A420C8FD.pdf

Social Strati ication This article by Gerald D. Barrett, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, discusses the concept of social strati ication, which refers to a society’s categorisation or division of people into rankings/hierarchy based on factors such as wealth, inc...

Social Strati ication This article by Gerald D. Barrett, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, discusses the concept of social strati ication, which refers to a society’s categorisation or division of people into rankings/hierarchy based on factors such as wealth, income, education, social status, power and family background that are differentially powerful, esteemed, and rewarded. It discusses different models and concepts used to analyze systems of collective social ranking, particularly those based on birth- ascribed status rather than individually acquired characteristics. It examines the concepts of caste, race, ethnicity, and class strati ication, and argues that while these systems have unique cultural and historical features, they also share signi icant structural and functional similarities. The author contends that these birth-ascribed systems of inequality have common consequences for the individuals and societies that experience them. It also touches on the issue of sexual strati ication, arguing that it too should be considered a form of birth-ascribed inequality comparable to other systems One common basis for categorising and comparing these systems is whether people got their statuses and privileges as a result of characteristics regarded as individual-acquired or as a result of characteristics regarded as innate and shared by those of common birth. This dichotomy is often further simpli ied by applying the terms 'achieved' versus 'ascribed' status. 1. What are the main models and concepts discussed in the document for analyzing systems of collective social ranking? Caste - The document discusses the caste system in India as a prominent example of birth-ascribed strati ication deriving from the example of Hindu India where the jati (almost literally ’common ancestry’) is the type-case. Jati in India refers to interdependent, hierarchically ranked, birth- ascribed. The ranking is manifested in the public esteem accorded the members of the various groups, in the rewards available to them, in the power they wield, and in the nature and mode of their interaction with others. Jatis are regionally speci ic and culturally distinct. Race - The document examines racial strati ication systems where ranking is based on alleged physical differences. For instance, In America, if a person is known to have had a sociologically black ancestor, he is black regardless of how many of his ancestors were sociologically white (and even though he looks and acts white). In South Africa, most American blacks would be regarded as ’coloured’ rather than ’black’. Traditionally, in a mixed marriage, one is a Jew only if one’s mother is a Jew. In contemporary India ,anAnglo- Indian has a male European ancestor in the paternal line and maternal European ancestry are irrelevant. The point to be made here is that systems of ’racial’ strati ication are social phenomena based on social rather than biological facts.. To be sure, certain conspicuous characteristics which are genetically determined or in luenced (skin colour, hair form, facial conformation, stature, etc.) are widely used as convenient indicators by which ancestry and hence ’racial’ identity is recognised. Colonialism - The document examines how colonial domination and exploitation can be seen as a form of birth-ascribed strati ication. Class Strati ication – in this case, The Social status/class which involves the ranking based on social honour, prestige or respect in luenced by features such as income, education, a person’s lifestyle, family background and occupation. In a class system individuals regard themselves as potentially able to change status legitimately within the system through fortune, misfortune, or individual and family efforts. For instance, using a prostitute and a teacher, a prostitute might belong to the same income class as a teacher however, a prostitute is widely regarded as holding low status whilst a teacher holds high status. But this may change based on time and their efforts. In a birth-ascribed system, individuals know that legitimate status change is impossible-that only dissimulation, revolution, or an improbable change in publicly accorded social identity can alter one’s rank and hence life- chances. Ethnic Strati ication- refers to statuses de ined by shared ancestry or attributes of birth or a system which assigns unequal social status, rewards, or power based on ethnicity. Pluralism - The document discusses how systems of birth-ascribed strati ication inevitably lead to social and cultural pluralism due to the social separation involved. Sexual strati ication - The document also brie ly discusses gender-based strati ication as another form of birth-ascribed inequality. 2. What is the author's key argument regarding the similarities and differences between various birth-ascribed systems of inequality, such as caste, race, and ethnicity? The author argues that while these birth-ascribed systems have unique cultural and historical features, they also share signi icant structural and functional similarities. The author contends that the common principle is that ranking is based on putatively inborn, ancestrally derived, and signi icant characteristics that confer intrinsic worth and superiority/inferiority. 3. How does the document address the issue of sexual stratification and its relationship to other forms of birth-ascribed inequality? The document addresses sexual strati ication as another form of birth- ascribed inequality that shares many of the same characteristics and consequences as other systems, despite often being overlooked in the literature on strati ication. 4. What is the author's perspective on the value and importance of comparative analysis of these systems of inherited inequality? The author emphasises the value of comparative analysis of these systems, arguing that identifying the similarities can yield important insights, despite objections from those who view each system as unique. The author believes comparative analysis is crucial for understanding and explaining the experiences of those living within these diverse systems of inherited inequality. 5. What are some of the common consequences that the author identifies as resulting from birth-ascribed systems of social stratification? The author identi ies common psychological and social consequences of birth- ascribed strati ication, such as paternalism, dependence, arrogance, resentment, prejudice, and the perpetuation of oppression and inequality, which stem from the rigid, immutable nature of these systems. Overall, Strati ication has been described as being based on three primary dimensions: class, social status and power, expressed respectively as wealth, prestige, and the ability to control the lives of people. The distinction between class and birth-ascribed strati ication can be made clear by considering the relative advantages and disadvantages that arise in Western class systems. In contrast, the new element is race ( colour ), caste, ethnicity (religion, language, national origin), or sex. The differences in opportunities and behaviour accorded people as a result of these criteria are described by such pejorative terms as racism, casteism, communalism (including especially ethnic and religious discrimination), and sexism. In conclusion, the distinctions in social strati ication are complex and multifaceted, with each factor contributing to the overall structure and dynamics of a society. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for addressing the complex issues of social identity and social roles.