Stratification and Differentiation Flashcards
What is the functionalist view on stratification?
The functionalist view on stratification, often associated with the concept of meritocracy, suggests that social inequality and stratification are functional and necessary for the smooth functioning of society. According to this perspective, individuals are sorted into different positions in society based on their abilities, talents, and efforts, creating a hierarchical structure where people are rewarded based on their merit.
Functionalists argue that social stratification serves several important functions in society. First, it motivates individuals to strive for success and achievement. The promise of social mobility and the opportunity to move up the social ladder encourage people to work hard, acquire skills, and contribute to society. In a meritocratic system, individuals are believed to be rewarded based on their individual merits and contributions, which fosters productivity and innovation.
Second, functionalists argue that social stratification ensures that the most qualified individuals occupy the most important positions in society. This is seen as beneficial for society as a whole because it allows for specialized roles and expertise. For example, in a meritocratic society, the most skilled and knowledgeable individuals would be selected for positions such as doctors, engineers, and other high-demand professions. This allocation of talent and skills is believed to contribute to the efficient functioning of society.
e.g Hayes (2012) supports this by claiming that in order for meritocracies to measure up to their ideals, the have to comply with the principle of mobility where a competitive selection process enables people to rise and fall along with their accomplishments which shows that a prson’s position in society is determined by their hard work.
What is Durkeim’s view on Stratification?
Durkheim emphasized the importance of social cohesion and solidarity in maintaining a stable and well-functioning society.
Durkheim argued that some level of social stratification is necessary for the division of labor and the specialization of roles. He believed that societies needed individuals with different talents and skills to fulfill various functions and tasks. According to Durkheim, social stratification and the division of labor were essential for social order and efficiency.
However, Durkheim also warned against excessive and extreme forms of social stratification. He argued that when stratification becomes too pronounced and inequalities become too extreme, it can lead to social disintegration and undermine social solidarity.
E.g. In his book “The Division of Labor in Society,” Durkheim discussed how organic solidarity is characteristic of modern, complex societies where individuals are interdependent and have diverse roles. In such societies, social stratification is more pronounced as people specialize in different occupations.
What is Parson’s view on stratification?
According to Parsons, social stratification is a necessary and functional aspect of society. He argued that social inequality and the hierarchical organization of society were essential for maintaining social order and stability. Parsons believed that social stratification served various functions in society.
Parsons also believed that social stratification provided a system of motivation and reward. According to his perspective, individuals were motivated to work hard and strive for success in order to climb the social ladder and attain higher positions. Social stratification, in this sense, acted as a mechanism for encouraging individuals to invest their efforts and talents in productive activities that benefited society as a whole.
Additionally, Parsons saw social stratification as a means of social control. He argued that the hierarchical structure of society, with its unequal distribution of power and resources, created incentives for individuals to conform to societal norms and expectations. The threat of losing social status or facing negative consequences for deviant behavior served as a mechanism for social control and the maintenance of social order.
E.g. 2014 the Commission on Social Mobility and Child Poverty published their report on who is in charge of our country (Elitist Britain). It undertook an analysis of the background of 4,000 leaders in politics, business, the media and other aspects of public life in the UK. Its research found a dramatic overrepresentation of those educated at independent schools and Oxbridge across the most influential institutions of Britain. It concluded that Britain is deeply elitist.
What are the criticisms of the functionalist view on stratification?
The functionalist perspective assumes that social mobility is primarily based on individual merit and effort. However, critics argue that social mobility is not solely determined by individual qualities but is also influenced by structural factors such as access to education, economic resources, and social networks. For example, although only 7 per cent of the population attend private schools, they account for 71 per cent of senior judges, 62 per cent of senior armed forces officers showing that those who attend private school have a better chance of social mobility because of their access to greater economic resources.
Critics argue that the functionalist perspective tends to legitimize and justify existing social inequalities by emphasizing their functional importance. This perspective may downplay the negative consequences of stratification for those who are disadvantaged or excluded from opportunities. For example, feminists focus on the ‘glass ceiling’ of sexist prejudice and discrimination that still can act as a barrier for reaching the top jobs. The implication here is of a huge wastage of female talent.
The functionalist perspective tends to focus on the positive functions of social stratification while neglecting its negative consequences for individuals and society as a whole. Critics argue that social inequality can lead to social unrest, alienation, and the perpetuation of social disadvantages across generations. This shows that the view downplays the role of social conflict in shaping and maintaining social stratification.
What is the Marxist view on stratification?
According to Marxism, social stratification is primarily driven by the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and resources in a capitalist society. Marxists argue that the primary division in society is between the bourgeoisie, who own and control the means of production, and the proletariat, who sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in exchange for wages.
The bourgeoisie, as the ruling class, seeks to maximize profits and maintain its control over the means of production, while the proletariat seeks better wages, working conditions, and ultimately aims to overthrow the capitalist system.
E.g. The concept of alienation highlights how under capitalism people suffer a loss and no longer feel useful in their own self because the proletariat lose control over their lives especially in the workplace as they do not own the means of production and have no control over.
As workers engage in competition for jobs, promotion and opportunities, the foundation of false class consciousness forms, undermining any sense of collective class unity or consciousness.
What is the neo-marxist view on stratification?
Neo-Marxists recognize the importance of class in social stratification but also emphasize other forms of oppression and marginalization, such as race, gender, and sexuality. They argue that multiple intersecting forms of inequality contribute to social stratification, and these dimensions must be considered in understanding and challenging it.
Neo-Marxists contend that the capitalist economic system is deeply entwined with cultural and ideological aspects of society. They argue that cultural practices, beliefs, and institutions contribute to the reproduction and legitimation of social inequalities. This includes examining how dominant ideologies and cultural norms perpetuate and justify class divisions.
E.g. this relates to the monopoly capitalism which is where competition leads to a monopoly, a monopolist would become over-powerful and the inequalities of the system would become so obvious that members of the proletariat would realise their true position and a revolution would occur. Neomarxists like Gramsci saw hegemony as maintained through cultural domination as much as economic coercion. Monopolies enhance control by shaping cultural/political norms through massive media ownership and lobbying power.
What is Althusser’s view on stratification?
Althusser argued that social stratification in capitalist societies is not solely determined by economic factors or class relations but is also sustained and reproduced through ideological mechanisms. In his influential essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” Althusser proposed the concept of “ideological state apparatuses” (ISAs) as institutions that disseminate and reinforce dominant ideologies.
According to Althusser, the state apparatuses, such as the government, legal system, and police, maintain social order through repressive means. However, he believed that ISAs, including educational institutions, media, religious institutions, and cultural organizations, play an equally crucial role in shaping the consciousness and subjectivity of individuals.
Althusser argued that ISAs propagate dominant ideologies that justify and naturalize social stratification. These ideologies, transmitted through education, media, and other channels, create what he termed “interpellated subjects” or individuals who internalize and identify with the dominant values and norms of society. In this way, individuals come to perceive social inequalities as natural and legitimate, accepting their assigned positions within the stratification system.
E.g. In his book “Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis” Erik Olin Wright argues that changes in the economy, technological advancements, and political factors influence class structure and mobility. Therefore, changes in the government would determine which class benefits the most in society.
What are the criticisms of the Marxist view on stratification?
Marxist theory places a central emphasis on the economic base of society, asserting that class relations and the means of production are the primary determinants of social structure. While economic factors undeniably play a significant role in shaping social inequality, critics argue that they are not the sole determinants. Other social divisions, such as racial discrimination, gender-based oppression, or heteronormativity, also contribute to the formation and maintenance of social hierarchies.
One criticism is that Althusser’s framework downplays the role of economic factors and class relations in shaping and perpetuating social stratification. While Althusser acknowledges the importance of the economic base, he gives greater emphasis to the ideological and repressive functions of the state apparatus. Critics argue that by focusing excessively on the state, Althusser neglects the economic base and class struggle as fundamental drivers of social inequality.
Critics argue that while neomarxist perspectives acknowledge the significance of cultural and ideological hegemony, they may downplay the role of individual agency and the diverse ways in which individuals navigate and contest social stratification. By focusing primarily on structural factors and the power of dominant ideologies, neomarxist approaches may overlook the agency and resistance of individuals in challenging and transforming social structures.
In relation to stratification, what is Weber’s view on class?
Weber distinguished between class (has an economic base), status (based on esteem) and party (based on access to and use of power).
For Weber, class is defined by an individual’s market position or their economic situation, particularly their access to and control over economic resources such as wealth, property, and income. Weber recognized that economic factors play a significant role in determining an individual’s social position and life chances. However, he also emphasized that class is not solely determined by economic factors and that other dimensions are equally important.
Different classes have different life chances which is the access to necessary and desirable things in society such as healthcare, housing and occupational opportunities.
E.g. John Goldthorpe created a schema of class in support of Weber’s view where Higher-grade professionals, administrators, and officials are part of the service class who create opportunities whereas the Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers look for the opportunities.
In relation to stratification, what is Weber’s view on status?
According to Weber, status refers to an individual’s social honor or prestige and their position within a social hierarchy based on non-economic factors such as occupation, education, lifestyle, and cultural capital.
Status is determined by social and cultural distinctions. It reflects the level of respect and esteem accorded to individuals or groups within a society. Weber argued that status can significantly influence an individual’s life chances, social interactions, and access to resources and opportunities.
Weber identified three dimensions of status that contribute to social stratification for example, honor refers to the respect and esteem associated with a particular social position or occupation. Certain professions or roles may be highly esteemed in a society, while others may be looked down upon. For example, doctors, lawyers, or professors may enjoy higher levels of honor and prestige compared to manual laborers or service workers.
Weber recognized that status can intersect with other dimensions of social stratification, such as class and power. Individuals with higher economic resources may also enjoy higher status, as wealth and prestige often go hand in hand. Similarly, individuals with high status may have greater access to power and influence in society.
In relation to stratification, what is Weber’s view on party?
Weber defined party as a group of individuals who come together to pursue common political goals and exercise power in a collective manner.
According to Weber, party is distinct from class and status as it relates to the realm of politics and power. Parties are formed around shared interests, ideologies, or goals and aim to influence or control political institutions and decision-making processes.
Weber identified two types of parties:
- Traditional or Status Parties: Traditional parties are typically based on established social hierarchies and traditional forms of authority. They often represent the interests of particular social groups, such as nobility, religious institutions, or hereditary elites. Traditional parties derive their power and influence from long-standing social and cultural traditions.
- Modern or Interest-based Parties: Modern parties, on the other hand, are driven by specific interests and ideologies. They are formed around specific policy goals or social movements and aim to influence political decision-making. Modern parties are typically associated with democratic systems where political power is contested through elections and voting.
What are the criticisms of Weber’s view on stratification?
Critics argue that Weber’s framework lacks attention to historical and contextual specificities of stratification. They contend that his analysis does not sufficiently consider the historical development of class, status, and power relations or the ways in which these dynamics can vary across different societies and time periods. Critics suggest that a more historically and contextually grounded approach is necessary to understand the complexities of social stratification.
Weber’s approach is criticized for its limited treatment of intersectionality, which refers to the intersecting forms of oppression and inequality based on factors such as race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. Critics argue that Weber’s framework does not sufficiently address how these intersecting axes of identity and oppression can compound and interact with class and status to shape individuals’ experiences of stratification. They advocate for a more comprehensive analysis that recognizes the interplay of multiple forms of inequality.
Weber’s framework is criticized for its relatively limited attention to class conflict and class struggle. Critics argue that he does not sufficiently address the inherent conflicts of interest between different classes and the role of class-based social movements in challenging and transforming stratification systems. They argue that a more conflict-oriented perspective is necessary to capture the dynamics of social change and transformation.
What is the marxist feminist’s view on stratifiction?
Marxist feminists offer a perspective on stratification that combines insights from Marxism and feminism to analyze and critique social inequality. They argue that capitalism and patriarchy are intertwined systems that mutually reinforce and perpetuate oppression and exploitation.
Marxist feminists argue that both capitalism and patriarchy are systems of social organization that operate simultaneously and interact with each other. Capitalism is primarily concerned with the exploitation of labor and the accumulation of capital, while patriarchy refers to the social, cultural, and political systems that subordinate and oppress women. These systems are mutually reinforcing, as capitalism benefits from the unpaid or underpaid labor of women, and patriarchy relies on and maintains gendered divisions of labor and social norms.
Marxist feminists emphasize the gendered division of labor as a key aspect of stratification. They argue that within capitalism, women are often relegated to low-paid jobs, part-time work, or informal labor sectors. This gendered division of labor perpetuates economic inequalities between men and women and reinforces women’s economic dependence which sustains and reproduces the labor force necessary for capitalism.
What is the liberal feminist’s view on stratification?
Feminists argue that society is characterised by a system of patriarchy. In this society, gender stratification is organised so that men typically have higher statuses than women. This hierarchical stratification is based on concepts like social roles, interests, experiences, and careers.
Liberal feminism emphasizes individual agency and the importance of providing women with equal opportunities to pursue their goals and aspirations. It argues that women should have the freedom to make their own choices and decisions, whether in career paths, education, or personal lives. By removing barriers and biases, liberal feminists seek to create a level playing field where individuals can compete and succeed based on their abilities and choices.
Gender Pay Gap and Workplace Equality: Liberal feminism addresses the gender pay gap and advocates for equal pay for equal work. It seeks to eliminate workplace discrimination, such as gender-based hiring practices or limited promotion opportunities, and promote gender equity in employment. Liberal feminists argue that addressing these issues is crucial in reducing gender stratification in the economic sphere.
E.g. in Sylvia Walby’s study “theorising patriarchy” she identified that paid work is a source of patriarchal control which is because women are exploited at work. There is a gender pay gap (men get paid more than women), a glass ceiling (women are often not promoted to senior positions) and are often expected to take a mother role and therefore take career breaks or work part-time.
What is the radical feminist’s view on stratification?
Patriarchy as the Root of Stratification: Radical feminists argue that patriarchy, as a system of male domination, is the primary source of social stratification and inequality. They contend that patriarchal structures and norms permeate all aspects of society, creating hierarchies that privilege men and subordinate women. Radical feminists view gender as a fundamental axis of stratification that intersects with other forms of oppression.
Radical feminists analyze how male violence against women and sexual exploitation contribute to women’s subordination and stratification. They highlight the prevalence of gender-based violence, such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and harassment, as tools of control and oppression. Radical feminists argue that addressing and eradicating male violence is essential for achieving gender equality and dismantling stratification.
