The relation of ideology and behavior in the working of stratification systems.

Sharma, S. L.. (1994). [Review of Social Stratification]. Sociological Bulletin, 43(1), 103107. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23634579

Cancian, Frank. 1976. Social Stratification. Annual Review of Anthropology 5. Annual Reviews: 22748.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949312.

Stine, Linda France. 1990. Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-century Farmsteads: Issues of Class,
Status, Ethnicity, and Race.Historical Archaeology 24 (4). Society for Historical Archaeology: 3749.

http://www.jstor.org/

stable/25616048.

Marx weber-further reading

Cox, O. C.. (1950). Max Weber on Social Stratification: A

Critique. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 223227. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2086786

Cancian, F.. (1976). Social Stratification. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5, 227248. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949312

Class: Achieved Status

The class system is an open form of stratification based primarily on economic
criteria. The boundaries between classes are more fluid than with the caste
system. Individuals can move around within the class system. Their status can
improve or decline. Class membership depends, at least in part, on
characteristics which the individual can control. Keep in mind, however, that
people tend to be born into class structure. Change is difficult. Historic
conditions determine social class structure. The ideology of the dominant
culture perpetuates class structure. The type of class structure which allows
the greatest mobility is generally a modern industrial society.
C.

A Classless Society

III.
A.

Perspectives on Class

Stratification: A Functionalist View

Functionalist see the class structure is beneficial to American society.

Furthermore, class structure is necessary. Functionalist concern themselves
with how a society can encourage the most qualified people to do the most
important jobs. Class structure facilitates this end.
1.

Class structure provides a competitive arena

A class structure allows the best rise to the top of the social strata.
2.

Class structure provides a motivating force

Fluid class structure provides motivation and an arena for individual

achievement. It offers prizes that challenge people to work hard.
3.

Class structure provides opportunity

Americans believe that through hard work, all people have a crack at getting
to the top. The wealth of the few is the goal of every American. Of course,
there is poverty. Poverty, however, is simply the result of individuals not trying
hard enough.
B.

Stratification: A Conflict View

Conflict theory argues that the basis of social stratification is found in conflict
over some kind of scare resources. Conflict theory contends that stratification
is not necessary, but is maintained to safeguard the ruling class's privileges. Those
who find social class beneficial are those who have "made it" in the system.
Rather than stratification being a fluid system of upward and downward
mobility based on ability, the class system is actually characterized
by institutional inequalities in income and wealth. Only on rare occasions do
Americans break through the class barrier. Usually break through occurs as a
result of a lucky "roll of the dice." Few people actually succeed at social
advancement through sheer hard work.

.
1.

A Synthesis of Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives on Class

Basic Resources

The basic resources needed for the maintenance of society are allocated in
much the same way that the functionalists argue. This is efficient. He
contends that all societies do this to one degree or another.
2.

Surplus wealth

Surplus wealth is allocated in much the same way that the conflict theory
predicts (i.e., through exploitation and class struggle).
D.

Social Mobility

Social mobility generally refers to the movement from one social class to
another. There are several ways to view social mobility in terms of class
position.
1.

Intergenerational Mobility

Intergenerational mobility refers to movement (up or down) the social

hierarchy by family members. An example here would be a family where the
father is a trucker and the sibling becomes a doctor.
2.

Exchange Mobility

Exchange mobility is where individuals change places with one another in the
stratification system
For example, if 100 working-class people move upward on the class ladder and, at the
same time, 100 middle class people experience downward mobility, sociologists would
consider this to be an example of exchange mobility (Henslin, 2004:209).

3.

Structural Mobility

How fluid is the U.S. class-structure? Structural mobility occurs when the
economic status of people changes as a result of structural changes in the
economy. The argument is sometimes made that the U.S. has a very fluid
class-structure. Many families have improved their class position over the past
100 years in the U.S. Does this mean that the U.S. has a fluid class structure
or does something else explain the apparent successes that people have with
regards to improvements in their well-being? When the structure itself

changes, everyone's position changes. Structural change is an important

explanation for much of the recent improvement in the financial well being of
many in American society. As the U.S. became industrialized, the occupational
structure itself was transformed. Children, therefore, could not stay in the
same occupational position as their parents.
a.

The Changing Labor Structure

In 1900 17.9 percent of all laborers positions were white collar. By 1979 50.9
percent of all jobs were in the white-collar sector. The percentage of people
doing farm work on the other hand declined from 37.6 in 1900 to 2.8 percent
in 1979. Children must, therefore, take jobs in sectors of the economy other
than that which their parents worked in (From Charon, 1986:326).

Analysis of Class: Karl Marx

Karl Marx studied the forces that caused the misery of the working class in
19th Century Western Europe. The student of Marx cannot forget that Marx is
a historic figure. He wrote in the middle 1800's when social relations were
somewhat different from those found at the end of the 20th century. At the
time of Marx a handful of wealthy capitalist exploited a large and impoverished
working class. For Marx, ownership of the means of production was the primary factor
that distinguished the different classes under industrial capitalism. Farley (2000)
contends that during the 1800s capitalism was more exploitative than during
any time in the last several hundred years.
A.

What is a Social Class According to Marx?

In Marxist terminology, "a class consists of all the people who share a
common relationship to the means of production" (Robinson, 1989:172).
1.

The bourgeoisie

Those people who control the means of production (whether that means
factories or slaves or land) make up the dominant class or the bourgeoisie.
2.

The Proletariat

Those who work for the dominant class (slaves, peasants, industrial laborers)
are the subordinate class or the proletariat. This relationship is both unequal

and exploitative in that the dominant class takes unfair advantage of the
subordinate class.
B.

Surplus Wealth

How does inequality occur in the first place? The workers produce surplus
wealth. Workers transform raw material into finished products. The value of
the finished product is greater than the cost of the worker's labor and the cost
of raw material. The workers, however, do not enjoy the surplus which they
have created. The owners of the means of production (factories) are able to
seize the surplus for their own benefits. Robertson (1989:172) contends that
"this, in Marx's view, is the essence of exploitation, and the main source of
conflict between the classes throughout history." Marx would argue that in an
ideal economy, the workers would keep the surplus they have created as they
transform raw material into finished products.
C.

Critiques of Marx

Several features of advanced capitalist society have thrown doubt on Marx's

predictions.
1.

What about the middle-class?

The existence of the middle class is problematic for Marx. Not only are the
middle-class a large and well-to-do class, they generally do not work for the
owners of the means of production. They often work for their fellow citizen (as
state bureaucrats) or they are self-employed.
2.

Large Corporations

Marx also did not predict the rise of large corporations which are owned by
thousands of people and which are controlled by salaried managers.
Ownership and control of the means of production are no longer the same
thing.
3.

Men and Women of Knowledge

In post industrial society ownership may not be the most important asset in
the economy. Knowledge of how the system works may be more important.
Status accrues to people with knowledge.