Social Stratification
Social stratification refers to the idea that communities of people are characterized by a well-defined classification system by reason of material possessions and accessibility to life chances (Hout and DiPrete 2006, pp 2). Over the years societies have always had various forms of stratification mechanisms related to disparities in social status and economic resources. Social scientists have never come to a clear consensus regarding the modalities for distinguishing the different types of stratification that have been in play over time. However, five forms of stratification have been put forth: class systems, primitive communal, caste, slavery and feudal (Kerbo 2003, pp. 50). The varied forms of stratification are related to different rules characterizing the classification of various groups of people; thus theories of social stratification are an undertaking to try and understand these rules. The history of social stratification in majorly a history of the discussions regarding status, prestige, and class rankings in societies.
Forms of Social Stratification
Caste: this is a hereditary form of social classification in which persons who are usually interrelated through marriage transfer their social hierarchy to the next group. The rights and mandate of one group are automatically attributed due to the fact one is born in that particular group.
Class: this is a form of stratification by authority ascribed to a particular group in the contemporary society. In this case, someone’s rank relies on personal efforts, inherent characteristics, achievements, and financial power exhibited by the individual.
Apartheid: Apartheid system had a basis by racial discrimination in which some races were perceived to be superior to others. It was characterized by social authoritarianism and exclusion. For many years, wherever it existed, apartheid generated a social stricture in which the needs of the whites were put ahead of those of other races. Apartheid was not a natural course of action or societal development but as a result of a biased political event in which social identities were realigned in accordance to social dominance (Johnson et al., 2004 pp. 90).
Feudalism: In day to day usage, feudalism insinuates merely aristocracy or oppression as regards politics economic or social grounds. As a concept well known by social scientists, the term ‘feudal’ may connote different meaning, but three of the resurface: One, the legislative rights that controlled the possession of fiefs. During the middle ages, this was the only meaning of feudalism. In the turn of the 18th century, the concept expanded the nature of those in authority. Secondly, it refers to a societal entity where those with large tracts of land governed the less privileged, collecting land rents and another form of justice. Third, it is a kind of socio-political institution under the control of the military class which in turn controlled the lower class people (Therborn, 2016.)
NS-SEC versus Registrar-General Social Classification
The NS-SEC designates persons to social ranks by the kind of job one undertakes. It differentiates between those who have jobs, the jobless and the employers. Even those who can employ are distinguished based on the number of the person they can hire. In effect, there are three groups of employers: large-scale (capable of hiring over 25 individuals), those working with less than 25 persons and the self-employed (Chandola and Jenkinson 2000, pp 18). On the other side, employees are distinguished by looking at their contracts with their employers. High ranking employees such as managers and highly trained personnel are identified as a result of a more significant amount of trust entrusted to them and the ability to execute functions on behalf of the employers. Such individual works typically for the employers for long periods and are rewarded not through regular salaries but are also entitled to pension and career development opportunities. The other cadre is the working class employees who perform the day to work and have contracts which lay down the kind of work they can do and their wages and benefits. Distinctions between employees strata are enhanced by what they earn, opportunities for professional development and job autonomy. Service classes (managers) usually obtain a higher amount of salaries and benefits and more significant opportunities for career development (pp 183).
The Registrar-General’s Form of Stratification
In this type of classification, employees are divided into two major groups: the middle class and the lower class. Each of the groups was further divided into smaller subgroups. In a nutshell, the middle class was that individual who does little manual operation whereas the lower class was characterized by individuals performing mostly manual work. The types of jobs were marked by the importance assigned to the duties of the society. In effect, different groups were ascribed varied occupations considering their social standing. Therefore the positions were ranked as form the most prestigious one to least desired one. This type of stratification has some advantages. One, it is much easier to comprehend and apply. Secondly, an official method of classification by the state, the government was able to observe variations in the medical field, economic progress, and work over time. (Szreter, 1984, pp 523)
Structural Conflict and Structural Consensus
In sociology, there are some concepts that have brought influence to social theory regarding social action and structure. Therefore in this context, Marxism and functionalism tend to fit into the view of structure hence emphasize the macro perspective. Due to this fact they examine the society and how it shapes the behavior and ideas of human beings. Also, the human being`s behavior is better understood if we investigate the social structure. We find that there is an ideology that the structural conflict is becoming individualistic in the society. In contrast to this, we find that functionalism tends to use the idea of social solidarity (Callinicos & Alex 1976, p.200).
Giddens & Anthony (2001, p.150)
Giddens & Anthony (2001, p.150) further notes that, the structural consensus is a theory that functionalism falls under. It is believed that it came into sociology in the 20th century, but some researchers of sociology had presented its ideas in the nineteenth century. There is an argument that functionalism has created a lot of perspective and ideas in the society. That is why there is a lot of impact in the sociological thinking of individuals to this day. Researchers tend to argue that the human being`s thought is inherited and not invented. This notion is taking place in the process of socialization whereby human beings are thought to conform to values and norms. In this context, it means that it is the cultural behavior which is accepted in the in specific settings.
Emile Durkheim (2013,p.50) tends to explore the system of society as well as its function. Therefore the use of organic analogy is taking place in the sense that institutions or social factor are interdependent for the need of the society. That is to say that if one body organ of the society stops functioning, then the other remaining body organ cannot survive. Thus, concerning social institutions, the society will not be capable of forming social cohesion in the absence of the nuclear family. On the other hand, other arguments emerge that the central task of sociology is to analyze the society as functionality system which has interrelated variables.
In contrast to the structural consensus, Marxism has been regarded a fundamental conflict theory. This theory has been thoroughly explained in that economics influenced the society. On the same note, the working class had the way of selling labor power hence this determined on how human beings relate to one another.
The Marxism theory tends to examine the conflict between proletarians and bourgeoisies. Therefore there is a focus on the class conflict and the way it can be settled, unlike functionalism. Consequently, some researchers have interpreted this notion regarding capitalism and an emphasis on humanist approach about human agency Callinicos & Alex (1976, p.50). Economic determinism is an excellent idea to focus on about structural capitalist. On the same note, he focuses on ideologies and politics. In this notion, there is a belief that the human beings are considered not to be active agents of social change in that they do not shape the society they are living in. On the same note, it has been argued that capitalism will not collapse if we examine the exercise of power.
Functionalism and Marxism
Functionalism and Marxism have some few things in common. In this notion, they both try to investigate the society from a view of macro perspective instead of how human beings tend to affect the structure. They also focus on how the society moves toward modernity the industrialization of the nineteenth century and how it changes the quality of life. That’s why Marxist put their effort toward capitalism instead of the industrial society. Therefore functionalism and Marxism had different motives but, they explained the social structure using an analogy. On the same note, functionalists believed in meritocracy while Marxist understood that there are only two classes that have a difficulty of moving from one another (Giddens & Anthony, 2001, p.100)
Life Chance
Ways in which social class equally distributes life chances opportunities
Weber outlines three aspects of life which influence life chances; these determinants are such as class refers as economic relations, second is status known as social standing, and thirdly is the party which is an authority by trade unions. All the three aspects are connected to each other and therefore class is the most prominent above all. According to Wright Mills, life chances are all aspects of health, finishing of higher learning as well as prevention of being considered as immoral (Silber & Spadaro 2011, 129).. Notably, the method of life chances advocates that status cannot be wholly fulfilled, however, is at some point recognized. Apparently, it meant that human beings are successfully provided for their status as an outcome of the individual into which they are born. Instead, they earn it entirely on value. Therefore, the approach of life chances does not treat this as the only aspect defining alderpeople status, however as an essential, influential inspiration.
Ways in which social class equally distributes life chances opportunities
Consequently, one’s position concerning the method of stratification will contain significance implication for several other aspects of their lives. Hence, this will impact own access towards those things defined by the public as necessary such as the beautiful house, the beautiful phone, among others. These are all referred to us as possessions together with, learning as well as an accommodation; however, these possessions are exact infrequently dispersed correspondingly; therefore it is not easy in achieving these commodities in the society. Along with their capacity to avoid those things demarcated as unwanted (Mayer & Svallfors, 2005).
Within a contemporary community according to Mayer & Svallfors (2005), social class as life chances rely heavily on economic difference amongst groups, including income and wealth, possession of products, along with an individual’s status in humanity. The significant most significant difference in social class globally can be interpreted through one’s career. For instance, the higher rank lives mouldy undeserved salary, for example as landlords or birthright. People in the more senior class are not enough in staying off unearned revenue, despite there being a few wealthy persons. In most cases, a lot of individuals drop under central level or working category groups whereas the intermediate class is further divided down into higher middle quality as well as the lower middle class. The rich people maintain their work in the professional job including law, engineering, as well as having co-operated. Whereas, the lower middle class hold a career such as clinicians and teachers. Therefore, the higher middle class are stable, well paid and this has made them increased in class standing as compared to lower middle class (Silber & Spadaro 2011, 140).
The state information has indicated that the middle class mostly enjoy highest standards of health, continued education, have the capability of occupying their private homes, live longer, as well as owning a good number of customer products. As well, they are appropriately given maximum pensions along with conducive working atmosphere than the lower middle-class individual.
References
Chandola, T. and Jenkinson, C., 2000. The new UK National Statistics Socio-
Classification (NS-SEC); investigating social class differences in self-reported health status. Journal of Public Health, 22(2), pp.182-190.
Durkheim, Emile. Durkheim: The rules of sociological method: And selected texts on sociology and its method. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Giddens, Anthony. "Sociology." (2001
Hout, M. and DiPrete, T.A., 2006. What we have learned: RC28's contributions to knowledge
about social stratification. Research in social stratification and mobility, 24(1), pp.1-20.
Johnson, J.H., Parnell, A., Joyner, A.M., Christman, C.J. and Marsh, B., 2004. Racial apartheid
in a small North Carolina town. The Review of Black Political Economy, 31(4), pp.89-107
Kerbo, H.R., 2003. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical and Global
Perspective.
Mayer, K.U. and Svallfors, S., 2005. Life courses and life chances in a comparative
perspective. Analyzing inequality: Life chances and social mobility in comparative perspective, pp.17-55.
Silber, J. and Spadaro, A., 2011. Inequality of life chances and the measurement of social
immobility. In Social Ethics and Normative Economics (pp. 129-154). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Szreter, S.R., 1984. The genesis of the Registrar-General's social classification of occupations.
British journal of sociology, pp.522-546.
Therborn, G., 2016. What does the ruling class do when it rules?: state apparatuses and state
power under feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Verso Books.
