Social Stratification Presentation Script Slide 1: Before we begin talking about how the various sociological perspectives explain the answers to the questions in the content, let s take a quick look at what props up social stratification. Where does the justification for the hierarchy of people come from? Basically it comes from those cultural beliefs within a particular society that justify a particular social arrangement- we call those cultural beliefs ideologies. Ideologies not only justify particular social arrangements, but they also explain patterns of inequality that emerge from the social arrangements. When the women and children were placed on the lifeboats of the Titanic ahead of the men, it was because of the way culture at that time viewed women and children. They were to be protected and it was the man s job to do that protecting- so when the crew shouted out women and children first they were just keeping in accord with the ideology of the time. Ideologies justify social arrangements by defining the inequality as fair according to the belief system. Whereas you and I might not value a woman s role over a man s role in raising the next generation OR we might not see women as being more helpless than men, the people aboard the Titanic did and women were given a higher priority during the rescue operations. In this way, you can see that an ideology can transform a cultural belief into a moral responsibility for its society s members. It was the moral responsibility of the men on the ship to remove the women on the ship to safety first. The inequality of whose life was considered first was seen as fair (at least by society. Perhaps some men grumbled.) The same is true for the way wealth was seen by society at the time of the Titanic s sinking. The voyage of the Titanic extended from one capitalist nation to another capitalist nation. The perception of wealth by those societies was such that wealth was earned through personal merit and that a person of wealth was a person of importance to society. With that in mind, you can understand (even if you cannot condone or tolerate) the rationale that resulted in wealth being a determinant factor in whether or not a person survived the disaster. Remember, though, that wealth (or property) is only one factor in social stratification. Slide 2: Now that we know that social stratification is a trait of all societies and that it is justified by the society s cultural beliefs, or ideologies, let s look at how the different sociological perspectives explain the presence and the roles of social stratification on society. Firstthe Structural-Functional Perspective. This perspective studies social stratification at the macro-level- meaning that it studies the big picture of social stratification in society. The Structural-Functional Approach notes that social stratification creates a system of unequal rewards for people within a society but argues that this system ultimately benefits society as a whole. It looks at the basis of the hierarchy as a result of a competitive economy and that social position is an indication of person s abilities and efforts. With this in mind, they find social inequality that results from social stratification based on wealth (or power or prestige) to be fair as it boosts economic production and encourages people to work harder and form innovative ideas. To the Structural-Functional mind, the connection of social or financial rewards to important work is deemed essential to the survival and prosperity of a society and is widely accepted.
Slide 3: This begs the question of why social inequality exists as a result of social stratification. Unfortunately, the Structural-Functional Approach doesn t really address this question. The most important theory derived from the Structural-Functional perspective regarding social stratification is the Davis-Moore Thesis. Developed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, this theory only addresses the reason for social stratification in society. According to the Davis-Moore Thesis, the greater the functional importance of a social position, the greater the rewards given to people of that position in an attempt to lure people to the position and away from less important societal roles. One can see this in American society today- a society that, in most part, bases its social stratification on wealth, income or occupational prestige. Athletes are given signing bonuses to lure them to certain positions on certain teams- even teachers (an occupation not normally associated with great incomes) are given signing bonuses to work at schools deemed important enough to merit the best of their profession. Davis and Moore argued that by offering superior rewards for superior occupations or work that is most needed, society benefits overall. However, this really only justifies the existence of inequality within a social stratification system. But even considering social stratification as a result of finances, it doesn t explain how we determine, as a society, what work is deemed most important or even why some occupations receive more financial rewards than others (despite the particular occupation s level of power or prestige)- for example, why does an actor receive a bigger paycheck than the American president? Slide 4: For a perspective that focuses more on why inequality is widely accepted, one must turn to the Social-Conflict Approach. This approach originated with Karl Marx- a man who argued you either owned the means of production, or you worked for and were abused by the means of production under a capitalist economic system. Marx reasoned that social inequality was unavoidable within a capitalist society that based its social stratification on wealth. He argued that society stratified its people based on money and that this class structure passed on from generation to generation as those who had inherited more while those who had not received less. According to Marx, the masses of have-nots would one day overthrow those who have. Yet his prediction did not come to light really in those societies most entrenched in the capitalist system that he derided. Ralf Dahrendorf explained why the revolution never occurred in those capitalist societies Marx earmarked for the social upheaval. Dahrendorf argued that in nations like the United States (which practically has capitalism stamped on its flag) workers had a higher standard of living, more ownership in major companies, and labor organizations fighting for greater legal protections than in those nations that did experience a Marxist revolution (like Russia or China.) Slide 5: Despite the fact that in the most blatantly capitalist systems of the world Marx s prediction of a revolution never came to fruition, he was right about some results of social stratification. Wealth in America is very highly concentrated within the hands of a small percentage of the population, many jobs that people take in order to receive more
money are deemed highly unsatisfactory by their occupants and employment is never considered secure. For these reasons, the Social-Conflict approach argues that the class division that results from social stratification is a result of the division of resources that benefits some while harming others. Unlike the Structural-Functional approach that deems social position to be a reflection of the individual and a way to unite society, the Social-Conflict approach sees social position as a result of the unequal division of resources that is not only unfair but also serves to divide society. Essentially, the Social- Conflict perspective takes a directly opposite position on social stratification than does the Structural-Functional perspective. Slide 6: Yet both perspectives view social stratification with a macro-orientation lens. It is not until we study the Symbolic-Interaction Approach that we find a micro-orientation analysis of social stratification- although, this should not surprise anyone since that is how the perspectives are oriented on all subjects they study. Max Weber, whom some consider to be the father of the Symbolic-Interaction perspective, agreed with Karl Marx that social stratification resulted in social conflict. But Weber thought that Marx s model based on economics was too simplistic in its view. Because the Symbolic-Interactionist approach views society through a micro-level orientation, it views social stratification by individual experiences. This approach finds social stratification as a factor in guiding the everyday interactions between people- and according to one symbolic-interactionist theorist- what is seen as real in society has real consequences; therefore, social stratification results in creating real social positions that reveal real explanations about our societies. However, unlike both of the previous perspectives, the Symbolic- Interaction perspective has not made up its mind on whether or not the resulting inequality is fair (as the Structural-Functionalist would argue) or unfair (as the Social- Conflict Theorist would say.) Instead, the Symbolic-Interactionist contends that the social positions stemming from social stratification should be viewed as a measure of self-worth that may or may not justify overall inequality found in society. Looking at different periods of history, Weber identified three dimensions of social inequality. The first was economic inequality, or class position, which is the only dimension that Marx studied. The second was status, or social position or prestige. This dimension is subjective as it depends on others perceptions and attitudes. It is also not tangible although occupation seems to be a way to obtain prestige. The higher people rank your profession- the higher the level of prestige. The third dimension was power- (these last two Marx ignored entirely.) Power is the capacity to influence people and events. Weber concluded that social stratification was actually multi-dimensional- a society could base a social position s value on one but not the other two OR two and not the other one OR all three (this is why he thought Marx s approach was too simplistic by only focusing on the economic dimension.) For example, a noted scientist who discovers a use for an obscure plant in subduing a major disease might have social prestige but lack personal economic influence or political power. While this scientist might not rank very highly in Marx s outlook on social stratification, the individual might rank highly in the society that he lives in. Weber felt that all three dimensions of how we rank people and, ultimately, label them as unequal to others should be considered when studying social stratification since it determined how we interacted with each other on a daily basis. To see what he
meant- consider a person like Mother Theresa who had no economic or political power and yet commanded great respect and social prestige throughout the world during her lifetime. Or former president, Harry Truman, who had hardly any personal wealth but a great deal of political power as the president who ended World War II. Or even all of the many anonymous millionaires living in America who have plenty of money but no political power, and in some cases, no social prestige either. Slide 7: While the three major theoretical perspectives explain the roles of social stratification, they don t explain the origins of social stratification as a trait of society. Do you remember being introduced to Gerhard Lenski in the module on Socialization? He was the American sociologist noted for studying social inequality and developing his Theory of Sociocultural Evolution. According to Lenski the advancement of technology explains the origins of social stratification as a characteristic of society. During the time of the Hunter-Gatherer Societies, day to day life was so precarious and all hands were needed to keep the community alive and well that really no one person or position was more important than another. With the rise of the Horticultural, Pastoral and Agrarian Societies along with the use of new tools (the technology of the time) surplus food arrived. With that, the roles within the community changed- while some people were responsible for providing the food, others became leaders of the community charged with making trades to improve society. As a result, some social positions became seen as more important than others based on power. Then, following the Industrial Revolution and its further technological advances, true wealth emerged. With the need for an educated and motivated population to further the economic development of the community, meritocracies emerged reducing the old social inequalities through social mobility but creating new social inequalities based on prestige and economics. Gerhard Lenski developed his theory before the advent of the Post-Industrial society. However, other sociologists have picked up where he left off and argue that government programs established in the post-industrial society reduced social inequality. Yet they aren t sure by how much or for how long. They use data on the concentration of wealth to suggest the reduction of social inequality to support their claim. In the 1920s, the wealthiest 1% of the American population owned roughly 40% of America s wealth. By the 1980s, the percentage of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1% dipped to 30%. To these sociologists, this information shows a reduction of social inequality in America during the rise of the post-industrial age. Slide 8: But now, in the early 21 st century, the percentage of ownership of the nation s wealth by the wealthiest 1% has returned to the 1920s level. So what does this mean? The economist Simon Kuznets argued that technological achievements tend to first increase social inequality among people but then level off over time. But his findings don t really allow sociologists to predict the future in any economically developing society. This is because we cannot foresee the political and economic priorities a government will make in any one society which will determine the extent of income inequality. For example, consider a comparison between the two high income nations of the United States and Sweden. Priorities of the Swedish government created policies that reduced the income
inequality among its population while priorities of the American government did not- as a result, we experienced a return to the 1920s levels of economic inequality. As both nations have democratic governments, one can argue that the policies created by both reflect the wishes of the cultures they represent. But cultures do evolve over time- what was socially normal during one period may or may not be at a later point- which is why it is difficult to predict the path of social stratification in the future.