1. Social Stratification
The Architecture of Stratification Social Class and Inequality

2. Stratification Types of Stratification
A system that ranks entire groups of people and perpetuates unequal rewards and life chances in society.
Types of Stratification
Slavery
Caste Systems
Estate Systems
Social Class Systems
Social Mobility
matt
Slavery still exists around the world today – in Africa and South Asia in particular
Estimated 12.3 to 27 million people, mostly women and girls
Slavery has occurred in various forms almost everywhere in the world at some time. Mexico, Great Britain, France, Russia, and Holland all abolished slavery before the United States; Spain, Korea, Cuba, and Brazil did so afterward (Davis, 2006). Several Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates—didn’t abolish slavery until the latter part of the 20th century. Though theoretically against the law, tens of thousands of people in the west African nations of Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Mauritania are born into slavery today (“A Continuing Abomination, 2008). In South Asia, there are millions of “bonded laborers,” whose employers force them to work to pay off a debt (Appiah, 2007).
Caste systems – laws have been changing in India to better protect low caste people, especially “untouchables” (Dalits)
Estate systems - House of Lords in Great Britain – hereditary peers (people who get to be in the government solely by birth). For a moment, this system seemed to be changing. In 2007, the British House of Commons (the so-called lower house) voted overwhelmingly to introduce elections to the House of Lords. It also voted to remove the last remaining “hereditary peers,” whose presence in the House of Lords is based solely on their noble lineage (Cowell, 2007). A week later, the House of Lords soundly rejected the measure.
Social class systems – based on economic position, people with a similar cultural and social understanding of the world and how things work
Social mobility – technically possible in a social class system (legally possible), but in practice not common. Little social mobility between two generations – more like 5-6 generations to see real shifts

3. Social Stratification

4. Stratification and Disaster
Titanic
2,207 passengers and 1,178 lifeboat seats
1,500 people died
First Class - 60% survived
Second Class - 36% survived
Steerage -24% survived
Hurricane Katrina
People in low-lying areas experienced more flooding and greater damage
Low-lying neighborhoods in New Orleans serve poorer people and more people of color
Fewer residents had cars with which to escape

5. Structural-Functionalist Perspective
Social inequality is found in some form in all societies and thus is apparently unavoidable
Therefore, inequality must be somehow necessary for societies to run smoothly
People sort themselves out into different positions in society
Skill and Reward – more talented people will move into more important positions and will be appropriately rewarded
Some positions require skills that few possess or require a great deal of training
Positions that require more skilled individuals must have higher rewards
Jobs that require few skills do not need to be highly paid as there is no shortage of people to fill them
BUT – the garbage collector is pretty important, and the sports star not so much, yet their salaries are vastly different and don’t reflect their importance to society running smoothly
Benevolent dictatorships are the most efficient form of government, but they don’t really allow for much social mobility or equality

6. Critique of this Perspective
Can it be stated that people don’t have the “skills” to be doctors or attorneys when opportunities and access to training are not equal?
Entertainers, actors, and sports stars - Could we live without them?

7. Conflict Perspective
Inequality is neither a societal necessity nor a source of social order
Stratification is the result of unequal distribution of resources such as money, information, land, education, health care, safety, housing, etc.
Most US elected congresspeople are far wealthier than the average American. The U.S. Congress is dominated by both Republicans and Democrats who are far richer than the citizens they represent. The average wealth of a U.S. senator is well over $10 million; House representatives average over $5 million. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senators and 40% of the Congressional Representatives who were newly elected in 2010 are millionaires—compared to 1% of the general population (Center for Responsive Politics, 2011).
Are politicians likely to make decisions that benefit the poor over the wealthy?
Shortly after voting to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2011, Congress quickly began to look for ways to cut spending on programs that benefit low-income Americans, such as Medicaid (the health insurance system that covers poor adults and their beneficiaries), low-income housing programs, legal services for the poor, and supplemental nutrition for poor families (Daily Kos, 2011).
Marx and Engels: means of production (factories – from Industrial era); nowadays: Authority (bureaucracies and the knowledge age)

8. Symbolic Interactionism
American children are taught that a person’s social class is the result of talent and effort
Those “on top” have worked hard and use their abilities
Those “on bottom” lack the talent on motivation to succeed

9. Ideology of Competitive Individualism
No one deserves a free ride
The way to success is to work hard
Compete well against others
We are fully responsible for our economic fates
Those who have more deserve what they have earned
The dark side of the U.S. belief in competitive individualism is that it all too easily justifies the unequal distribution of rewards and the existence of poverty. If people who are financially successful are thought to deserve their advantages allegedly because of individual hard work and desire, then the people who are struggling financially must likewise deserve their plight—because of their lack of hard work and desire. People in the United States have an intense need to believe that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people (Huber & Form, 1973; Lerner, 1970). In short, most of us want to believe that if a poor person is suffering, she or he “must have” done something to deserve it. The people who succeed, in contrast, “must have” been born smarter, stayed in school longer, or worked harder. The belief in competitive individualism gives people the sense that they can control their own fate.

10. Culture of Poverty Thesis
Poor people have a different value structure from the middle class or upper class
This culture serves to keep them in poverty
People pass this culture on to their children
Culture of Poverty Debunked:
People tend to move in and out of the welfare system, rather than spend their entire lives on it
Other societal obstacles keep people in poverty including race and discrimination
If a teenager can’t find work – for a poor family that can be disastrous; for a middle class kid it just means no extra money for the movies on weekends
If a poor kid gets a bad grade, no recourse for tutoring or other supports; middle class kids get Kumon or whatever.
Middle class families have access to more ways to get what they want – which makes it appear that they are working harder or more deserving and makes it appear that the poor have a bad culture
“future orientation” vs. “present orientation” – again, just less obvious for middle class people if they splurge on something society says they should have (cell phone, sneakers, car, etc) – even if the MC person also can’t really afford it
Current economic situation is showing how the MC didn’t save and got themselves into bad debt situations. The MC economy didn’t continue to “grow them out of debt.”
Contrary to popular belief, the financial assistance that people receive on public assistance is rarely enough to sustain a life that is remotely comfortable. For example, in Indiana—where benefits are among the lowest and eligibility rules among the tightest in the nation—the cash assistance limit for a family of three is a mere $288 per month. To qualify for this assistance, such a family cannot earn more than $378 a month (Groppe, 2010). That works out to an annual “income” below $8,000.