A goal may be cause of action. It may also be due to a
personal reason. “Parties” are thus possible within communities.
“Class situation”/”status situation” may determine “parties”. But parties may not be either “classes”
or “status groups”. They are partly class parties and partly status parties. But sometimes they are
neither. They have staff, rules of the game. “Parties” may represent ephemeral or enduring
structures. Means of attaining power vary from naked violence to canvassing for votes with
money, social influence, the force of speech, suggestion, clumsy hoax, etc. Parties differ in terms
of the nature of communal action. They also differ based on the community stratification by status
or by classes. They vary according to the structure of domination within the community. History
of parties can be seen vis-a-vis history of society.
H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills observe that much of Weber’s method is informed by a skilful
application of Marx’s historical method. Weber used this method as a “heuristic principle”. Weber
was not, however, in favour of a view of world history or a monocausal theory. He was against
reducing the multiplicity of casual factors to a single-factor theorem. He was not for reductionism.
Weber’s analysis of power and political structures closely parallels the Marxian approach to class
and economic structures. Marx is less careful in distinguishing between economic power and
political power. Weber, as a liberal, makes there spheres clearly distinct : “economic”, “economically
determined” and “economically relevant”.
Weber emphasizes on the struggle for the means of “political rule”. State enjoys monopoly of
power. Like Marx, Weber brings ideological phenomena into some correlation with the material
interests of economic and political orders. Weber has a keen eye for “rationalizations”, reflected in
his concept of “ideal type”, action, bureaucracy, capitalism, etc. Weber talks of both “interests”
and “ideologies” with equal emphasis. For Weber, modern capitalism is not irrational, it is very
embodiment of rationality.

56 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY