Chapter 13:

Social
Stratification

There are six social classes

described by Warners: Upper-
upper class, Lower-upper
class, Upper-middle class,
Lower-middle class, Upper
lower class, Lower-lower class.
 Within any society, people rank one another in a vertical arrangement of
hierarchy – the differentiates them as superior of inferior, higher or lower.
We refer to this process as social stratification. The popular use of the
terms – lower class, middle class, upper class- indicates an awareness of
the existence of class differentiations.
• Stratification suggest a division into levels or layers. Social
Stratification implies a division into social levels or layers. A social
class consists of individuals or groups having somewhat similar
social status; that is, they occupy the same level in the prestige
structure of their society.

Social stratification is an institutionalized system of social inequality

in a community or society that ranks individuals and groups in
categories or state according to their share of scarce and desirable
resources such as wealth, prestige and power. A social stratum is a
category of people with similar amounts of wealth, prestige, and
power and similar life chances and ways of life. They tend to
recognize one another as equals and those in other categories as
superior or inferior. One’s life chances- opportunities for long life,
health, education, safety, self-determination, and dignity- are directly
correlate
 Two Theories of Social Stratification

Why do societies distribute wealth, power and prestige unequally?

These are essentially two answers to this question.

1. According to one school of thought, stratification is functional and inevitable;

without it people would have no incentive to perform socially necessary work.

2. Another holds inequality as neither inevitable nor functional.

• Social Morality
The movement of people from one social position to another
is referred to as social mobility. The term vertical mobility refers to changes
in position that do not alter a person’s status, as when an oil company
executive becomes the secretary of transportation.

The amount of mobility depends on how rigid and how unequal the strata
are. In classless society where everyone is equal, there is no social mobility.
 Primary determines of status

1. Wealth and Income – The judgment that money gives prestige is well founded.
Wealth and income is an important atatus-conferring factor. The acceptance of
money as a status standard is seen in the tendency to associate income with
achievement. It is assumed that the man whose income is high is assumed to have
achieved much.

2. Occupation – Social status is closely related to the type of work that one does.
One reason why occupation is an important criterion of status is the type of work
done often determines income.

3. Power – in considering power as a criterion of status, we have in mind the

capacity to influence and control other people. Such control has prestige value.
Power may be associated with occupational position. Prestige giving power may
also be political or governmental. Both the elected official and the political boss are
ranked, in part, in terms of their power. The status of corporation officials and of
union leaders is influenced by their economic power and by their authority over
large groups of people. The prestige of army officers is related to their authority
position.
 Birth:

The importance of birth as a determinant of social status may be seen in at least three
ways:

1. in initial ranking of individuals according to family status.

2. in the control of birth over opportunities to acquire the symbols of new status; and
3. in the tendency of family status to adhere for some time after the symbols of new
status have been acquired.

• The child is born into the social class of his parents. Children are appraised according to family
status. In the ranking process, a family is treated as a unit. Although individual family members
have varying prestige, to a large degree it is the formation of social classes.

• Birth determines the initial status of an individual, but it does not permanently control status.
Beyond the years of childhood, status may be achieved through income, occupation, and power.
Nonetheless, birth continues to be involved, for even the achievement of new status may be
influenced by family membership. All persons do not have the same opportunities to acquire the
symbols of new status. How much money the family can afford for education, whom the parents
associate with and know, how much political powers or professional influence the parent have are
all matters that may be related to the opportunities of family members.
 Personal qualities

anything that marks individuals as being different from each other may be used as
a basis for rating. Personal qualities and characteristics are status-conferring
factors. An individual is evaluated by many characteristics: sex, age height, beauty,
strength, intelligence, wit, speech, posture, manners, attitudes, interests and many
others. Some of these traits are entirely beyond the control of the individual; others
he may achieve.

Personal qualities are both cause and effect of class membership. Personal
qualities influence class membership, and class membership influence some
personal qualities. The individual who acquires the necessary personal
characteristics gains prestige.

There are limits to the status that can be achieved by personal qualities alone.
Although personal qualities may enhance one’s position and although certain
minimum qualities may be required in order to maintain a status, prestige-giving
personal characteristics must be found in combination with other factors in order
to confer high status. Personal qualities supplement income, occupation, power
and birth.
 Types of class systems

the two chief contrasting types of stratification are “caste” system and “open class”
system.

CASTE

a caste system of stratification is one in which birth is the definitive and final criterion of
status. With but few expectations the child inherits the class position of his parents. He is
born into a social class in which he remains throughout his life. There is no reason for
him to aspire to reach a higher level, for the avenues of mobility are closed. The
acquisition of possessions, power, or personal qualities cannot change his membership.

Caste system are characterized by definitely prescribed privileges and prohibitions.

Where a member of a particular class may live, whom he may marry, with whom he is
permitted to eat, and how he is to behave toward members of other Castes are often
regulated in detail. For examples, barbers serving one class may be prevented may be
prevented from serving certain other classes; or some castes may be prohibited the use
of public facilities such as roads or schools. Usually an individual must marry within his
castes. In the most right kind of caste system the occupation of the father is inherited by
the son, and the members have a common occupation. Both the prohibitions and the
privileges of membership are accepted. They are transmitted from one generation to the
next as a part of the total culture. A caste may be united by a common religion, and caste
conduct may be enforced by religious sanctions.
 In actual practice, class position is not entirely hereditary under any system. Even under the
rigid system of India, some persons have married outside their caste and some have changed
from one caste to another. At least to a degree vertical social mobility appears to be inevitable.
Conversely caste is present in every system of stratification, for fixed hereditary status is
found in every society.

• Open Class

– An open – class system is characterized by vertical mobility. The term “open class” is
used because, while classes exist, avenues of mobility out of one class and into
another are open. The movement maybe either to a higher or to a lower social level.
There are no society-wide beliefs or legal prohibitions to prevent changes in class
membership.

– Open class stratification is based on competitive acquisition of the symbols of status.

An individual is free to acquire as much wealth as possible, to buy whatever he can
pay for, to work at any job he can get, to acquire as much education as he is capable
of, to achieve as much power as he can practice, and to cultivate the personal
qualities that he prefers. In as much ad the material symbols of status are most
conspicuous, competition for them become particularly intense in an open class
society. Education, power, and personal qualities can be acquired, but they cannot be
displayed so easily as material possessions. This account in part for the emphasis
placed on material marks of status in open-class society.
 APPROACHES FOR STUDYING STRATIFICATION

three methods are used for studying social stratification. The objective approach, the
subjective approach, and the reputational approach.

• The objective approach – the objective approach views class as a statistical category.
Such categories are formed, not by the members themselves, but by sociologist or
statisticians. The individuals comprising the classes derived from this method are
characterized by either consciousness of kind, social interaction or formal
organization. The objective approach is probably the most commonly used for
measuring social class since it is the simplest and cheapest-statistical data from
variety of sources ( i.e. the bureau of census and statistics ) tend to be readily
available.

• The subjective approach – the subjective approach, also referred to as “self-

classification” or “self-placement” approach to social stratification, views class as a
social category and is characterized by a consciousness of kind, this approach can be
applied to large units such as a nation. It is also useful for predicting political behavior
since what a person thinks he is, influences how he votes. The disadvantage is that the
class with which an individual identifies may present his aspirations rather than his
current associations.
 3. Reputational approach- in contrast with the subjective approach where each individual is
essentially asked to rank himself, the reputational approach asks people how they classify
others. It rests upon knowledge of people’s reputed association with one another. In a study
made by W. Lloyd Warner, the reputational approach is reflected in his conception of class, a
phenomenon which he views as “two or more orders of people who are believed to9 be, and are
accordingly ranked by all the members of the community, in socially superior and inferior
positions.

there are six classes described by Warners.

• The upper-upper class represents “ an aristocracy of birth and wealth”. It is an “old-

family” class whose members can trace lineage and wealth through many generations.
The members are old not only to the community but also to the class. Birth is crucial to
membership
• The lower-upper class lives in large, expensive houses in exclusive residential
sections. In terms of wealth, the lower-uppers are able to meet the means test but fail
to meet the lineage test so essential for upper-upper class membership. Their wealth is
as yet too new ans to recently acquired to have the sacred quality of wealth long
present within a family line.
• The upper-middle class comprises a group of substantial businessmen and
professionals, “solid, highly respectable” people but not “society”. They often serve as
leaders in civic affairs, hoping that their good deeds and civic activities will win them
acceptance by their social superiors.
4. The lower-middle class, the top of the common-man level, is made up of small businessmen,
clerical workers, other lower-level white-collar workers, and a few skilled workmen. They are
“proper” and conservative, careful with their money, concerned about respectability, forever
conscious about what their neighbors think.

5. The upper-lower class – tends to shade imperceptivity into the lower-middle class, being
distinguished as “poor but honest workers:. The upper-lower class is made up of semi-
skilled workers in factories, service workers and a few tradesmen. It’s members live in
less desirable section, have lower incomes but viewed as “respectable”

6. The lower-lower class – is not respectable and looked upon with a “bad reputation” within
the larger community. The members are viewed as lazy and dependent.