Social Stratification

Introduction

Man has always desired an egalitarian society where

all human beings have equality but this noble ideal has

never been fully achieved in recorded history and

certainly not in modern societies which are more

concerned about equality than any other societies. The

indicators of development devised by national and

international organisations show that inequalities have,

in fact, increased within countries and between the

countries during the last century.

A number of agencies at different levels are engaged in

reducing economic and social equalities. The modem

state has taken the major responsibility for reducing

social inequalities. International organisations like

UNDP, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank also

playa major role in policy formulation and mobilization

of resources to reduce poverty. Voluntary organisations

are increasingly involved in the implementation of

development programmes whose major purpose is to

reduce poverty and empower people. Needless to say

these efforts have been only partially successful.

Social workers have a special interest in social

stratification. Social work aims at improving social

functioning of individuals, groups and communities. The

type and pattern of social stratification in a society

greatly influences individual and group behaviour. For

example, a caseworker will have to deal with an

individual who fears loss of status after a series of

business losses. Information on the class and caste

status is this important to understand the social

background of the individual. Similarly groups for doing

group work are often formed on the basis of these

criteria. In community organisation the need is even

more as opportunities for development in Indian society

depend on the class and caste position of the respective

community.

Social Stratification: Theoretical

Understanding

Social stratification can be defined as the arrangement

of groups of individuals in hierarchical positions on the

basis of criteria like wealth, prestige, ethnicity, gender

and power. Because of the similarity of their positions

in the social structure they develop a common

consciousness of who they are, what their common

problems are and what should be done to remove these

problems. Social stratification is a major form of social

inequality. Sociologists point out that in complex

industrial countries like U.S.A. the main type of social

inequality is individual based inequality and profession

based inequality. Lists have been prepared to show the

public perceptions of the relative prestige attached to

various occupations. One such list shows the medical

doctor on the top with the sweeper the bottom. The

social worker has a middle rank.

The quick mobility of individuals disturbs the

arrangement of status in the hierarchy and this prevents

the development of group consciousness. For the

development of group consciousness it is important that

there is stability in the social structure and that

individuals remain in a group for a considerable amount

of time and that the avenues for social mobility are

limited. In India class and caste are the main factors of

social stratification, about which we will now learn.

There are two prominent social thinkers who have

enriched our understanding of the nature, types and

consequences of social stratification: Karl Marx and Max

Weber.

Marx’s analysis of society gives an important role to the

economic factor. According to his theory of class, a class

consists of a group of people who have similar relations

to the forces of production. For example, in modem

societies, all individuals who own factories are capitalists

and all individuals who work in these factories for wages

are workers. Similarly in an agrarian society individuals

who own land can be called feudal lords and those who

work for them are serfs or labourers. He also believed

that the interests of these different groups were

irreconcilable, which means that one gains at the

expense of others. The result was that the workers,

labourers or slaves were always exploited by the

capitalists, feudal lords or slave owners in their

respective societies. All other institutions in society,

religious, political or educational, helped the process of

exploitation through various means. For example,

religion preaches fatalism, which convinces people that

their suffering cannot be prevented and that passive

suffering can bring them heavenly rewards after their

deaths. Similarly the government puts down with

coercion, attempts by the poorer sections to demand

justice in economic opportunities by calling it a law

and order problem or rebellion. In the Indian context a

Marxist analysis would interpret caste and the kanna

theory associated with it as justifying the exploitative

relations between the landlord and serfs. They prevent

the serfs from understanding that the landlord is

exploiting him and this prevents him from fighting the

exploitative system. Thus Marx places before us the

theory of economic basis of social inequality.

Max Weber, another prominent thinker, agreed with

many ideas of Marx but differed on others issues. He

agreed with Marx that the most important dimension of

stratification is economic which results in formation of

the hierarchical system of class but he points out that

there are other factors which determine social

stratification. According to him there are three

dimensions of stratification: wealth, status and power.

Weber also asserted that class formation did not depend

solely on ownership of productive forces. It depended

on the market situation by which an individual could

realize his potential in competition with others. For

example, a reputed lawyer or a doctor may not own a

field or an industry but he has specialized skills, which

not many others have. That is why these professionals

are paid lucrative salaries. Weber points out that if the

market situation of the individual is good then the

person can become wealthy and consequently gains

membership into the upper class. Status is the second

dimension of stratification and it is a measure of prestige

the society gives to an individual and that depends on

the lifestyle of the person. A person who occupies a

high office would be respected because of his status

and not because of his economic position. The third

dimension is power which is the ability of the individual

to influence the actions of others against their own

will. For example a village community leader may

neither be rich nor occupying a high office but his

position as leader of the community gives him power.

Weber agrees that in most cases, all three dimensions,

wealth, status and power are interrelated. A person

who enjoys wealth and power is likely to enjoy high

status. This is however true of most cases but not in all

cases. For example~ a dalit may be skilled and well to

do but may not be given the respect he deserves because

of his caste background. Weber by adding these

dimensions of stratification, has enabled a broader

understanding of social stratification.