1. Social Structure:
Relationships develop in the social group that establish how we relate to one another,
both within the family unit and among family units. As we shall see in a few weeks, the
family unit is the basic unit in the society, here our concern is with the social structure
and how one unit or group of units relates to another. We can imagine a network or giant
web with each family being a node in that web. The web is the structure of the society.
The web will also be multidimensional, linking not just families but also churches,
schools, businesses, communities and so on. All of this taken together is the structure of
the society
2. Stratification or inequality as Social Structure
Within this overall set of relationships there will be some relationships that have
importance in terms of ranking and in terms of establishing other relationships within the
web -- this is what we call the system of stratification or inequality. These rankings relate
to the distribution of goods and services by the units in the society, to access to those
goods and services and to power to dispose of them. This is ultimately the system of
social stratification. The system may take a number of forms -- class, estates, castes or
status groups.
3. What the system of inequality provides for the social system
This system of inequality establishes who get what goods and has access to what kinds of
services within the society. For this reason the structure of inequality and the system of
stratification are very important characteristics of the society. Differences in the rules that
apply to the distribution and access give rise to the different types of stratification
systems noted above.
II. The Basic concepts
1. social class:
Social class is a ranking or grouping of individuals according to position in the economic
scheme of things. Class in this sense can be based on income, source of income (wealth,
salary or wages), and occupation. In the terms of Karl Marx, class refers to how a group
of people relate to the production of goods and services in the society.
The idea of social class is widely used and misused. In the media you will find reference
to the middle class very common. However, upon closer inspection you will inevitably
find these sources are actually discussing income groups and not social class per se.
Economically based class actually refers to the overall position of a group of people. This placement takes into account what kind of work a person does, the kind of income that he
or she has and how the person relates to the means of producing goods and services in the
society.
For example if a person works primarily with the hands at some form of skilled, semiskilled
or unskilled work, one is in the working class (regardless of income). If the work a
person does depends more upon the use of the mind or clerical skills, then the person
doing that work is considered to be middle class (again independent of income). People
who do not have a regular, steady occupation or one that is 'recognized' as legitimate are
seen to be part of the lower class or possibly an underclass. Finally, if a person does no
productive work but instead commands others to work or relies upon an inheritance or
income from investments, than the person is considered upper class. These classifications
will be expanded upon later.
2. social status:
This is the social dimension of inequality. Grouping or position is based upon social
value and ranking. Status is determined here by "who you are." For example, if your
ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, you may have higher social status than someone who
entered through the Ellis Island immigration terminal in New York City.
This type of grouping may also relates to the 'pedigree' of your parents. If you are listed
in the 'social register' or are a Philadelphia 'mainline' family, you have very high social
status. Another way that a family may gain status is to be among the pioneers who settled
a particular area. For example, in Oregon families who can trace their ancestry to those
who came overland on the Oregon Trail have high status in that state.
3. power:
Grouping or ranking on this dimension relates to the amount of clout one has in getting
things done in the community. You do not have to have either wealth or status. Union
leaders often have a great deal of power, but very little in the way of either wealth or
status. George Meany (an early head of the AFL / CIO) had a great deal of power.
Power can come from a variety of sources, it can be in the force of personality (Martin
Luther King), it can come from organizational membership (George Meany, Walter
Ruether, John L. Lewis, all early labor leaders), or from location in the political system
(Wellington Webb, Norm Early, Federico Pena, Hank Brown, Ben Nighthorse Campbell
and so on).
4. class awareness:
The degree to which people are aware of social class and their position in it. (See the
family names exercise as an example of class awareness / identification) Americans are
more aware of class today than they were in the immediate past. However, many will argue that there are no strict class limits here as exist in Europe or in
Asian countries (for example, many economists do so, saying that classes do not exist in
the United States, some politicians also believe this to be the case). This confusion may
flow from our belief that anyone can work hard and eventually enter the highest social
level. Closer examination shows that this is true only to limited degree, that there are
indeed boundaries between classes, and people from lower level more often than not
cannot overcome them.
5. class awareness and class consciousness:
Awareness simply means that you know classes exist and have some vague idea of what
class you belong to. Consciousness on the other hand is much more definitive. If one has
class consciousness one is not only aware of class membership, but of the corporate
interest of that class vis-à-vis other classes and the society as a whole. Thus if you are a
member of the working class and have class consciousness, you know that it is in your
interests to support certain political parties, to work for the union and its interests. You
know that there are times when the government is acting contrary to your interests in
pursuing a war, formulating a domestic policy in support of developers, etc. Similarly, if
you are member of the upper class you are quite conscious of that and how the actions of
the government can and will affect your status and position. You will work to control the
government so that the laws favor you with tax breaks, little or no regulation of your
business and so forth.
III. systems of stratification: Estate, caste
and class
Differing time periods and historic conditions have given rise to several different kinds
and types of systems of stratification. The feudal period of Europe and Asia (especially
Japan) gave rise to an estate system of stratification. Religious traditions in India, South
Africa and America have given rise to a caste system of stratification. Finally, modern
capitalist (free market or centrally planned, i.e., socialist) have given rise to a class
system of stratification. Let's briefly examine each of these in turn.
1. An estate system
The central characteristic of the estate system of stratification is that it is based in land
and in loyalty to an entity that controls, distributes the land -- usually the monarchy. In
this kind of system of inequality there are three estates: the landed gentry/nobility, the
serfs or peasantry, and the clergy.
Each of these broad categories stood in very clear relationship to one another. The landed
gentry/nobility made the decisions and ran things. They controlled the land and how it
was to be used. The serfs or peasantry worked the land, providing goods and services for
the gentry and for the clergy as well as for themselves. The clergy provided for the
spiritual needs of the countryside. The landed gentry/nobility stood at the top of the order,
sharing to some degree position with the clergy. The peasants or serfs were at the bottom.
Within each of these broad categories there were rankings as well. For example in the
clergy there were distinctions between the country parish priests and the upper hierarchy
of the church. Parish priests were often recruited from the peasantry, the upper hierarchy
from the gentry and nobility. Similar distinctions in rank were apparent in the gentry
nobility -- note the differences in titles used in England for example. Among the
serf/peasantry there were distinctions between yeomen, relatively well-to-do small land
holders who worked their own land and the general run of the mill serf that lived
essentially at the beck and call of the lord of the manor.
Systems of this type characterized much of Europe following the collapse of the Roman
Empire and was pretty well developed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the
1700s. The system began to collapse in European societies with the French Revolution
and never became established in America after the American Revolution (with the
possible exception of the American South).
Virtually all of Eastern Asia (China and Japan) developed a similar type of social
structure that lasted until strong European contact in the middle of the 19th Century.
Japan's system had many similarities to that of England, with some interesting parallels in
their historical changes after European contact. Among them is an emphasis upon merit
as a means of getting ahead with a particular estate
2. Caste systems
The principal distinction between a cast and estate system has to do with the part played
by religion in the separation of groups. Both caste and estate systems were based in
agriculture and the ownership of property. However, the caste system made distinctions
among groups of people in terms of their standing sanctioned by religion. In India there
were three broad castes and the untouchables. The categories of people were rooted in
religious belief and the boundaries between the castes sanctioned by religion. These
boundaries meant that castes were largely self-contained groups, people were exclusively
members of a particular caste at birth with no possibility of moving out of their caste of
birth. Caste determined who they could marry, where they could live, what kind of work
they could do and so on. If there was any mobility (i.e., change in social standing within
the society) it occurred to the entire caste, not to some individuals.
A key feature of the caste system is the control the dominate caste had over the others.
These groups were in charge and had exclusive control of the society and how things
were done within the society. India is the chief example of caste society and where the
system was first described. However, given the definitions above (religiously sanctioned,
permanent group membership) two other societies come very close to having caste
systems -- the American South up through the end of WWII and the beginning of the
Civil Rights Movement and South Africa up to the election of Nelson Mandella as President a few years ago. Care must be taken with these interpretations since the
American South also had many characteristics of the feudal system -- manor houses,
plantations and a parallel structure with the clergy and 'peasants' -- the so-called rednecks
and share croppers of the South
3. Class systems
Class systems seem to be more a product of the industrial revolution. Classes arise from
the industrial productive system. Marx is in fact one of the first to describe such a system,
but does not go a long way toward defining what the classes are except to note there are
two principal classes: owners and workers. In the class system, people are set apart by
what they do for a living and how they do it. Thus we find managers, professionals
(doctors, lawyers, clergy) placed together in a similar class. People who earn their living
by using their hands are defined as working class -- carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers,
loggers, mechanics, assembly line workers and so on. Between these two groups
(managers and workers) is a large group of lower white collar workers -- clerks, sales
people, teachers, draftsmen, computer technicians and so on. At the very bottom of the
class system are those with no skills and no steady employment or employment outside
the 'legitimate' economic system -- day laborers, drug dealers, prostitutes, petty thieves
and other criminals. This group also often is seen to include the mentally disabled and
mentally ill since they lack the necessary skills or ability for long term, continuous
employment. Finally, there is the upper class, the individuals at the very top who control
the means of production in the society and who make the rules.
The class system tends to be somewhat more open than either the estate or caste system.
People can move up (or down) with some degree of ease. However, as Stark points out in
the text, even this is often severely limited in some class societies. For example in the
United States, successful mobility is often dependent upon successful completion of an
education. Access to the education structure as we shall see is often a product of one's
class position. If you were born to a minority family in a central city neighborhood (north
City Park in Denver for example), your chances of completing high school are limited
and if you are able to do so your opportunity for higher education is even more limited.
Certainly you will be unlikely to attend a selective college or University like Harvard. If
your family lives in Cherry Hills Village, there are no obstacles to your success with the
possible exception of outright stupidity or idiocy (in the technical sense). A mediocre
performance in high school will mean a good chance to enter a good college or university
and then to move on to an appropriate career in industry or politics.
4. Summary
These are very general systems of stratification or inequality that have existed in
particular historical, social contexts. Castes and estates are found in early agrarian
societies with some elements carrying over to contemporary industrial societies in some
parts of the world. Class systems are a product of the industrial societies. Class systems
often retain some of the characteristics of their predecessors (the existence of a nobility in
modern England, for example). Attempts to interpret these systems have given rise to a
number of different understandings of social stratification and inequality. These are
presented in the next section.
Basic Theoretical Formulations
The basic theoretical formations of social stratification are drawn from analysis of the
entire society. Inequality and its roots have intrigued students of society from the days of
the Greeks (see the discussion of Plato's views of inequality in the text). These
formulation also often include an evaluative component of the nature of the inequality,
that it is either good or bad. Karl Marx and many contemporary conflict theorists look
upon inequality as evil and something that should be replaced. Others such as the
functionalist (exemplified here by Davis and Moore) see inequality as necessary, required
for the successful operation of the society. There are some who take a neutral view such
as Max Weber. This view simply takes into account the existence of inequality and then
attempts to understand what that inequality is and what are its consequences. Watch for
these themes as you read the sources relating to the attempts to formulate theories of
social stratification or inequality
A. conflict: Karl Marx
1. The economic basis of society
For Marx, the fundamental determinate of social structure is the economic organization
of society. He identified three basic features of society:
(1) material forces of production (methods people use to produce things) This is the
technology or system that provides the goods and services in a very broad sense. An
example of technology is the feudal agricultural, another is the capitalist industrial.
(2) the relations of production arise from the material forces and include property
relations and rights. These relations are the economic organization of society.
In the feudal agricultural society, the relations show up in the form of land owner
(landlord) and land worker (tenant farmer or serf). In this scheme of things, the owner
needs the worker as the worker needs the owner to a degree. Social arrangements develop
that tie the worker to the land, thus the worker is only partially free to sell his labor and
then only to his feudal lord. He cannot sell it anywhere else. The worker (serf) is also
isolated in small communities and there is only marginal cooperation among the
landowners and even less among the serfs.
In the capitalist industrial society, the relations of production center on who owns the
factory and who provides the labor. The capitalist owns the factory (the means of
production), the worker provides (owns) his labor power. Each needs the other, that is the
capitalist must purchase the worker's labor, the worker can only sell his labor to the capitalist. However, there are far more workers than there are capitalists, so the worker
must compete continually with her/his fellow workers, some of whom will be willing to
sell their labor for less than s/he will.
Both must relate to one another in this fashion in order to survive. In this scheme of
things, there are more workers than there are capitalists. The result is that the worker may
have a difficult time demanding full value for his labor since he must compete with all of
the other laborers. If labor is in great supply the owner is free to go to whoever will work
for what he is willing to pay.
According to Marx, surplus value is generated when the owner pays the worker only
subsistence and manages to get more than subsistence from the product of that labor. This
difference (profit) is surplus value in the Marx scheme.
Unlike the serf, the industrial workers live in cities, comes together in great numbers.
This is an important feature in the formation of militant classes and in the Marxist
revolution.
(3) forms of social consciousness: the legal structures and ideas that correspond to and
support the first two. This will include unions and laws that protect labor as developed
from conflict between the laboring classes and the owners. It also includes the
associations of producers that work with the government to protect the interests of the
manufacturers (e.g., the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile
Dealers Association, the National Cattleman's Association and so forth).
This social consciousness consists of the laws, the values and religious values beliefs that
support and justify the existing forces and relationships of production.
(4) The forces and relations of production are taken to be the substructure of the society,
the social consciousness is then the superstructure resting on the former. This means that
what happens in the society, i.e., changes, conflicts, etc., are a result of the underlying
forces of production. All else merely supports and justifies these forces. Marx called
religion the opiate of the masses in this context. Why? Consider how Christianity might
be seen to support an existing social structure in the manner in which it suggests one will
receive rewards.
1. critique: are using two principles here, forces and relations. To understand
differences among societies with similar economic organizations must look to
other factors and structures to understand what is happening in the society, e.g.,
the legal codes, the religious or military organization. This seems to suggest
something less than the inevitable revolution that Karl Marx predicted.
I find it rather interesting that the 'proletarian revolution' that Marx predicted did not
occur in 1917 in Russia, but in the 1980s in Poland when the Polish workers came
together in SOLIDARITE to throw off the existing 'state capitalists.' True this did happen in a so-called communist country, but examine that change carefully and you will
note it very closely parallels what Marx thought would happen in industrial societies.
2. class and economic base of conflict
a. Introduction
All forms of economic organization generate conflict between classes defined by
common economic position
Three important propositions are part of this:
1. people whose economic position, or 'class,' is the same tend to act together as a
group (klasse fur sich)
2. economic classes are the most important groups in society, their history is human
history.
3. classes are mutually antagonistic, the interests of different classes do not coincide
in anyway. Conflicts are inevitable and define how society develops
b. property and class
Class is "economic:" strictly speaking yes, but the definition is much narrower --
indicates how people are related to "property" -- those without property are members of
the proletariat, including salaried engineers, teachers, managers and so on. (Please note
that property in this sense refers exclusively to the means of production and 'resources' of
the society. It does not refer to your home or personal property.) This is so because
individuals are selling their labor to whoever owns the firm for which they work. Thus
the professor sells his / her expertise to the state or the private university. The manager
similarly sells her / his managerial skills in the service of the firm.
Class then is a group of people who have a similar relationship to the means of
production in a society -- if they own, then they are the bourgeoisie, entrepreneurial or
capitalist class. If they sell their labor, knowledge and skills, then they are technically
members of the proletariat or working class. Note that this is a very narrow definition of
the economic and it is hinged entirely on the ownership of production.
What would be the class of a group of professors who jointly have established a college
or university? Where would the students fit into scheme of things? Who are the workers?
Who the owners?
Economic theory of value / labor theory of value:
1. value of a commodity is seen to rest only in the labor that goes directly to making
it. (this is the cost of maintaining the worker)
2. what each worker produces at work is much more than this minimal survival --
this is surplus value (see discussion in Charles Anderson, The Political Economy of Class for a further discussion of both the labor theory of value and surplus
value)
3. Here is how the surplus value comes about: Suppose that it takes 6 hours of labor
to provide for the worker and his/her family. The key here is that the capitalist
schedules work so the worker produces enough goods to support himself in 6
hours, but in order to keep his job he must work the full 8 hours while only
getting paid for the 6 hours. The product completed in the extra two hours
constitute surplus value, what the worker gives to the capitalist for the privilege of
working.
4. By definition this surplus value is exploitation. In this view of the capitalist
scheme of things, there are more workers than there are jobs. The workers must
compete with one another for the available jobs, the capitalist will pay the least
amount that he can. In any event it cannot be less than subsistence or the workers
will not survive.
c. class conflict
1. class consciousness and corporate action
The Marxist argument is that industrialization brings people together in communities
where they are forced to interact with one another, in this forced interaction they come to
realize their common interests, and from this realization begin to act as a corporate class -
- to develop class consciousness. It is the responsibility of the revolutionary in this
situation to bring that to the attention of these corporate classes (the proletariat), to focus
their energies on the structure of the society and its exploitative relationships
The real interests of the workers are found in this coming together and throwing off the
yoke of the capitalist, to begin to work for his own benefit and interests. This involves
recapturing the manufacturing process and work setting, turning the output to meeting the
needs of the worker and not the profits of the capitalist class.
The capitalist may distract the worker from these real interests by focusing on or
emphasizing immediate or short term interests, such as the chance for promotion with
higher pay, special bonuses and the like.
If corporate action fails to develop, other, non-Marxist analysts point out that changes in
the structure of the society may alter the 'real' and immediate interests of the class.
Changes in the society will alter all of these interests so that it is in the long term interest
of the worker to accept the immediate benefits.
There is some evidence that this is what has happened in the United States. Through the
process of Unionization some gains have been made in working conditions and pay so
that the worker feels that s/he is gaining some part of the profits and a fairer share of the
goods and services produced by the business and for the country.
d. class and patriarchyLink family to economic organization: women are domestic slaves, encouraged by
capitalist economic organization, the 'bourgeois family' will disappear with the
disappearance of capitalism.
Radical feminists argue that the sexual division of labor predates capitalism and is rooted
in patriarchy.
Capitalism reinforces this structure, getting rid of capitalism will not remove the
patriarchy and its effect on women.
c. culture, ideology and alienation
1. introduction
2. culture and reproduction
B. conflict: but multidimensional: Max Weber
1. Introduction:
Weber introduces us to the idea that there are several dimensions to the inequality that
exists in a society. He essentially agrees with Marx in the economic basis of social
inequality of class, class is economic in nature and relates to what Marx had to say.
Weber, however did not limit his interpretation and discussion to a dichotomy as did
Marx (i.e., Marx says two classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat)
Further Weber sees class, as did Marx, as being based in power and the distribution of
power. However, that power is not limited to the economic dimension, there are social
and political dimensions as well.
Three dimensions are identified:
1. economic: social class
2. social: prestige or status group
3. political: "party" or political power group
2. Social class
As indicated, this very similar to the formulation made by Karl Marx. Class is economic
and is established by what one does for a living, the contribution groups make to the
productive system of the society. Unlike Marx, Weber suggested the possibility of a
number of groups within this dimension. The top level would be divided between those
who actually own the means of production and the managers and others who oversee and
often run the enterprise in the name of the owners. Similar distinctions are made in the
working class based upon skills and what one actually does. One's occupation places one in the structure and adds to the way one lives. Location on
this dimension establishes the kinds of life chances (what kind of medicine, education,
how long one will live, how one will live) and life style (preferences for literature, music,
recreation and so forth) that a person will have, it relates to income, occupation and the
work world. Keep in mind that in this manner we see social class as establishing very
important qualities of life for the individual and group. This formulation is closer to what
we in America see as constituting a social class than is the Marxist formulation.
3. Status group
These are prestige positions, relate more to how long one has been in a given place or
social position. Standing in these groups is based more on social tradition and history
than on achievement or ability.
If your parents arrived in Colorado (or in Oregon or Washington) by covered wagon, then
you belong to the 'pioneer' elite, a group who have standing simply because they were the
first Europeans to settle in the area (note, I said EUROPEANs, there were NativeAmericans
here before us).
In this same vein, some claim superior social position because they claim membership in
the Daughters of the American Revolution or Sons of the American Revolution -- by
virtue of their ancestors having been here then.
Social standing in this sense can also derive from ancestry as indicated by being listed in
the Social Register. The upper classes (nobility, junkers) of Europe are in this category.
Note that often these people do NOT have much economic or political clout (power) in a
modern urban - industrial society.
The Evans family was a pioneer in Colorado, one of the early governors of Colorado. The
family had high social position in Colorado and Denver up to the death of the last of the
Evans sisters, although they did not have a great deal of money by that time. The sisters
lived in the Evans mansion at the corner of 14th and Bannock in relative poverty. The
property had been lost or turned over to the state in earlier decades. Although poor, they
had high social standing.
Thorstein Veblen was an early sociologist / economist who developed the idea of social
status and status symbols in his Theory of the Leisure Class. The position of a status
group is indicated by the symbols that they display. Thus in the US at one time the Ralph
Loren polo pony on clothing was a status symbol, now it is imitated and available on
nearly any piece of clothing at discount prices.
We are aware of how the size of our home, the furniture in it, the car we drive and the
kinds of clothing we wear relate to and demonstrate our status within the community.
Some even go to extremes to downplay status -- the grunge look, for example, with
clothing from Nieman Marcus or Sacs Fifth Avenue. Knowledge of how to use wines,
food, music, art, and literature are all symbols of status. These are consumption goods that only those with sufficient free time can use (learn to use). It is quite an experience to
go to dinner with a wine connoisseur (snob!)
4. Party
Party as a stratification variable does not make much sense in the U.S. situation because
we tend to think in terms of two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. However,
if we think in terms of local power, political that is, we can see that it applies here as well
as in Europe where there are often many political parties.
For example, look at groups such as the SDS or the Weatherman (radical student political
movements of the late 60s and early 70s). Or Think of the Libertarian party. In these
cases we see smaller groups active in the political arena. Or the special interest groups
that come together to pursue a particular action -- Douglas Bruce and Amendment 1, the
proponents for Amendment 2, the term limitation amendment, school board positions, tax
groups and so on.
The idea is that power is distributed across groups and this power is separate from either
wealth or status, although often related to one or both. This can be seen most clearly in
the "Black Power" of the 60s and 70s, or in the grey power of the 80s. It is this type of
group and power that Weber had in mind.
The power groups discussed here can be best understood by examining the 'power
resources' the groups command. In most of the examples given above the resources is
numbers of active participants and in the cohesive organization of these participants.
Other power resources exist as well: information, knowledge as well as wealth and
control of force. Weber was very concerned with these distinctions and how they work
out in human social organization.
5. Consequences
This multidimensional view raises some interesting possibilities
For example, individuals need not have the same rank in all dimensions. Consider the
discussion earlier of the union leaders, these individuals have a great deal of political
clout, but little social or economic power. Differences of this kind are know as 'status
inconsistency.'
This existence of 'status inconsistency' has been seen by some (the concept was originally
proposed by Gerhard Lenski) as an explanation for behavior that appears to run counter
to purely social or economic class interests. For example, people of Jewish background
tend to be quite wealthy and often hold powerful economic positions within the
community. However, politically they will support very liberal causes, such as welfare,
free education and so on. These political positions are seen to be against their "class
interests." Status inconsistency is invoked to explain this apparently contradictory
behavior. Position and 'power' on each of these dimensions can be independent, one need not have
the same ranking on all dimensions. It is quite clear that people (groups) do tend to
develop relatively similar ranking on all dimensions. That is, whenever possible the
group uses the 'power' in one dimension to enhance position in the other dimensions. In
the US, the most obvious is the case of great new wealth used to purchase status and
political power. It also works out that status can be traded for monetary gain, political
power used to gain wealth.
For example, Lyndon Johnson came from relatively humble economic and social status in
Texas. Through careful and diligent pursuit of politics he was able to amass considerable
political power. Through this power he was eventually able to develop considerable
economic power, fortune in the form of radio stations and other properties in Texas.
However, he was never entirely able to overcome his rural, middle class roots in the
social realm as shown by his display of surgical scars on the Whitehouse lawn and his
handling of his dogs by the ears in public.
C. functionalist: Davis - Moore formulation
1. Introduction:
This position, view of inequality tends to be fairly conservative, to support and reinforce
the status quo.
1. basic tenets:
Inequality is necessary and inevitable
Positions in the society have different functional importance
Ease of filling positions varies
Positions that require long tedious training will require higher rewards in order to ensure
an adequate supply of candidates
Example: physicians are necessary for the health of the population and require long
training. Higher incomes, status and prestige is necessary to ensure that people will take
on the years of privation and training that lead to success in medical practice and to meet
the needs of the society for health care.
Example: garbage collectors are necessary and important to the society to ensure that the
streets are kept clean and free of junk and festering piles of decaying garbage. However,
the position requires little skill and training. Garbage collectors receive only enough
rewards to make sure the position is filled, and the garbage collected and disposed of
somewhere out of sight and out of mind.
In these formulations the existence of a market is understood. The ideas depend on the
operation of a free and open market. A market guarantees that people will compete for
the positions, that they can freely choose to do their own bidding, they do not have to depend upon any one else. Any activity that restrains the free open movement of people
to fill positions reduces the applicability of these ideas and challenges the notion that
inequality is necessary for the smooth functioning of the society, or is necessary to
provide for the needs of the society. The argument implies that this is the simplest and
best way to meet the needs of the society.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that positions of inequality are not based upon
the actions of the market, in fact it is often quite the opposite. E.g., return to our example
of the doctor. The AMA restricts the numbers of positions in medical schools, thus
keeping the numbers of doctors lower than would otherwise be the case, and therefore
artificially raising the value of physicians in the US.
Contrast this to the situation of lawyers: until very recently any one could become a
lawyer by studying for the law, i.e., reading case law and learning where applied, then
taking and passing the bar examination - - no formal education, degree was required.
Recently the ABA (American Bar Association) required the applicant for the exam to
have degree from an accredited law school in order to take the bar exam. As yet the ABA
does not control the number of law schools or the number of vacancies in the schools as
does the AMA. But this move to limit Bar examinees to graduates of accredited law
school is a step in restricting the numbers of lawyers (some wags would say that is a good
idea!!)
These are instances of restrictions on the operation of market forces, artificial attempts to
restrict the ease of replaceablity of a person in a position.
Summary.
The theoretical, conceptual formulation presented above attempt to relate the observed
inequalities within given societies to a variety of historical processes.
Marx saw inequality as the inevitable outcome of the forces of production and that these
forces were under pressure to change because of the conflict built into the productive
system. He further saw inequality as disappearing when the proletarian revolution
replaced individual, capitalist ownership of the means of production with collective
ownership. For Marx the existence of social inequality based upon classes was
unnecessary and bad for the society.
Weber on the other hand viewed inequality as a complex part of the total structure of the
society. Inequality is multi-dimensional, a central part of the total social structure.
Careful examination of Weber's discussion suggests that the key factor in inequality
within a society is some variant of power.
Davis and Moore focus upon the necessity of social stratification as a motivating factor,
as a structural device to ensure the filling of the most important positions in the society.
Critics of this position have emphasized the centrality of a free, competitive 'market'
system and how systems of inequality actually inhibit working of such markets.
I would draw your attention to the power dimension discussed by Weber and that this is
likely to be the unifying theme in a universal theory of inequality. Social stratification is
then seen as the inevitable outcome of the operation of power and the use of power to
govern the distribution and access to the goods and services of the society.
Class as an opportunity structure
a. access:
Location in the 'class' structure establishes the life time opportunities of the individual.
This includes things like access to education, to the structure for advancement in the
work world and so on.
b. education
Educational structure as we will see in a future topic serves as an opportunity structure in
the U.S. It is through education that we see ourselves as being able to advance to better
social position. This is only partially true as will be demonstrated when we discuss
education.
However, education does provide skills and knowledge that are necessary for success in
the occupational world and therefore to enhancing or maintaining one's social standing in
the community. The American system of education is predicated on exactly this idea.
c. status attainment
Status attainment is the ability of any individual to achieve standing or enhance status in
the community. Status attainment is engrained in our mythology and in our value system.
America is always viewed as a land of opportunity, that if one works hard enough one
can be whatever s/he chooses to be. This myth is celebrated in a series of novels that were
often recommended to young men at the turn of the Century -- the Horatio Alger stories.
In these stories a poor boy worked as a newsboy, selling newspapers on the street corner
or as a shoeshine boy on the street. Through hard work and a lot of luck, the boy always
worked his way upward through the system to be editor and publisher of the newspaper
or owner of a shoe manufacturing business. We still believe in this, and many people feel
that the way to success is to find some way to be self employed and to reinvest the money
earned so that we too can become a real estate tycoon or captain of industry.
We can achieve status in the U.S. and many factors play into this effort. Educational
achievement is clearly a factor, father's occupation influences success in status attainment
(i.e., status gained, compared to that of your parents) .
In the United States, we believe in mobility, in being able to improve our social and
economic position relative that of our parents. If we work hard enough, we can go from
janitor's sone to President of the United States or better yet to President of ITT. Fortunately our history has provided many possibilities for this kind of success. Many of
our millionnaires made their fortunes in exactly this manner, the most recent member of
this club is Bill Gates, founder and owner of Microsoft Corporation -- millionnaire by the
time he was 30.
As a new, young country with lots open space and untapped resources this kind of
attainment was possible in many fields. However, as we have matured and the frontier
has closed these kinds of opportunities seem to be in shorter supply or to be found in
entirely different places. Success may now be more a matter of knowledge and
salesmanship than a matter of hard work in industry.
d. mobility:
Movement up or down in the social hierarchy. We describe generational mobility ( what I
achieve in my life time) and intergenerational ( what I achieve compared to my family of
origin). We also include long distance mobility, moving as indicated above from the very
bottom to the very top, or at least near to it.
Mobility has two principal sources:
1. exchange
This occurs when positions at the top (and bottom) of the hierarchy are not filled from the
ranks of those at these levels. It includes downward mobility of those at the high ranks
and upward of those at the low ranks. The key to keep in mind about this kind of mobility
is that the relative proportions at the top and bottom remains pretty much the same
through time
2. structural
Structural mobility results from significant changes in the structure of the society. In this
case, it can arise from a shift from agriculture to manufacturing, or in our time from
manufacturing to information. The positional changes resulting from structural mobility
will generally mean an overall shift in the pattern of inequality in the society. Thus the
shift from manufacturing to an informational society has meant the elimination of skilled
working class jobs, and a replacement of those with highely skilled white collar, middle
class jobs. (some argue that the shift is to service occupations and in a net decrease in
status of a bulk of the population)
E. Summary
The system of inequality is important in contemporary society, Through the system of
inequality in all society it 'determines' opportunity, That is, systems of inequality
establish who gets what share of the goods in the society, what one does, what one
contributes, how one will live, and the kind of success one can expect in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment