ADVERTISEMENTS:
The following points highlight the top three approaches towards stratification. The approaches are: 1. Marxian Approach to Stratification 2. Weberian Approach to Stratification 3. Functionalist Approach to Stratification.
1. Marxian Approach to Stratification:
The term social class is used in different ways by different writers. It would be difficult to incorporate in a single definition all the elements which appear in these different versions. For an understanding of the origin and nature of social class, it is worthwhile considering the views of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and functionalist writers.
Marx is considered to be the ‘Copemican’ hero in the history of the evolution of social stratification theory. He emphasised the basic importance, as a criterion of stratification, of the individual or the group in the economic structure.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The emphasis contributed toward all subsequent stratification theory. He made class the central aspect of his analysis of society. Though most sociologists in subsequent years have disagreed with many, if not most of Marx’s assumptions about the subject, many of the non-Marxist or anti-Marxist ideas on the subject have been developed by way of reaction to the original formulations of Marx.
Marxist sociology starts from the premise that the primary function of social organization is the satisfaction of basic human needs—food, clothing, and shelter. Hence the productive system is the nucleus around which other elements of society are organised.
Marxist definition of class arises from his assumption of the primacy of production. A class is constituted by any aggregate of persons who play the same part in the production mechanism.
In Capital Marx outlined three main classes who are differentiated according to relations to the means of production:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) Capitalists or owners of the means of production receiving profit;
(ii) Workers or all those who are employed by others and receive wages;
(iii) Landowners who receive rent. Marx considered landowners different from capitalists and as survivors of feudalism.
He recognised that there is differentiation within each of these basic categories. For example, he looked upon petty bourgeoisie as a transitional class who, by the pressure of economic forces in a capitalist society, would eventually bifurcate, one going down and joining the ranks of the proletariat and the other going up to join the ranks of capitalists.
Marx, however, dramatized the antagonism between classes by referring to two extreme cases—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat or those who own the means of production and those who do not.
Thus, Marx distinguished classes in objective terms; that is, in terms of their position in the productive system. But his primary interest was in understanding the emergence of class consciousness among the depressed strata, so that it could serve as a basis for conflict with the dominant class.
Marx, therefore, distinguished between what he called a class in itself (the German an sich) and a class for itself (the German fur sich). The former refers to a situation in which the class members do not understand their class position, the numerous constraints they work under, or their ‘true class interests’.
When the workers fight for higher wages only, they may be said to be imbued with trade union consciousness, and not class consciousness. In such a situation, the workers may be engaged in intra-class competition and rivalry. These workers constitute a class in itself or a class an sich.
They cannot wage a class struggle with the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the class fur sich or the class for itself is a self-conscious class, a large proportion of whose members consciously identify with the class and think in terms of waging a struggle as a class with the dominant class. According to Marx, only when fur sich attitudes develop does the class struggle really emerge
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Marx was of the view that class consciousness does not develop automatically. On the contrary, only through purposive effort does class consciousness grow. The Communist Party was assigned by him the responsibility of developing fur sich attitudes among the proletariat.
While discussing the preparatory stages of class struggle in Communist Manifesto, Marx outlined the role of the Communist Party in these words:
“The Communists fight for the attainment of immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of the movement………. But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat…………” Seen in this perspective, Marx does not appear to be a determinist.
Marx, therefore, looked at class both objectively and subjectively. Fulfillment of objective conditions alone does not entitle a group to be treated as a class. Only when the group develops fur sich attitude or class consciousness), (which is to be distinguished from trade union consciousness), does it become truly a class.
Thus, Marx based his definition of class on two criteria:
(i) The economic status and
(ii) Class consciousness among those who belong to the same or similar economic status.
Marxian conception of social stratification has been subjected to several criticisms. It is pointed out, in the first place, that this concept does not take account of different types of differentiation which exist in present-day complex societies. These differences are far greater in number that those Marx had experienced or visualised.
“For example, the analysis of social stratification needs to take into account such differences as those between owing and managing business roles, between business and professional occupational roles, and between skilled and unskilled labour roles”.
Secondly, Marxian concept of stratification ignores a variety of other social-structural factors that are of the greatest importance in analysis of stratification, viz., lineage and kinship affiliations in almost all societies and ethnic affiliations in societies which are ethnically differentiated.
In U.S.A., for example, the coloured people constitute a class in an ethnically stratified society not so much in terms of their economic status but in terms of their bearing a visible ethnic identification tag. Thirdly, while Marx placed almost exclusive emphasis on economic factors as determinants of social class.
Max Weber suggested that “economic interest should be seen as a special case of the larger category of ‘values’ which included many things that are neither economic nor interests in the ordinary sense of the term. For Weber, the Marxist model, although a source of fruitful hypotheses, was too simple to handle the complexity of stratification. He, therefore, sought to differentiate among the various sources of hierarchical differentiation and potential cleavage”.
2. Weberian Approach to Stratification:
Max Weber’s approach to stratification was based on two Marxian approaches. In the first place, Weber began with the situation that Marx identified—namely, that social stratification is an organised manifestation of unequal power in society. Secondly, although this generalization is universal, he, like Marx, focused on industrial societies and capitalism in particular for analysis of social stratification.
Weber confined his analysis to institutionalised power—that is, to power that can be exerted in a legitimate and regular manner. This eliminates from the discussion any illegal force, such as a criminal action and piracy or any abuse of power through extra-legal means.
For analytical purposes, Weber separates institutionalised power into three spheres of activity—economic, social and political. Within these three spheres, power is expressed in terms of class, status and party respectively. He then analysed the characteristics of power in each of these spheres by way of describing the system of stratification.
It should, however, he noted that the aforesaid classification given by Weber is not a static classification, each sphere completely demarcated from the other two. On the contrary, he considered the interactions and tensions among those spheres.
i. Economic Sphere:
In Weber’s analysis, all people with similar economic interests and with similar economic power belonged to the same class. The definition comes very close to that of Marx, but not in all respects. Max Weber meant by economic factor not simply the relations of production, but also the relations that develop in the market place.
He thus expanded Marx’s conception, so that stratification consisted of more than two antagonistic economic classes. He further showed, as the that economic antagonisms among classes need not be fatal for one particular class, in contrast to the view of Marx.
Max Weber did not accept the Marxian concept of two classes divided into those people who owned the means of production and those who did not Instead, he analysed in economic terms the means by which economic power could be gained. For instance, ownership of the means of production can result in monopoly or control over the sale of economic goods as well as their manufacture.
This kind of ownership thus becomes a kind of economic power. Ownership can also lead to the accumulation of property. Further, ownership can also mean the ability to take advantage of education in order to enhance one’s economic and social standing.
Weber was of the view that each of these aspects could, ideally, be ranked in terms of the power that each conferred, and that the class structure of a society could be determined.
Weber was more pessimistic than Marx concerning the probability of a proletarian triumph over the bourgeoisie. Marx assumed that the arena of the market place could produce the necessary consensus, consciousness and organisation for a social movement.
Weber, on the other hand, contended that it could not, because the market produced temporary alliances that were dissolved once the immediate economic gain was attained.
Classes could find a basis for common action; but that basis could not be simply economic. Weber was of the view that Marx’s error lay in his assumption that economic forces would, more or less automatically, be translated into social forces.
ii.Social Sphere:
The second sphere of power is social. Weber used the term status to mark off different strata in this sphere. All persons who enjoy in society’s estimation similar honour or prestige and who follow similar life style generally belong to the same status group. Status is thus judged by standards that are accepted in the community. While class is a form of impersonal economic placement, status is tied to personal evaluations.
In addition to life style and patterns of taste and consumption, levels of education, kinship and occupation are also used as bases for evaluating the status of persons in the society. There is generally a correlation of these various types of ranking in order to ascertain the resultant status of the individual. Weber had thus, in contrast to Marx, a multi-dimensional approach to stratification.
It may justifiably be argued that part of the status evaluation depends upon economic criteria. Maintenance of life style obviously depends upon money. There are, however, advantages in keeping class and status distinct, since the distinction between them can be illuminating.
For example, the noveau riche are those who have become wealthy only recently, but whose aspirations for high status are not immediately realised.
On the other hand, there are the high status elite who may lack money or economic power, as in the case of faded aristocrats or high caste Brahmins with very low incomes. In order words, the two dimensions of class (measured in economic terms alone) and status really measure different facets of stratification.
iii. Political Sphere:
Political power was the last of the three dimensions that Weber identified. He developed this aspect of stratified power least, and he treated it mainly as a residual category. This is so because political power may reflect social and economic power.
In fact, there is a clear tendency for individuals to convert their power in one sphere into commensurate power in other spheres. Thus, men of wealth seek status and political power. Those in high status positions seek to exert political influence. Politicians too are interested in status and economic power.
There are, however, advantages in having an analytical separation of these three spheres. As an illustration, we may consider a case where the three spheres exist in tension. During the period of early capitalism, each of the three power spheres was located in a separate sector of the population. The descendants of the earlier feudal aristocracy managed to maintain their status power.
In a society in transition when all other traditions were pushed aside, the tradition status appeared to remain, more or less, undisturbed. Economic power was concentrated in the new bourgeoisie who had acquired, in Marxian terms, ownership of the new means of production.
Political power was, however, less localised and more dispersed, being shared between the older aristocracy and the new claimants to power.
As capitalism developed, the separation of these three spheres of power created tensions. For instance, business could not be conducted independently of government which became a major factor in the economic sphere. Therefore, the economic elites had to work more closely with the political elites.
Moreover, there was a tendency among individuals to translate their position in one power hierarchy to a comparable position in another power hierarchy. Thus, the economic and political elites sought to realise a comparable standing in the status hierarchy. In this way, a trend was established toward a merger of the three elite groups.
Marxian Social Class and Weberian Social Status:
The basis of social class is indisputably economic. They are characteristic groups of the industrial societies which have developed since the seventeenth century. Difficulties arise, however, when an attempt is made “to specify the number of social classes or to define their membership precisely”.
Nevertheless, most sociologists recognise the existence of an upper class (who own or control the major portion of the resources of a society), a working class (who are industrial wage-earners engaged in blue-collar occupations) and a middle class (who are a residual category engaged mostly in white-collar occupations and liberal professions like medicine and law).
In the Third World countries, a fourth class, viz. the peasantry, can be identified who differ in attitudes and ways of behaviour from industrial workers.
In industrial societies today, the social classes cannot be distinguished on economic grounds alone. The picture of social stratification is complicated, as pointed out by Bottomore, by the existence of status groups alongside social classes.
Status groups are differentiated, among other things, by the ‘life-styles’ of the people who compose these groups, while social classes are differentiated in terms of their relation to the production and acquisition of goods.
The difficulty in drawing up a coherent picture of social stratification in Western industrial societies arises from the fact that in these societies there has been “a real abatement, though by no means a disappearance, of class differences and class conflicts”.
Since industrialisation substantially improved the economic condition of the working class, the sharp distinction between the ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots’ have lost its focus in Western societies in the sense that the ‘Have-not’s have access to many good things of life Which were denied to them during pre-industrialisation period, namely, good food, decent dress, opportunities for school and higher education, facilities of medical care, etc.
In this context, the distinctions among social classes rest primarily on ‘life-styles’ of people defined in terms of several criteria which are deemed by the society to be symbols of honour and prestige. These social classes may better be called status groups.
Stratification based on prestige and honour affect the class system, as Marx conceived it, in two important ways:
(i) “By interposing between the two major classes a range of status groups which bridge the gulf between the extreme positions in the class structure”, and
(ii) “By suggesting an entirely different conception of the social hierarchy as a whole, according to which it appears as a continuum of more or less clearly defined status positions, determined by a variety of factors and not simply by property ownership, which is incompatible with the formation of massive social classes and with the existence of a fundamental conflict between classes”.
The characteristic features of these status groups is that the relations between these are those of competition and emulation, and not of conflict, as suggested by Karl Marx.
While outlining the trend in Western societies on the above lines, Bottomore observes as follows:
“Thus in place of classes pursuing their economic interests at the expense of the community, the democratic societies are moving towards a system of groups which are less exclusive, less clearly defined, less widely separated in social level, and not pursuing with the same tenacity their narrow group interests”.
3. Functionalist Approach to Stratification:
Although the ideas of Marx and Weber are the most fruitful sources of theory on social stratification, much of contemporary sociology emphasises the functionalist approach to the subject. This approach is associated with the names of Emile Durkheim, Kingsley Davis, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton.
Functionalists point to the complex nature of modern society and to the highly differentiated system of roles which must be performed. A society must, therefore, distribute its population in different positions of the social structure and motivate them to perform different roles.
The problem of motivation must be solved at two levels: first, to induce individuals to fill certain positions and, second, to induce them, once they fill those positions, to perform satisfactorily the duties attached to those positions.
The problem of motivation arises because of two reasons. First, the duties attached to various positions are not all equally pleasant or equally hazardous, or equally important to the life of the community. If all the duties were similar in terms of these criteria, it would hardly make any difference as to who filled which position. But actually all duties are not equally important or equally pleasant.
Naturally, it matters very much as to who gets into which positions. Second, the vast variety of positions that must be filled differ in their requirement for skill, education, intelligence, commitment to work, and the like.
Functionalist writers argue that in an un-stratified society—that is, one in which rewards are relatively equal for all tasks—those positions which involve hard and strenuous labour, greater anxiety, postponement of gratification and the like—will not be filled by people who are most competent for the jobs.
“The stratification system is perceived, therefore, as a motivation system; it is society’s mechanism for encouraging the most able people to perform the most demanding roles in order to have the society operate efficiently”. In other words, the system of stratification solves the problems of motivation and placement.
Kingsley Davis points out that society has, at its disposal, three kinds of rewards to motivate individuals and place them at appropriate places.
These are:
(i) Economic incentives—the things that contribute to sustenance and comfort;
(ii) Aesthetic incentives—the things that contribute to humour and diversion;
(iii) Symbolic incentives—the things that contribute to self-respect and ego expansion.
These rewards are usually ‘built into’ the positions. Since the rewards and perquisites are unequal, the society needs must be stratified, because that is precisely what stratification means.
We have so far discussed the need for hierarchical differentiation. But we have yet to explain how men evaluate different individuals in the stratification system. Talcott Parsons has pointed to three sets of criteria which are used as a basis of ranking.
These are possessions (those attributes which people own); qualities (belonging to individuals, including ascribed statuses, such as race, sex, lineage or a specific ability); and performance (i.e. judgements about achievements).
According to Parsons, societies vary considerably in the degree to which their central value system emphasises possessions, qualities or performance in locating people in the social hierarchy. He points out that, ideally speaking, a feudal social system stresses ascribed qualities, a capitalist society emphasises possessions and a pure communist system would assign prestige according to performance.
Parsons points out that no actual society approximates to these three ideal-type models. On the contrary, each society has included elements of all three. Societies vary in terms of variations in the emphasis placed on these three elements.
The functionalist writers have undoubtedly shed light on a very important aspect of social stratification. But we cannot explain all kinds of stratification in terms of their theories. To begin with, the stratification that emerges out of the relationship between the victor and the vanquished cannot obviously be explained in functional terms.
In all historical periods and in all countries the victors have deprived the vanquished from all the good things of life and pushed them down to the basement of society.
Secondly, the stratification that results from racial or ethnic differences cannot also be explained by functionalist theories. Can the discriminatory treatment meted out to the Negro in various walks of life be explained in functional terms? Their deprivations and comparatively low social status are to be attributed mainly to their colour and not necessarily to their lack of ability or skill.
We have already seen that when the Aryans met the aboriginal population on coming to India who were in many ways different from them and conspicuously marked by dark skin colour, they were given a place in the basement of the Aryan social structure as a serf with few rights and many disabilities. Functional explanation is obviously irrelevant in such cases.
Thirdly, in many countries land ownership has been the basis of social stratification, particularly in agrarian societies. European feudalism was based, among other things, on land ownership.
Similar was the case in respect of social stratification in Middle East—particularly Lebanon, Syria and Egypt—in which stratification was based for several centuries on land ownership. Such social divisions had obviously nothing to do with role allocations in terms of social requirements.
Fourthly, both Marx and Max Weber emphasised the role and importance of economic forces in the emergence and maintenance of a stratified society. Though Marx and Weber differed in details, both of them identified stratification as a manifestation of unequal power.
And unequal power may be attributed, in many cases, to unequal distribution of economic resources among different sections. Though there are limitations to economic interpretation of social stratification, it throws into sharp focus an aspect of society which has been neglected in functional explanation.
The observations of Bottomore on the difference in approach of the Marxist and the functionalist theories with regard to social stratification are very illuminating.
Bottomore observes as follows:
“Whereas the Marxist theory unmistakably reflects the character of social and political conflicts in nineteenth century Europe, the functionalist theory reflects equally clearly the social situation in the U.S.A., where neither a working class political movement nor a working class ideology has ever become established, and where the social hierarely has been conceived Very largely as a system of loosely organised status groups, membership of Which is related to individual abilities. The Marxist theory emphasises conflict between large and stable groups, with strong community sentiments, while the functionalist theory emphasises the integrating function of social stratification based upon individual merit and reward. The latter theory has many points of resemblance with Durkheim’s theory of the division of labour…. Neither of these two theories has the universality which it claims. An adequate theory would have to take more serious account of the variety of stratification systems, would regard social stratification as a derivative institution most closely linked with property and the division of labour, but also with war and religion, and would deal systematically with the connections between social stratification, political institutions and cultural phenomena”.