Page 8 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 1: Understanding Social Stratification

similar way, Talcott Parsons regards social stratification as the differential ranking of the human Notes
individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and inferior
relative to one another in certain socially important respects. Parsons distinguishes quite carefully
between “stratification” and “differentiation” as the criteria are also differentiated as “social” and
“non-social”, respectively. The social criteria are the basis of the differential evaluation of units in
a social system. These are : kinship, personal qualities, achievements, possessions, authority,
power, etc. The non-social criteria are simply basis of differentiation. These are age and sex. Thus,
for Parsons, stratification is the main aspect of normative orientation of human individuals as
units.
Kaare Svalastoga does not distinguish between “differentiation” and “stratification” like Parsons.
Svalastoga prefers to use the term “social differentiation” instead of “social stratification” to refer
to any differences between individuals, social positions or groups, which evolve in the process of
social interaction. In fact, such a view is not substantially different from the definitions as given by
Tumin and Parsons. Tumin also refers to evolution of stratification in the process of social interaction
as it is observed by Svalastoga. However, Svalastoga is somewhat more precise in his
conceptualization of stratification. He refers to four major forms of differentiation : (1) functional
differentiation or division of labour, (2) rank differentiation, (3) custom differentiation, and (4)
competitive differentiation. According to Svalastoga, rank differentiation refers to stratification -
status differentiated, or stratified group, organization, society. Rank differentiation is present in
all known human societies and in a wide range of animal societies. Svalastoga does not differentiate
between rank differentiation and hierarchy. He observes that hierarchy is a stable phenomenon
and functions as a distributive system for the allotment of privileges, and as such it further
strengthens hierarchy and unequal distribution, and creates a vicious circle of inequality.
Functional differentiation or division of labour is an unavoidable necessity for smooth functioning
of society. The functional divisions may be non-antagonistic grades evolved/created for meeting
the basic needs of a given human society. Custom differentiation refers to the rules for differential
proper behaviour. Competitive differentiation implies success and failure of individual members
in general or in a given context. Thus, it is the rank differentiation that applies to individuals,
social positions, groups and even to societies, hence it is found universally. Like Parsons, Svalastoga
also refers to biological and sociological explanations of stratification. In the biological explanations,
factors of time and space and variation in stratification are not considered. The sociological
explanation stresses upon both cooperation and conflict among individuals and groups.

What is Stratification?

A somewhat elaborate conceptualization is provided by P.A. Sorokin. According to Sorokin, social
stratification means the differentiation of a definite population into hierarchically superposed
classes. It is manifested in the existence of upper and lower layers. Stratification thus implies
unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values and
privations, social power and influences among the members of a specific society. There are different
and numerous concrete forms of social stratification, such as economically stratified, politically
stratified, occupationally stratified. These are principal forms and interrelated with each other.
The above mentioned conceptualizations of social stratification imply mainly status distinctions in
the modern liberal western world which is encapsulated by capitalism. The fact is that the non-
western world is not having the same industrial and capitalistic ethos. The assumption is that the
similarity of division of labour or necessity or functionality of the same activities cannot be validated

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 3