Major Concepts and Problems

“Stratification“ of society, whatever else it may mean, certainly denotes some way whereby some kinds of units are arranged in some kinds of strata. Conceivably the units might be nations, religious organizations, castes, military groups, races, or any other socially real categories into which human individuals are placed. We are interested here in two kinds of units: (1) the individual person, and (2) the kinship-group.

What is “stratification”? Every classification of human beings is also a potential ranking, and the number of possible classifications is large. Nevertheless, all known societies have a system of ranking their constituent members or groups along some kind of superiority-inferiority scale.The differential valuation of men as individuals and as members of social categories is a universal, formal property of all social systems. For present purposes we shall consider social stratification to mean the ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority- inferiority-equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation. We are interested, not in any and all varieties of stratification, that is, a system of ranking that is generally accepted as right and proper, as morally justified, but the groups within which it operates. By no means all superiority-inferiority relations are of this nature. Many of them are based very largely on power alone. Furthermore, in a large and complex social system there are wide variations in the degree to which the legitimacy of a given system of stratification (or of the positions occupied by various individuals within it) is accepted by various groups or subsystems of the collectivity. The term “ranking” seems at first glance to carry a fairly clear meaning, perhaps because of our common-sense knowledge of military hierarchies. Actually, several specifications are necessary to make the term analytically useful. In the first place, the accurate ranking of individuals is possible only within a given scale of valuation. The accepted scales of valuation of different societies, or even of subgroups in the same society, often have little in common. How, for instance, does one judge accurately the relative standing of a Spanish bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, a French general, an American millionaire, a Swedish scientists, a member of the English nobility? Individuals occupying these positions have “high” rank in their respective social systems, but what common denominator would permit precise ranking of each position relative to the others? Furthermore, the stratification that prevails within specific social organizations such as churches, armies, factories, governments, families, criminal gangs, schools, and so on (segmental stratification), must be distinguished from caste and class arrangements, which crosscut communities and the more inclusive society. Segmental stratification is most conveniently studied as a part of actual social organization, class or caste stratification as a part of the broader institutional systems of a society. Our present interest is thus in the second type, by which persons are summarily given a station in a scale of objective privilege and responsibility and in a correlative scale of individual prestige and deference. An individual’s position in this scale is in part, however, a weighted sum of his positions in the various segmental orders to which he belongs.

Ranking in a hierarchy of prestige carries with it many diverse kinds of permitted, forbidden, and enjoined behaviors, various degrees of privilege and power. Thus, the “elite”, groups are in part defined as elite by the difference that they receive from others. Difference may take an almost indefinite number of forms: acquiescence in material advantages or other objective privileges, tones of voice, ritualized salutations and leave takings, use of honorific titles, and so on. The elite groups may be defined by their share of various kinds of tangible privileges and immunities – for example, high income, possession of valued material goods, exemption from burdensome tasks, special immunities (from jury service, military service, prosecution for various misdemeanors, crimes), access to the person and goods of others, specific power and authority. Thus, prestige is the “subjective” aspect, and wealth (command over purchasable goods and services) and power (ability to control the acts of others) important “objective” aspects of stratification.

Much confusion in the consideration of stratification can be avoided by holding fast to the following elementary distinctions.

1. Stratification refers to the existence of a rank order. Such an order can have a specific meaning only within a given social system.

2. Any given ranking system can be analyzed in terms of:

a. the distribution of objective privileges, e.g., income, wealth, safety (health, crime rates), authority, etc.;

b. ranking by members of the society (prestige and esteem);

c. the criteria of rank, whether personal qualities or achievements, family membership, possessions, authority, or power;

d. the symbols of rank, e.g., style of life, clothing, housing, organizational membership, etc.;

e. the ease or difficulty and the frequency of changes in rank-position;

f. the solidarity among individuals or groups sharing a similar position in the system:

(1) interaction patterns (clique structures, common organizational membership, intermarriage, etc.);

(2) similarity or dissimilarity of beliefs, attitudes, values;

(3) consciousness of stratification position shared with others;

(4) concerted action as a collectivity – for instance, “class warfare.”

The nature of many controversies current in the literature on social stratification can be clarified by reference to these basic elements of the problem. For instance, the Marx-Engels distinguish these classes according to relations of individuals to the means of economic production. The possession of rights over the means of production is regarded as carrying with it intrinsic social power, including that of legalized coercion. Eventually class solidarity develops out of similar objective position (f-2), leading to class consciousness (f-3) , and finally to concerted action (f-4). These different aspects of Marxian theory are often commented upon as if they constituted a single, unitary conception. In part because of the availability of the data, a great many investigations have utilized a person’s occupation as one of the most important determinants of his whole way of living. Occupation alone, however, will not identify social class position. The ranking of individuals according to occupational activity is affected by two main considerations: the prestige of the occupation and the rank of the individual within it. There is a relatively high degree of consensus concerning the prestige of various occupations in many industrial societies. Much the same hierarchy of prestige is found in The United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, and Germany. Popular evaluations of occupations, at least at the level of abstract stereotypes, seem to be highly crystallized and have remained stable over a considerable period of time.

Individuals are also judged according to their prominence, ability, or “reputation” within a specific occupation. The individual’s rank is dependent not only upon his occupation but upon his success in it; he is “the best doctor in town”, “a leading lawyer,” and so on. These evaluations play a complex role in establishing an individual’s class position.

What are the criteria by which individuals or groups are placed in any given position in a stratification system?

To begin with, we know that different cultures emphasize different criteria. In some societies at some periods we find a rigid system in which an individual’s position is determined for life by birth into a family of a particular category or grade. The theoretical ideal type of such a caste society would exclude every consideration for placement save birth alone. Other cultures emphasize possession: not birth, but the fact of wealth becomes primary in social evaluation. Still other cultures may attribute high position to individuals on the basis of certain personal qualities: beauty, wit, physical strength, religious piety, possession of spirits, or whatnot.

Six classes of criteria of evaluation are given by Parsons (“An Analytical Approach to the theory of Social Stratification,” pp.848-849):

1. birth (or more broadly, membership in kinship unit);

2. possessions (wealth and income);

3. personal qualities;

4. personal achievements;

5. authority;

6. power.

The nature of the differential valuation of individuals is clarified by the distinction drawn by Hiller between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” valuations. (E.T. Hiller, “Social Relations and Structures,” New York, 1947, pp.191-215). The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic valuations is closely related to the distinction between esteem and prestige. A good servant may be held in high esteem but be invested with very little prestige. The first is valuation of his personal qualities or his performance of an accepted role; the second is a valuation of his functional position in the social system.

Intrinsic valuations tend to be equalitarian. For instance, the religious concept of the person as having inviolable soul accountable only to God, a concept current in our culture, gives everyone some positive value. In contrast, by the criteria of extrinsic valuation there are persons and groups that are valueless, or of negative value.

In principle, we can show the distribution of values, the allocation of privileges, among the individuals or other social units within any given social system. It can be expressed in objective, statistical terms once we know what the relevant privileges are. Groupings or strata derived from such measurements are not necessarily real social groups, however, but may represent simply the more or less arbitrary classification of the investigator. The distribution of privileges (the criterion of extrinsic evaluation) begins to take on full sociological meaning only when it is related to prestige ranking, social-interaction groupings, and beliefs and values held in common. We shall use the term “social class” to refer to an aggregate of individuals who occupy a broadly similar position in the scale of prestige. These ranking can then be analyzed according to their sources and supports in economic position and political power, and in terms of their relations to attitudes and social organization. There is no doubt that the several major bases for stratification tend to go along together. Power or authority can bring wealth; wealth is often associated with power; high income frequently means also high prestige. But we must not make the elementary mistake of confusing correlation with identity. Many prestigious occupations are not paid well. In approaching any society, we will have to locate its particular system of social classes with reference to three ideal types of stratification structures. The first, that of caste, is a system in which an individual’s rank and its accompanying rights and obligations is ascribed on the basis of birth into a particular group. In the theoretical, fully developed system, birth alone determines the person’s class; no change is possible because of personal qualities or achievements. In the second type, that of estates – a form approximated in some parts of Europe during feudal times – classes (nobles, clergy, and commoners, for instance) are rigid and transmission of position is largely hereditary. However, some limited upward mobility is permitted: the exceptionally gifted and energetic peasant lad can on occasion enter the priesthood or the military services and advance to high rank. There is likewise some restricted opportunity for interstate marriage, the prototype being the marriage of the commoner girl to a man of a higher estate. Finally, the third ideal type of stratification is the open-class system. Here the various strata are highly permeable; there is a great deal of rising and falling in the scale. At the theoretically conceivable extreme, “classes“ would be merely those temporary and nominal aggregates of individuals who happened at any particular time to receive about the same evaluation. Birth into a particular family of a particular group would be formally irrelevant to the later class position of the individual. Obviously such a society is highly competitive. Individuals must compete for status on the basis of personal qualities and achievements.

I Vocabulary

crisscrossing – пересечение
crucial – решающий
kinship – родство
conceivably – понятно, постижимо
rank – ранг, статус
criterion – критерий
superiority-inferiority scale – деление по принципу “более высокое и более низкое” положение
crosscut – разделять
acquiescence – покорность, молчаливое согласие
tangible privileges – реальные привилегии
exemption – освобождение
burdensome tasks – обременительные задания
prosecution – судебное наказание
misdemeanour – (судебно наказуемый) поступок
access – доступ
clique – клика, социально-культурная группа
intrinsic valuation – внутренняя оценка (самооценка)
extrinsic valuation – внешняя оценка
legalized coercion – официальное принуждение
concerted action – действия по договоренности
rigid – строгий
hereditary – наследственный
permeable – проницаемый

II Comprehension check

1. What does “stratification” denote?

2. What do all known societies have?

3. What specifications are necessary to make the term “ranking” usefull?

4. How is segmental stratification studied?

5. What is our present interest in?

6. What does ranking in a hierarchy of prestige carry with it?

7. What difference do “elite” groups receive from others?

8. What is the “subjective” aspect of stratification?

9. What are the “objective” aspects of stratification?

10. What terms can any given ranking system be analyzed in?

11. In what countries is much the same hierarchy of prestige found?

12. How are individuals judged?

13. What classes of criteria of evaluation are given by Parsons?

14. What is the difference between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” valuations?

15. Call three ideal types of stratification structure.

16. In what type is there a great deal of rising and falling in the scale?

Text 2

Objective Stratification

In a caste or castelike society, the “upper” groups control the criteria for ranking and successfully impose their standards upon the whole society. In an open class-society, on the other hand, there is no single accepted standard; each group or stratum tends to have its own perspective. Presumably those who in their own eyes are “upper class” will always attempt to set the scale for the entire population, but in a highly mobile, competitive system there may be considerable and effective disagreement. Differently located strata will emphasize different criteria of ranking. Thus, in our own society the upwardly mobile middle classes tend to stress competitive occupational achievement and “respectability,” whereas the newly arrived members of the upper strata emphasize wealth, and the established upper-upper groups give disproportionate weight to lineage (“purity”) and to certain symbols of secure status. If a society is to function, of course, there must be some minimal consensus as to the criteria for the social distribution of rewards and for the assignation of prestige rankings. However, as the United States demonstrates, there is room for much variability and inconsistency in the criteria for determining class membership in a complex open-class society. By “American” ideals, position should be based upon personal qualities and achievements. With one important exception to be discussed later – that of discrimination against minority groups – it is held that such society is and should be one in which the individual is free to move into those positions in the society that he has earned by ability, skill, effort, and moral worth. He is supposed to rise or fall according to his own merits; his position is determined by what he is and does or can do as individual. In its logically developed form, this conception of the stratification process becomes an internally consistent scheme that satisfactorily explains and justifies the entire system. It runs as follows:

1. This is a society of equality of opportunity and free, competitive placement. (“Anyone who has it in him can get ahead.”)

2. Hence, success is solely a matter of individual merit.

3. Hence, those who are at the top deserve to be there, and those at the bottom are there because of lack of talent or effort: it is “their own fault.”

4. Thus, the placement of individuals could not be otherwise without violating the value of individual achievement.

It takes no great acumen to see that actual equality of opportunity does not exist for a very great many individuals; nor is it difficult to show that inherited position, social “connections,” and a variety of circumstances essentially irrelevant to strictly personal qualities and achievements help place individuals in the stratification order. The more difficult and significant task is to go behind these rather obvious “discrepancies” and analyze the specific interplay of different institutional principles that operate in the stratification system.

We know that there are marked differentials in the distribution of scarce values. Few people live on an “average” income: most incomes are above or below average. Between this top level and the bottom strata there are great differences in total life-situation in terms of medical care and health, food, clothing, shelter, education, recreation, and general access to the comforts of life in our culture.

At the same time, we have a highly differentiated occupational structure. The proportion of occupations that are poorly paid, heavy, hot, dirty, and of low prestige has decreased; the expanding occupations are those which ordinarily have been thought to be more desirable and of higher rank. The role of differentials in wealth and income in our stratification system is complex and varies greatly in different occupations and communities. Wealth serves as the base for supporting a style of life considered to symbolize class position, and people with money attempt to buy the symbols thought to index high status. The proverbial conspicuous consumption of the newly rich is merely a salient instance of the purchased badges of rank. Wealth, furthermore, gives its possessor greater educational, occupational, and general cultural opportunity. In the race for achievement, those who start without wealth have difficult hurdles to clear before they can reach competitive equality with their more favored rivals. In addition, wealth is very frequently interpreted in our society as an index of achievement: he has money, therefore he must be successful, and to be successful he must have achieved something. Wealth, as the most universal and easily recognized mark of occupational success, has thus been a convenient symbol of achievement.

However, attempts to use wealth as the sole criterion of stratification set up powerful counterstrains. Much wealth is known to have been acquired by morally disapproved means; much wealth is inherited or acquired in other ways that can hardly be regarded as “achievement. ”In a dynamic and violently oscillating economy, there are such rapid changes in the income and wealth of large number of individuals that widespread doubt is created as to the correlation of wealth with achievement or personal qualities. Finally, the occupational structure is so complex that income or wealth clearly does not form a single scale for evaluation of movie stars, business executives, ministers, athletes, university scientists, and so on indefinitely. In some occupations, especially the salaried professions, it is not even supposed that income is a measure of the “worth” of a man’s contributions; salary is supposed to be only token recognition and of a magnitude adequate to the style of life expected of a certain occupational status. Nevertheless, both income or wealth and occupation are important criteria of status.

There are other social effects of economic stratification in our society. Economically “upper-class” persons can most easily secure an education. Persons in the lower income and occupational strata read less, travel less, are less active in political affairs. Their social horizons are constricted. So far as the evidence goes, furthermore, it consistently shows that mortality and morbidity rates vary inversely with income. Sickness and health, death and life, are thus to an appreciable degree functions of economic position.

Objective evidence of stratification is to be found not only in the differences in occupation and income but also in the great differentials of authority and power. The growth of large, centralized economic and political associations has meant the emergence of hierarchical organizations of sweeping power; in these structures it is possible for a few individuals to exercise quite comprehensive authority over large numbers of employees, union members, or citizens of the state. The military services, of course, provide the outstanding examples.

Finally, although the data are scanty and unsystematic, there are many converging indications that immunities and disabilities in the face of the law and penal system are correlated with caste and class position. The system of discipline is often adjusted to favor the upper-class.

In short, detailed study of stratification considered as a distribution of objective privileges clearly demonstrates the presence in a society of marked differentials in wealth and income and in social participation, authority and power, education, health, safety, and legal protection. This kind of stratification, then is a reality.

I Vocabulary