Social Stratification PDF

UNIT 1 SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: MEANING AND APPROACHES 10 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 The Evolutionary Process 13 Organizing Principles 1.3.1 Status 1.3.2 Wealth 1.3.3 P ~ w e r 1.4 Caste and Class in India 15 Caste and Social Stratif...

UNIT 1 SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: MEANING AND APPROACHES 10 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 The Evolutionary Process 13 Organizing Principles 1.3.1 Status 1.3.2 Wealth 1.3.3 P ~ w e r 1.4 Caste and Class in India 15 Caste and Social Stratification 1.5.1 Demography of Caste 1.5.2 Social Mobility 1.5.3 Principles of Hierarchy 1.6 Indian Social Structure 1.6.1 Summationof Status 1.6.2 Marxist Method and Concepts 1.6.3 Service Oriented Economy 1.7 Some Conceptual and Theoretical Issues 1 7.1 Weber's Approach 1.7.2 The Dialectical Approach 1.7.3 The Rise of Capitalism 1.7.4 Dakndorf and Coser 1 7.5 The Functional Theory 1.8 Let Us Sum Up 1 9 Key Words 1.10 Further Readings 1 11 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress 1.0 OBJECTIVES On going through this unit you should be able to: outline evolutionary processes in societies and social stratification; discuss its organizing principles: status, wealth and power; describe social stratification in India: caste and class; distinguish concepts and theories of social stratification, and describe social stratificationand social change. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Social stratification is a process through which groups and social categories in societies are ranked as higher or lower to one another in terms of their relative position on the - scales 9f prestige, privileges, wealth and power. A distinction could be made between the criteria which place emphasis upon the ascribed or innate qualities with which the strata are relatively endowed and those which are acquired by the strata though their own achievement. Ascription and achievement are, therefore, two types of scales which generally define the normative principles which work as determinants of social stratification in all societies. 5 Introducing Social Stratification Social stratification is also historical process. It emerged as a social instirution of societies at a certain level of social evolution and social development. The hunting and food gathering societies had individual levels of social differentiation, for exanlple, a top-hunter or shaman acquired higher status due to his personal qualities or skills wh~chsociety considered to be mystical or divine in origin; or differentiation could be in terms of age and sex of the members of the society. But owing to the limits on the popu1;ition growth due io less developed prod~lctiontechnologies and precarious and often nomadic nature of these societies, their social structure was quite sinlple endowed as it was with elenlentary skills anlong people for conuounication (linuted language vocabulary), sinlple technologies, elementary forms of belief systems, and rules of social control such societies did not produce any produce any substantial econo~nicsurpluses and accunlnlation of wealth for any member was in~possible.Such sinlpler societies did have social differentiation, but were withold the institution of social stratification. 1.2 THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS Social stratification as a institution evolved when the technologies of production under went basic changes. Innovations of animal husbandry and agriculh~renecessitated more complex technologies and settled forms of community life. These economies also began to generate economic surpluses and accumulation of wealth either in the form of cattle or food gmins. With assured food resources populatioi~began to grow as never before and barter and exchange, or commodities began to take place on a larger scale. In course of time. tools of exchange were invented which could reflect values of conunodities in a growth of sections of societies who had more control on wealth and power. with development of relatively complex technologies and division of labour, not only specialized groups emerged but a division between the rural and urban centres also cane into existence in course of time. The complexity of social structure ~lecessit~rted nore elaborate institutions of social control over the emerging new social realities. such as institutionalizedform of religion, strata of functionaries specialized into diflere~df o r n ~of work, culture specialists and the nllinlg classes etc. The instih~tionof social stratification cane into being as a result of an evolutionary functional necessity at such a historical moment. 1.3 ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES There are three nlajor organizing principles of social stratification. These are. stahls, wealth aid power. Sociological observations of many societies over a period ortime have revealed some linkages anlollg these principles in any evolutionary process For exanlple, even in societies which did not have the institution of social stratification. s ~ ~ casl ithe food gathering and hunting communities, some individuals eli.joyed higher social status and were treated as leaders. The n~agici;u~s (Shamans), persons with exceptional skills in limiting or in any other sphere of social economic and derense were accorded higher StahlS in the comnlunity. Yet. it did not result into the anival of the instih~tionof social stratification because such accrual of individual distinction contributed to social differentiation which could be on the basis of merit, age, gender or ; u i ~other nlarker in society. Social stratification collies into being in societies when social gradatioll or ranking is done on the basis of an entire group of people such as the gradations based on caste and class in our society. 1.3.1 Status The earliest principle of social stratification is that of stahls. Status in the language of social stratification nleans ranking of groups in a society on the basis of their relative position in terms of honour or respect. Honour is a qualitative attribute whicli menibers in a status group enjoy by birth. Any suchattribute whicli is inherited by birth is ascribed and cannot be acquired by effort. Therefore, status principle of social stratification is also tenlled as the principle of ascription. In our country, caste is a very appropriate example of status groups. The qualities which go to make a status groups are related more to valhes and beliefs, to legends and myths perpetuated in societies over a period of time than to 6 principles which are acheivable by efforts, whether economic, political or culhlral.  1.3.2 Wealth Social Stratification: Meaning and 4ppruaches The second organizing principle of social stratification is wealth. Wealth is generated in societies orlly when technologies advancement takes place and there is a change in the mode of production. Examples are: change from hunting and food gathering economy to settled agriciilture, change from agriculture based econoilly to one based predominantly upon nnnufiacturing and industry. Such changes, not only-brought about the institution of social stratification, but in course of time also altered the principles of organization of social stratification.Economic advancement led to generation of more wealth in society, more accumulation of markers of wealth be it in the fonn of food grains or cattle, or metals and minerals (silver, gold precious stones etc.) or money. At this stage, the groups which had greater control over the ecoi~omicresources and wealth or which possessed illore wealth were ranked higher in society than groups which controlled less of it, or groups which had little or negligible access to wealth (for example, landless workers or industrial workers). The social stratification based on class is its prime exanlple. ! 1.3.3 Power The third organizing principle of social stratification is power, Unlike status and wealth which can be clearly linked with group characteristics of ranking hl societies, the principle of power is arelatively diffused attribute because it is not exclusive in character. It is always possible that a-group with higher status in society or that which enjoys greater wealth. also exercises more power in society. Nevertheless, one could make a distinction between say, principle of privileges where as the latter tends to be based on the group's ability to use coercive nleans for other group's confornlity with actions, values and beliefs detemuned by it. The concept of power as Max Weber has discussed in his treatment of social stratification rests on the fact that it endows the persons or groups which have power to impose their will on other groups by legitimate use of coercive method. In this sense, state offers us a good example of an institution which has illaxinlum power. It has sovereign authority to impose its will on citizens of the society. When legitimacy of exercise of power, is widely accepted by groups, in other words, when it is iilstitutioilalized in society. power becomes authority. Authority as a coilcept could be defined as legitimate power. Power as aprinciple also enters into the notion of social stratification when its fuilctioils or its social ramifications begin to be influenced by the political processes in society. and when state begins to take illore active or direct role in iilflueilcing the principles of social stratification. A relevant exanlple of this could be found in the policy of positive discrinlinatioi~or reservation ofjobs, political offices and entry into educational institutions in our country by the state in favour of castes and tribes now declared as 'scheduled' or as 'other backward classes'. Max Weber, in his treatment of power as an elelllent in the formation of social stratification has rightly enlphasised the significance of politics, political parties and their role in optinlizing their access to power. Activity 1 Discuss 'status' 'wealth' and 'power' with other students in the study centre. In which way are they related to one another? Put your findings down in your notebook 1.4 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA We have discussed so far the p ~ c i p l e of s status, wealth and power as the main detenuinalts of ranking of groups in relative order in societies which lay down the foundation of social stratification. Caste and class are principles of social stratification which illustrate respectively the role of status and wealth in the ranking of groups in societies. Caste is a prime example of a status group. Class, on the other hand, is based on the p ~ c i p l where e groups are ranked on their access to wealth or their relative ability to. have a control upon the wealth resources in society. There is a greater degree of consensus among sociologists about the processes by which status groups are fomled and constitute the rank order in social stratification. But the same degree of coilsensus does not seem to exist about the processes which contribute to the emergence of classes by their differential 7 Introducing Social Stratification aicess to possession of wealth. The principle of wealth is no doubt, widely accepted as leading to social stratification. For instance, class is seen as emerging out of the 'nurket situation' by Max Weber, whereas Karl Mam connects it with the 'modes of production' which determines both access to wealth or its control as well as ranking of groups in society. No doubt, the central role of wealth in determining social stratification is implicit in both fornlulations. Modes of production vary with the changing fonns of capital (wealth invested for production of comnlodities) as discussed by Mam. So also. nwket situation is determined by supply