Page 7 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes 1.1 Concept of Social Stratification

The concept of social stratification is interpreted differently by the various theoretical perspectives
of sociology. Proponents of action theory have suggested that since social stratification is commonly
found in developed societies, hierarchy may be necessary in order to stabilize social structure.
Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, asserted that stability and social order are regulated, in
part, by universal value although universal values were not identical with “consensus” but could
as well be the impetus for ardent conflict as it had been multiple times through history. Parsons
never claimed that universal values in and by themselves “satisfied” the functional prerequisites
of a society, indeed, the constitution of society was a much more complicated codification of
emerging historical factors. The so-called conflict theories, such as Marxism, point to the
inaccessibility of resources and lack of social mobility found in stratified societies. Many sociological
theorists have criticized the extent to which the working classes are unlikely to advance
socioeconomically; the wealthy tend to hold political power which they use to exploit the proletariat
intergenerationally. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf, however, have noted the tendency toward
an enlarged middle-class in modern Western societies due to the necessity of an educated workforce
in technological and service economies.
Social stratification is a universal phenomenon, an unavoidable feature of all human societies,
though found in different forms and degrees. Individuals, positions and groups are differentiated
based on specific norms and criteria in a given society. The norms and criteria on the basis of
which people are differentiated evolve over a period of time. Based on the nature of a society, its
culture, economy and polity, stratification could be simple and less elaborate, or it could be
complex and more elaborate. The considerations in stratification in a society could be achievements
of an individual member, or of his/her family or community or of all the three in different ways
and in different permutations and combinations. The units ranked in a society could therefore be
an individual, a family, and a group or all the three in different contexts and situations or in
conjunction with one another.

No system of stratification is static/stable for ever. Even rigid systems of stratification
based on caste, race, ethnicity and estate are changing quite perceptibly.

Flexibility in norms and criteria of social stratification is being considered today as an indicator of
progress, development, equality and social justice. Old systems of social stratification are, however,
being transformed and replaced by the new norms and criteria of social ranking. Thus, the study
of social stratification involves the understanding of ideology, structure and process as parameters
of inequality and its dynamics. Ideology implies values, norms and criteria on the basis of which
units are ranked as higher and lower, superior and inferior. Structure refers to the totality of units
ranked, and process indicates the changes which occur in the ideology and structure of social
stratification.
Structural-Functional Viewpoint
Melvin M. Tumin defines social stratification as the arrangement of any social group or society
into a hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation,
and/or psychic gratification. Normally, power, property (class) and social evaluation (status and
prestige) are considered as the most important bases of determination of position in a given
society. Max Weber refers to “class, status and party” as three important “orders” of society,
namely, economic, social and political, in allocation of positions, duties and responsibilities. In the

2 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY