Overview
|
Chapter 8: Social Stratification Overview |
|
|
|
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER REVIEW
WHAT IS SOCIAL STRATIFICATION?This chapter opens with the story of the sinking of the Titanic to illustrate the consequences of social inequality as evidenced by those who survived the disaster and those who did not. Social inequality, the unequal distribution of valued resources, is found in every society. Social stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. Four fundamental principles explain why social stratification exists:
1. Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences;
2. Social stratification persists over generations;
3. Social stratification is universal but variable;
4. Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs.
The Caste System A caste system is social stratification based on ascription or birth. Pure caste systems are "closed with no social mobility. An illustration: India The Hindu social system of rural India is an example. In such systems four factors underlie social life: birth determines one’s occupation, the hierarchy is kept intact through endogamous marriage, powerful cultural beliefs support the system, and members of different categories are kept apart.
The Class System Representative of industrial societies, class system refers to social stratification based on both birth and individual achievement. Open social mobility is critical to this type of system. Other factors of such a system include migration to cities, democratic principles, and high immigration rates.
Meritocracy refers to social stratification based on personal merit.
Status Consistency Status consistency refers to the degree of consistency in a person’s social standing across various dimensions of social inequality. In caste systems there is a high status consistency. Greater social mobility in class societies generates lower status consistency.
AN ILLUSTRATION: THE UNITED KINGDOM
The United Kingdom represents a society where past agrarian caste qualities are still interwoven within the modern-day industrial class system. Their agrarian caste-like estate system consisted of three estates: the first were nobles, the second were primarily clergy, and the third were commoners. The law of primogeniture, by which property of parents could only be inherited by the eldest son, helped maintain this system.
Today social stratification in the United Kingdom is more a class system, but aspects of their feudal past persist (the monarchy). However, power in the government resides in the House of Commons, composed of people who have achieved their status. Today, about 25 percent of Great Britain’s population falls into the middle class, and 50 percent fall into the working class. Almost 25 percent are poor. Opportunities for social mobility are not as great as in the United States.
CLASSLESS SOCIETIES?
An illustration: The former Soviet Union.
The former Soviet Union claimed itself to be a classless society because of the elimination of private ownership of the productive components of society. Yet, it remained socially stratified as occupations generally fell into four major categories--high government officials or the apparatchiks, the intelligentsia, manual laborers, and rural peasantry. Elite standing was based on power, not wealth.
The reforms spurred by Mikhail Gorbachev’s (1985) economic program known as perestroika have been significant. The extremes of wealth and poverty, evident in the West, did not occur in the Soviet Union. Further, research suggested that there was more upward social mobility in the Soviet Union than in Japan, Great Britain, or the United States over the last century. A major reason for this is what sociologists call structural social mobility, or a shift in the social position of large numbers of people due more to changes in society itself than to individual effort.
IDEOLOGY: THE POWER BEHIND STRATIFICATION
Ideology, cultural beliefs that justify social stratification, is the link between culture and stratification. Inevitably people begin to question cultural "truths." For the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, a peoples’ sense of stratification forms the basis of justice. For Karl Marx, it creates social injustice. The role of culture in promoting values that support the stratification system is critical in ensuring acceptance.
THE FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Structural-functionalists argue that social stratification plays a vital role in the operation of society.
The Davis-Moore Thesis The Davis-Moore thesis is the assertion that social stratification has beneficial consequences for the operation of society. Certain tasks are understood as being of more value than others, and in order to ensure the most qualified people fill these positions they must receive greater rewards than others.
Critical Evaluation Melvin Tumin, a critic of the Davis-Moore thesis, argues that certain highly rewarded occupations seem no more intrinsically important than other less-valued jobs. Also, functionalists seem to exaggerate the consequences of social stratification for the development of individual talents. Finally, social stratification creates conflict as well, so it is not merely functional.
STRATIFICATION AND CONFLICT
Social-conflict analysis holds that social stratification ensures that some people gain advantages at the expense of others.
Karl Marx: Class and Conflict Karl Marx’s view of social stratification is based on his observations of industrialization in Europe during the second half of the nineteenth century. He identified two major social classes corresponding to two basic relationships to the means of production -- the capitalists and the proletariat. He believed that capitalist society reproduces the class structure in each new generation.
As influential as Marx’s thinking has been for the sociological understanding of social stratification, it does overlook a central tenet of the Davis-Moore thesis: that motivating people requires some system of unequal rewards. This insight perhaps explains, in part, the low productivity characteristic of Eastern Europe under socialism.
Why No Marxist Revolution? The overthrow of the capitalist system has not occurred for at least four central reasons:
1. the fragmentation of the capitalist class
2. a higher standard of living
3. more worker organization
4. more extensive legal protections
A Counterpoint Advocates of social-conflict analysis believe that Marx’s view of capitalism is still largely valid. Their counterarguments to functionalists include the following observations: (1) wealth remains highly concentrated, (2) white-collar work offers little to workers, (3) progress requires struggle, and (4) the law still favors the rich.
Max Weber: Class, Status, and Power Max Weber viewed Marx’s ideas of social class as too simplistic. Weber theorized that there were three dimensions of social inequality -- class, status, and power.
The Socioeconomic Status Hierarchy These variables create a socioeconomic status hierarchy. Thus, social stratification in industrial societies is a multidimensional ranking rather than a simple hierarchy of social classes. Weber also theorized that a single individual’s rankings on the three dimensions might be quite different. The term used today to reflect Weber’s model is socioeconomic status (SES) referring to a composite social ranking based on various dimensions of social inequality.
Inequality In History Marx focused on economics and believed social stratification could be largely eliminated. Weber analyzed social stratification throughout the evolution of human societies. Based on his historical analysis, Weber doubted that the overthrow of capitalism would significantly diminish stratification, believing instead it might even increase social inequality. Recent polarization within our social stratification system may indicate Marx’s model is closer to the mark.
STRATIFICATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Gerhard and Jean Lenski’s sociocultural evolutionary model of historical change concerning social stratification combines both structural-functional and social-conflict perspectives. In technologically simple societies age and sex tend to be the only basis of social stratification. As technology advances and surpluses in valued resources occur, social inequality increases. They further propose that as technology continues to develop in industrial societies social inequality tends to diminish.
INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
Its dimensions consist of income, wealth, and occupational prestige.
Income An important dimension of economic inequality is income, or wages or salary from work and earnings from investments. The medial U.S. family income in 1998 was $47,467. Table 8-2 (p. 202) presents data on U.S. family income for 1997. Wealth, the total value of money and other assets, minus outstanding debts, are distributed more unequally than income. Figure 8-3 (p. 201) illustrates the distribution of income and wealth in the United States. The richest 20 percent of our population owns approximately 80 percent of the country’s entire wealth. The average wealth of a U.S. household is about $71,600. However, some 40 percent of U.S. families have little or no wealth. When assets and liabilities are balanced, the lowest 20 percent of people in the United States are actually in debt.
Occupational Prestige One’s occupation is a primary factor in determining social prestige. Table 8-3 (p. 203) presents a rank ordering of prestige scores for various occupational categories based on the responses of a random sample of U.S. adults. High income and advanced education and training requirements are positively correlated with higher prestige occupations. White-collar occupations tend to have higher prestige than blue-collar ones.
Schooling significantly influences occupational opportunities and income. Great variation exists in terms of how much formal education different groups of people in our society receive. Table 8-4 (p. 204) indicates this fact. While more than 80 percent of adults in the U.S. have a high school education, only slightly more than 20 percent have a college degree.
SOCIAL CLASSES IN THE UNITED STATES
Many different criteria can be used to place an individual or family into a particular social class, but precise placement is not possible. Nevertheless, patterns do exist. Four general social classes are identified.
The Upper Class Approximately 5 percent of families in the U.S. fall into this class. Even among this group there is stratification. As a general rule, the more a family’s income is derived from inherited wealth in the form of stock and bonds, real estate, and other investments, the stronger a family’s claim to being upper class.
Upper-Uppers A difference is typically made between the upper-upper class, or "old money" rich, and the lower-upper class, or "new money" rich. The former group represents about one percent of our population and obtains their standing through ascription.
Lower-Uppers This category of people obtains their wealth more typically through earnings. Both groups have tremendous power in society, controlling most of our nation’s productive property.
The Middle Class Roughly 40-45 percent of U.S. citizens fall into this category. Given its size alone, the middle class has a significant influence on patterns of U.S. culture. An important quality in the middle class is a diversity of family backgrounds.
Upper-Middles The upper third of this category is referred to as the upper-middle, being characterized by prestigious white-collar occupations, relatively high educations, nice homes, and an accumulation of property and wealth during their lifetime.
Average-Middles People at this level of our class structure typically work in less prestigious white-collar occupations or in highly skilled blue-collar jobs.
The Working Class This category is composed of about one-third of our population. It is characterized by blue-collar families, vulnerable to unemployment and illness to a greater extent than families in the middle and upper classes. People in this category also have lower levels of personal satisfaction.
The Lower Class The remaining 20 percent of our population is identified as the lower class. Roughly 12.7 percent of the U.S. population is officially classified as poor.
People with higher incomes are more than two times as likely to describe themselves as healthy than are poor people. Social class is also positively correlated with life expectance. Mental health patterns also vary with social class.
Class and Health Poorer people seem more exposed to stressful events leading to emotional distress and health-related problems.
Values and Attitudes, Family and Gender The values and attitudes people support are closely associated with the type of lifestyle they live. The working class has less security than the middle and upper classes; thus they emphasize conformity to conventional beliefs and practices. Greater economic security seems to make middle-class people more tolerant than working-class people. Orientation to time also seems to vary by social class. The variation by political orientation is complicated. Generally, however, conservative views on economic issues and liberal views on social issues are found among those of higher social standing. Finally, social class shapes family life. Whom one marries, how many children are in the family, styles of child rearing, and spousal relationships are also influence by social class.Relatively high levels of social mobility characterize the United States. Social mobility can be upward or downward. Intragenerational social mobility refers to a change in social position during a person’s lifetime. Intergenerational social mobility is defined as the upward or downward mobility of children in relation to their parents.
Myth Versus Reality Studies on intergenerational social mobility, which have focused almost exclusively on men, do show high rates of upward mobility in the U.S., especially when horizontal social mobility, or changes of occupation at one class level, are included. Four general conclusions are made about social mobility in the U.S. These include:
1. social mobility, at least among men, has been fairly high
2. the long-term trend in social mobility has been upward
3. within a single generation, social mobility is usually small
4. social mobility since the 1970’s has been uneven
Mobility by Income Level Figure 8-5 (p. 209) shows how families during the 1980s and 1990s fared according to their income level. Families are divided into quintiles based on income. Only the top fifth showed any significant improvement.
Mobility: Race, Class, and Gender African Americans showed a decline relative to whites by income since 1980. Latino families have also dropped relative to whites. The earnings gap between men and women appears to be closing. Data for each comparison are given.
The "American Dream": Still A Reality? Historically, our society and its economy have been characterized by growth and expansion. Four important trends are identified that suggest stagnation. These include:
1. for many workers, earnings have stalled
2. multiple-job holding is up
3. more jobs offer little income
4. young people are remaining at home
Figure 8-6 (p. 211) shows median family income for U.S. families for the years 1950-1996 in constant 1996 dollars. While rising for the first half of this time period, family income has remained fairly stable since 1973.
The Global Economy and the U.S. Class Structure Many of the industrial jobs, which were the basis of our expanding economy in recent decades, have been transferred overseas. Current patterns of change in our economy have undermined many people’s expectations about improving their standard of living, even with over one-half of families having more than one breadwinner. High-paying manufacturing jobs employ only 16 percent of our work force today, with most employment opportunities found in lower-paying "service work."
Relative poverty is the deprivation of some people in relation to those who have more. By definition this type of poverty is universal and inevitable. A more serious form of poverty is termed absolute poverty, defined as a deprivation of resources that is life-threatening. Roughly 800 million of the world’s population lives in such conditions.
The Extent of Poverty At present, about 34.5 million people, or 12.7 percent of our population, is classified as being poor.
WHO ARE THE POOR?
Age Children are more likely to be poor than any other age group in our nation. About 18.9 percent of people under the age of 18 in the United States are poor.
Race and Ethnicity About two-thirds of all people living in poverty are white, but a disproportionate percentage of African Americans and Latinos are represented among the poor.
Gender and Family Patterns Poverty rates for women and men are considerably different. Of all poor people over age eighteen, about 62 percent are women. Single women head over one-half of all poor families. The widening gap in poverty rates between women and men has been labeled the feminization of poverty, referring to the trend by which women represent an increasing proportion of the poor.
Urban and Rural Poverty The highest rates of poverty are found in the central cities.Explaining Poverty Two distinct views about who is responsible for poverty are debated.
One View: Blame the Poor Oscar Lewis believes a subculture of poverty, with a "present-time" orientation, dominates the lives of the poor.
Blame society The idea that society is primarily responsible for poverty is held by one-fourth of adults in the United States. William Julius Wilson argues that the culture of poverty perspective leads people to "blame the victim." He suggests poverty results from the unequal distribution of resources in society. Any lack of ambition among the poor is a consequence rather than a cause of poverty.
Counting the Homeless Though no precise count of the homeless exists, estimates range from 500,000 on any given night to 1.5 million people homeless at some time during the course of a year. The stereotype of the homeless paints an incomplete picture of the reality of today’s homeless population.
Both personal traits and societal factors are discussed as causes of homelessness. One characteristic shared by all homeless people, though, is poverty.
Class and Welfare, Politics and Values are discussed. See the Controversy and Debate box "The Welfare Dilemma" p. 216-217.
A Pearson Company Legal Notice |