Sociology In Conflict and Order: Chapter 9: Social Stratification

In India, birth into a particular family often determines one's caste position, which in turn established one's social position, work, and range of marriage partners. At the bottom of this system is one group—the untouchables—that is so low that its members are not even part of the caste system. The untouchables do society's dirty work. But there is even a hierarchy among the untouchables, with one category so sullied that they cannot be seen by others during the daylight hours.

The pattern of structured inequities. These structured systems of inequality are crucial to the understanding of human groups because they are important determinants of human behavior and because they have significant consequences for society and its members.

Inequality is a fact of social life. All known societies have some system of ranking individuals and groups along a superiority-inferiority scale. A form of slavery continues as workers in some situations are virtually imprisoned by their employers, working for food and shelter with no hope of paying off their debts. This is found in many societies, including the US. Variations on these themes are also found in the US, where people are divided and ranked by family of origin, race, gender, and economic position.

People differ in age, physical attributes, and what they do for a living. The process of categorizing people by age, height, occupation, or some other personal attribute is called social differentiation.

When people are ranked in a vertical arrangement (hierarchy) that differentiates them as superior or inferior, we have social stratification. Social stratification refers, in essence, to structured social inequality. The term structured refers to stratification begin socially patterned. This implies that inequalities are not caused by biological differences such as sex or race. Biological traits do not become relevant in patterns of social superiority or inferiority until they are socially recognized and given importance by being incorporated into the beliefs, attitudes, and values of the people in the society.

The key difference between differentiation and stratification is that the process of ranking or evaluation occurs only in the latter. What is ranked and how it is ranked are dependent on the values of the society.

Social patterning of stratification is also found in the distribution of rewards in any community or society, because that distribution is governed by social norms. The hierarchies of stratification—class, race, and gender—place groups, individuals, and families in the larger society. The crucial consequence of this so-called placement is that the rewards and resources of society such as wealth, power, and privilege are unequally distributed. And, crucially, differential access to these societal resources and rewards produced different life experiences and different life chances.

Patterned behavior is also achieved through the socialization process. Each generation is taught the norms and values of the society and of its social class.

Life chances refer to the chances throughout one's life cycle to live and to experience the good things in life. Life chances are most significant because they are those things that (1) better-off people can purchase and which poor people would also purchase if they had the money; and (2) make life easier, longer, healthier, and more enjoyable. The converse, of course, is that people at the low end of the stratification hierarchies will have inadequate health care, shelter, and diets. Their lives will be more miserable and they will die sooner.

Class, race, and gender are macro structures of inequality that shape our micro worlds

Traditionally, the family has been viewed as the principal unit in the class system because it passes on privilege (or lack thereof) in wealth and resources from generation to generation. Life chances are affected by race and gender inequalities as well as by social class. In most families, men have greater socioeconomic resources and more power and privileges than do women, even though all family members are viewed as members of the same social class. Hierarchies based on sex create different conditions for women and men even within the same family. Systems of sex stratification cut across class and racial divisions to distribute resources differently to men and women.

When a number of people occupy the same relative economic rank in the stratification system, they form a social class. People are socially located in a class position on the basis of income, occupation, and education, either alone or in combination. In the past, the occupation, income, and education of the husband determined the class location of the family. But family behavior is better explained by locating families according to the more prestigious occupation.

The job or occupation that is the source of the paycheck connects families with the opportunity structure in different ways. This connection generates different kinds of class privileges for families. Privilege refers to the distribution of goods and services, situations, and experiences that are highly valued and beneficial. Class privileges are those advantages, prerogatives, and options that are available to those in the middle and upper classes. They involve help from the system. Class privileges are based on the systematic linkages between families and society. Class privilege creates many differences in family patterns.

Racial and ethnic stratification refers to systems of inequality in which some fixed group membership, such as race, religion, or national origin, is a major criterion for ranking social positions and their differential rewards. Racial and ethnic hierarchies generate domination and subordination, often referred to as majority-minority relations. The most important feature of racial stratification is the exclusion of people of color from equal access to society's valued resources.

Race is socially defined on the basis of a presumed common genetic heritage resulting in distinguishing physical characteristics.

Ethnicity refers to the condition of being culturally rather than physically distinctive. Ethnic peoples are bound together by virtue of a common ancestry and a common cultural background. A racial group that has a distinctive culture or subculture, shares a common heritage, and has developed a common identity is also an ethnic group

Gender, like race and class, is a basic organizing principle of society. From the macro level of the societal economy, through the institutions of society, to interpersonal relations, gender shapes activities, perceptions, roles, and rewards. Gender is the patterning of difference and domination through distinctions between women and men.

The stratification system that assigns women's and men's roles unequally is the sex-gender system. It consists of two complementary yet mutually exclusive categories into which all human beings are placed. The sex-gender system combines biologically based sex roles with socially created gender roles.

Sex roles refer to behaviors determined by an individual's biological sex.

Gender roles are social constructions; they contain self-concepts and psychological traits, as well as family, occupation, and political roles assigned dichotomously to each sex.

Patriarchy is the term for forms of social organization in which men are dominant over women. Patriarchy is infused throughout US society.

The hierarchies of class, race, and gender do not stand alone. They are interrelated systems of stratification. Economic resources, the bases of class, are not randomly distributed but vary systematically by race and sex.

These systems of inequality form what sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (1990) calls a matrix of domination in which each of us exists. The existence of these intersections has several important implications. 1) People experience race, class, gender, and sexuality differently depending upon their social location in these structures of inequality. 2) Class, race, and gender are components of both social structure and social interaction. As a result, individuals, because of their social locations, experience different forms of privilege and subordination. 3) The relational nature of dominance and subordination. Power is embedded in each system of stratification, determining whether one is dominant or subordinate. The intersectional nature of hierarchies means that power differentials are linked in systematic ways, reinforcing power differentials across hierarchies.

Adherents of the order model begin with the fact that social inequality is ubiquitous and apparently unavoidable phenomenon. They reason that inequality must, therefore, serve a useful function for society. The argument, as presented in the classic statement by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945), is as follows. The smooth functioning of society requires that various tasks be accomplished through a division of labor. There is a universal problem, then, of allocation—of getting the most important tasks done by the most talented people. Some jobs are more important for societal survival than are others. The societal problem is how to get the most talented people motivated to go through the required long periods of training and to do these important tasks well. The universally found answer, according to Davis and Moore, is differential rewards. Society must provide suitable rewards to induce individuals to fill these positions. The rewards must, it is argued, be distributed unevenly to various positions because the positions are not equally pleasant or equally important. Thus, a differential reward system guarantees that the important societal functions are fulfilled, thereby ensuring the maintenance of society. In this way, differential ranks actually serve to unify society through a division of labor and through the socialization of people to accept their positions in the system.

Creators of the order theory of social stratification.

The conflict perspective assumes that stratification reflects the distribution of power in society and is therefore a major source of discord and coercion. It is a source of discord because groups compete for scarce resources and because the powerless, under certain conditions, resent their lowly position and lack of rewards. Coercion results from stratification as the powerful prey on the weak. From this view, then, the unequal distribution of rewards reflects the interests of the powerful and not the basic survival needs of society. Karl Marx argued that the dominant ideology in any society is always the ideology of the ruling class. The ruling class uses institutions to legitimate systems of inequality. So powerful is this socialization process that even oppressed peoples tend to accept their low status as natural. Consequently, they accept a differential reward system and the need to leave supervision and decision making to experts.

Some categories of people are systematically disadvantages in the US, most especially the poor, non-Whites, and women. Is there some flaw within these groups that explains their inferiority? Or, is it the structure of society that blocks their progress while encouraging the advancement of others? To answer these questions, we examine the various explanations for poverty. Who or what is to blame for poverty? There are two very different answers to these questions. One is that the poor are in that condition because of some deficiency: Either they are biologically inferior or their culture fails them by promoting character traits that impede their progress in society. The other response places the blame on the structure of society: Some people are poor because society has failed to provide equality in educational opportunity, because institutions discriminate against minorities, because private industry has failed to provide enough jobs. In this view, society has worked in such a way as to trap certain people and their offspring in a condition of poverty.

In 1882, the British philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer came to the US to promote a theory later known as social Darwinism. He argued that the poor were poor because they were unfit. Social Darwinism has generally lacked support in the scientific community, although it has continued to provide a rationale for the thinking of many individuals. Recently, however, the concept has resurfaced in the work of three scientists. They suggest that the poor are in that condition because they do not measure up to the more well-to-do in intellectual endowment.

Arthur Jensen, professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, has argued that there is a strong possibility that Blacks are less well endowed mentally than are Whites. From his review of the research on IQ, he claimed that approximately 80% of IQ is inherited, while the remaining 20% is attributable to environment.

The late Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard psychologist, agrees with Jensen that intelligence is largely inherited. He goes one step further, positing the formation of hereditary castes based on intelligence. For Herrnstein, social stratification by inborn differences occurs because (1) mental ability is inherited and (2) success (prestige of job and earnings) depends on mental ability. Thus, a meritocracy (social stratification by ability) develops through the sorting process. This reasoning assumes that people close in mental ability are more likely to marry and reproduce, thereby ensuring castes by level of intelligence. This is another way of saying that the bright people are in the upper classes and the dregs are at the bottom. Inequality is justified.

Social stratification by ability. Proposed by Richard Herrnstein.

Charles Murray, along with Herrnstein, wrote The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, a revival of Social Darwinism. Their claim, an update of Herrnstein's earlier work, is that the economic and social hierarchies reflect a single dimension—cognitive ability, as measured by IQ tests.

First, biological determinism is a classic example of blaming the victim. By blaming the victim, this thesis claims a relationship between lack of success and lack of intelligence. This relationship is spurious because it ignores the advantages and disadvantages of ascribed status. The Jensen-Herrnstein-Murray thesis divides people in the US further by appealing to bigots. By implication, it legitimates the segregation and unequal treatment of so-called inferiors. Another serious implication of the biological determinism argument is the explicit validation of the IQ test as a legitimate measure of intelligence. For the most part, intelligence tests measure educability—that is, the prediction of conventional school achievement. Thus, the Jensen-Herrnstein-Murray thesis overlooks the important contributions of social class to achievement on IQ tests. This oversight is crucial, because most social scientists feel that these tests are biased in favor of people who have had middle and upper class environments and experiences. Inequality is rationalized so that little will be done to aid its victims. Herrnstein and Murray argue that public policies to ameliorate poverty are a waste of time and resources. The acceptance of this thesis, then, has obvious consequences for what policy decisions will be made or not made in dealing with poverty. The Jensen-Herrnstein-Murray thesis also provides justification for unequal schooling. The result of such beliefs is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Jensen-Herrnstein-Murray thesis encourages policymakers either to ignore poverty or to attack its effects rather than its causes in the structure of society itself.

IQ tests discriminate against the poor in many ways. They discriminate obviously in the language that is used, in the instructions that are given, and in the experiences they assume the subjects have had. The discrimination can also be more subtle. IQ tests in many cases provide a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The culture-of-poverty hypothesis contends that the poor are qualitatively different in values and lifestyles from the rest of society and that these cultural differences explain continued poverty. Most important is the contention that this deviant cultural pattern is transmitted from generation to generation. Thus, there is a strong implication that poverty is perpetuated by defects in the lifeways of the poor. This reasoning blames the victim. From this view, the poor have a subculture with values that differ radically from the values of the other social classes. And this explains their poverty.

The late Edward Banfield, an eminent political scientist, argued that the difference between the poor and the nonpoor is cultural—the former have a present-time orientation, while the nonpoor have a future-time orientation. He did not see the present-time orientation of the poor as a function of the hopelessness of their situation. If the structure were changed so that the poor could see that hard work and deferred gratification really paid off, they could adopt a future-time orientation.

Critics of the culture-of-poverty hypothesis argue that the poor are an integral part of US society: they do not abandon the dominant values of the society, but rather, retain these while simultaneously holding an alternative set of values. This alternative set is a result of adaptation to the conditions of poverty.

Elliot Liebow (1967), is his classic study of lower-class Black men, has taken this view (a critical view of the culture-of-poverty hypothesis). For him, street corner men strive to live by American values but are continually frustrated by externally imposed failure.

Most people in the US, however, believe that poverty is a combination of biological and cultural factors.

Contrary to common belief, most poor people are poor only temporarily; their financial fortunes rise and fall with widowhood, divorce, remarriage, acquiring a job with decent pay or losing one, or other changes affecting economic status.

Michael Harrington (1963), whose book The Other America: Poverty in the US was instrumental in sparking the federal government's war on poverty, says that the structural conditions of society are to blame for poverty, not the poor. When the customary ways of doing things, prevailing attitudes and expectations, and accepted structural arrangements work to the disadvantages of the poor, it is called institutional discrimination.

Most good jobs require a college degree, but the poor cannot afford to send their children to college. Scholarships go to the best-performing students. Chlidren of the poor usually do not perform well in school, primarily because of low expectations for them among teachers and administrators. Further evidence is found in the disproportionately low amounts of money given to schools in impoverished neighborhoods. All of these acts result in a self-fulfilling prophecy—the poor are not expected to do well in school, and they do not. Because they are failures as measured by so-called objective indicators, the school feels justified in its discrimination towards the children of the poor.

The poor are also trapped because they get sick more often and stay sick longer than do the more well-to-do. The reasons, of course, are that they cannot afford preventive medicine, proper diets, and proper medical attention when ill. The high incidence of sickness among the poor means either that they will be fired from their jobs or that they will not receive money for the days missed from work. Not receiving a paycheck for extended periods means that the poor will have even less money for proper health care—thereby ensuring an even higher incidence of sickness. Thus, there is a vicious cycle of poverty.

The basic tenet of capitalism—that who gets what is determined by private profit rather than by collective need—explains the persistence of poverty. The primacy of maximizing profit works to promote poverty in several ways: 1) Employers are constrained to pay their workers the least possible wages and benefits. Only a portion of the wealth created by the laborers is distributed to them; the rest goes to the owners for investment and profit. Therefore, employers must keep wages low. 2) Maintaining a surplus of laborers, because a surplus depresses wages. Especially important for employers is to have a supply of undereducated and desperate people who will work for very low wages. A large supply of these marginal people aids the ownership class by depressing the wages for all workers in good times and provides the obvious category of people to be laid off from work in economic downturns. 3) Employers make investment decisions without regard for their employees.