Chapter 9 Concepts and Theories of Stratification

Most important topic in sociology?  Titanic example –Survival percentages… 60% of 1 st class, 36% of 2 nd class, 24% of lower decks  Marx quote in Manifesto: –The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

Social Stratification = ranking people in terms of money, power, prestige  Trait of society… not primarily about individual differences –We “pick” our place, we “make” our opportunities? –Titanic lower strata did not die because of personal failing  Persists over generations –In our country, considerable social mobility, but clear inter-generational patterns  varies greatly…. But is universal

Income Inequality in the US  ome03/prs04asc.html

Marx’s Concept Of Class  Industrialization led to increased inequality – Marx saw this  Predicted it would become worse  Eventually, 2 classes: bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Bourgeoisie owns the means of production.  Proletariat must sell labor to the bourgeoisie.

How was Marx “right?”  Class struggles are relevant in the history of the world  False consciousness vs. Class consciousness relevant in all “revolutions.” –True “class” only comes with consciousness of mutual circumstances, mutual interests, common enemies  $ most relevant dimension of stratification  Capitalism lead to exploitation? (Are there negative effects of the “profit motive?”)

How was Marx “wrong?”  $ not the only way societies stratified  2 great classes did not emerge –Industrialization initially produced great inequality, but eventually produced a middle class –Revolution did not occur as he predicted (US most industrialized of all)  Classless society impossible

Weber’s Three Dimensions Of Stratification  Marx shaking up the intellectual and political world – Read Manifesto, p. 44  Observed that strat more than $. That is, “life chances” determined by more than just $  E.g., Clergy might have status and power, but little money  Based stratification on three independent factors: –Class ($, property) –Status (prestige) –Party (power – ability to get one’s way despite resistance)

In all societies, people unequal in $, prestige/status, and power. Implications????  Parking rules the same for you and me?  $, status, power matter in “life chances.” In college admissions, for example –Affirmative action?  Kerry and Bush given any advantages as a result of the $, status, power of their families? –Daily Show Video

Social Mobility – a change in one’s position  Chap 2 we learned about Ascribed vs Achieved status  Caste system – position at birth determines (or mostly so)  “Class” system like ours there is considerable mobility - one can achieve status, $, power – Are we a true meritocracy? (Social strat based solely on merit?) – of course not

2 kinds of Social Mobility  Structural Mobility – when % of higher status positions increases, upward mobility inevitable –Industrialization did this (Marx did not anticipate structural mobility) –Mostly helpful in cross cultural –E.g., Brought down apartheid?  Exchange Mobility – without structural changes, for every person who moved up, one would need to move down

Classless possible?  Marx a utopian thinker – remove “means of production” result in classless society?  Dahrendorf – technically true, since Marx defined class as ownership of means of production  But Marxism did not produce classless society

Easy to see why – go back to Italian sociologist Mosca’s, The Ruling Class (1896): 1. Human societies cannot exist without political organization. 2. Political organization = inequalities in power. - Societies must be stratified in terms of power 3. Because human nature is self-serving, people with more power will use it to exploit others and gain material advantages. -Power inequalities will result in $ inequalities

Functionalist Theory of Social Strat – Davis and Moore  Positions differ in their functional importance  Some positions more difficult to fill  Reward system ensures that important, difficult positions filled

Criticisms?  Justify inequality?  Societies “fair” in the way the identify people to assume important positions (race, class, gender do matter)  Circular? A tautology? –Position is functionally important. How do we know? Because it is rewarded. Why is it rewarded? Because it is important.

Toy Society – a great illustration  Replaceability – thinking this way helps with the circular problem  Spaceship crashes – survivors need 4 things to survive (food, air, water, heat) –Ay produces all 4 – only she can produce air  Next generation must create a reward structure that ensures production of air.

A Conflict Theory “corrective”  Inequality inevitable… reward structures functional… yes, but something not quite right  Conflict theory brings us back to basic assumption: humans pursue self interest  Ay has $, status, power – can exploit this position of power –Gap between haves and have nots greater than functionalism would predict

Politics of Replaceability – can replaceability be manipulated?  Physicians better at healing, given a monopoly on healing – AMA formed  AMA controls the supply of doctors –doctors limit supply of doctors  AMA limits others from doing doctor related tasks  AMA can create its own demand –E.g., “addiction” model creates clients  AMA, from this perspective, an interest group  Unions also an attempt to manipulate replaceability and create demand

 Great quote: Functionalism can explain why doctors (or… fill in the blank) make more than orderlies, but it requires conflict theory to explain why the gap is as large as it is.