The basic theoretical formations of social stratification are drawn from analysis of the entire society. Inequality and its roots have intrigued students of society from the days of the Greeks (see the discussion of Plato's views of inequality in the text). These formulation also often include an evaluative component of the nature of the inequality, that it is either good or bad. Karl Marx and many contemporary conflict theorists look upon inequality as evil and something that should be replaced. Others such as the functionalist (exemplified here by Davis and Moore) see inequality as necessary, required for the successful operation of the society. There are some who take a neutral view such as Max Weber. This view simply takes into account the existence of inequality and then attempts to understand what that inequality is and what are its consequences. Watch for these themes as you read the sources relating to the attempts to formulate theories of social stratification or inequality.
For Marx, the fundamental determinate of social structure is the economic organization of society. He identified three basic features of society:
(1) material forces of production (methods people use to produce things) This is the technology or system that provides the goods and services in a very broad sense. An example of technology is the feudal agricultural, another is the capitalist industrial.
(2) the relations of production arise from the material forces and include property relations and rights. These relations are the economic organization of society.
In the feudal agricultural society, the relations show up in the form of land owner (landlord) and land worker (tenant farmer or serf). In this scheme of things, the owner needs the worker as the worker needs the owner to a degree. Social arrangements develop that tie the worker to the land, thus the worker is only partially free to sell his labor and then only to his feudal lord. He cannot sell it anywhere else. The worker (serf) is also isolated in small communities and there is only marginal cooperation among the landowners and even less among the serfs.
In the capitalist industrial society, the relations of production center on who owns the factory and who provides the labor. The capitalist owns the factory (the means of production), the worker provides (owns) his labor power. Each needs the other, that is the capitalist must purchase the worker's labor, the worker can only sell his labor to the capitalist. However, there are far more workers than there are capitalists, so the worker must compete continually with her/his fellow workers, some of whom will be willing to sell their labor for less than s/he will.
Both must relate to one another in this fashion in order to survive. In this scheme of things, there are more workers than there are capitalists. The result is that the worker may have a difficult time demanding full value for his labor since he must compete with all of the other laborers. If labor is in great supply the owner is free to go to whoever will work for what he is willing to pay.
According to Marx, surplus value is generated when the owner pays the worker only subsistence and manages to get more than subsistence from the product of that labor. This difference (profit) is surplus value in the Marx scheme.
Unlike the serf, the industrial workers live in cities, comes together in great numbers. This is an important feature in the formation of militant classes and in the Marxist revolution.
(3) forms of social consciousness: the legal structures and ideas that correspond to and support the first two. This will include unions and laws that protect labor as developed from conflict between the laboring classes and the owners. It also includes the associations of producers that work with the government to protect the interests of the manufacturers (e.g., the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Cattleman's Association and so forth).
This social consciousness consists of the laws, the values and religious values beliefs that support and justify the existing forces and relationships of production.
(4) The forces and relations of production are taken to be the substructure of the society, the social consciousness is then the superstructure resting on the former. This means that what happens in the society, i.e., changes, conflicts, etc., are a result of the underlying forces of production. All else merely supports and justifies these forces. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses in this context. Why? Consider how Christianity might be seen to support an existing social structure in the manner in which it suggests one will receive rewards.
I find it rather interesting that the 'proletarian revolution' that Marx predicted did not occur in 1917 in Russia, but in the 1980s in Poland when the Polish workers came together in SOLIDARITE to throw off the existing 'state capitalists.' True this did happen in a so-called communist country, but examine that change carefully and you will note it very closely parallels what Marx thought would happen in industrial societies.
All forms of economic organization generate conflict between classes defined by common economic position
Three important propositions are part of this:
Class is "economic:" strictly speaking yes, but the definition is much narrower -- indicates how people are related to "property" -- those without property are members of the proletariat, including salaried engineers, teachers, managers and so on. (Please note that property in this sense refers exclusively to the means of production and 'resources' of the society. It does not refer to your home or personal property.) This is so because individuals are selling their labor to whoever owns the firm for which they work. Thus the professor sells his / her expertise to the state or the private university. The manager similarly sells her / his managerial skills in the service of the firm.
Class then is a group of people who have a similar relationship to the means of production in a society -- if they own, then they are the bourgeoisie, entrepreneurial or capitalist class. If they sell their labor, knowledge and skills, then they are technically members of the proletariat or working class. Note that this is a very narrow definition of the economic and it is hinged entirely on the ownership of production.
What would be the class of a group of professors who jointly have established a college or university? Where would the students fit into scheme of things? Who are the workers? Who the owners?
Economic theory of value / labor theory of value:
The Marxist argument is that industrialization brings people together in communities where they are forced to interact with one another, in this forced interaction they come to realize their common interests, and from this realization begin to act as a corporate class -- to develop class consciousness. It is the responsibility of the revolutionary in this situation to bring that to the attention of these corporate classes (the proletariat), to focus their energies on the structure of the society and its exploitative relationships
The real interests of the workers are found in this coming together and throwing off the yoke of the capitalist, to begin to work for his own benefit and interests. This involves recapturing the manufacturing process and work setting, turning the output to meeting the needs of the worker and not the profits of the capitalist class.
The capitalist may distract the worker from these real interests by focusing on or emphasizing immediate or short term interests, such as the chance for promotion with higher pay, special bonuses and the like.
If corporate action fails to develop, other, non-Marxist analysts point out that changes in the structure of the society may alter the 'real' and immediate interests of the class. Changes in the society will alter all of these interests so that it is in the long term interest of the worker to accept the immediate benefits.
There is some evidence that this is what has happened in the United States. Through the process of Unionization some gains have been made in working conditions and pay so that the worker feels that s/he is gaining some part of the profits and a fairer share of the goods and services produced by the business and for the country.
Link family to economic organization: women are domestic slaves, encouraged by capitalist economic organization, the 'bourgeois family' will disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.
Radical feminists argue that the sexual division of labor predates capitalism and is rooted in patriarchy.
Capitalism reinforces this structure, getting rid of capitalism will not remove the patriarchy and its effect on women.
Weber introduces us to the idea that there are several dimensions to the inequality that exists in a society. He essentially agrees with Marx in the economic basis of social inequality of class, class is economic in nature and relates to what Marx had to say. Weber, however did not limit his interpretation and discussion to a dichotomy as did Marx (i.e., Marx says two classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat)
Further Weber sees class, as did Marx, as being based in power and the distribution of power. However, that power is not limited to the economic dimension, there are social and political dimensions as well.
Three dimensions are identified:
As indicated, this very similar to the formulation made by Karl Marx. Class is economic and is established by what one does for a living, the contribution groups make to the productive system of the society. Unlike Marx, Weber suggested the possibility of a number of groups within this dimension. The top level would be divided between those who actually own the means of production and the managers and others who oversee and often run the enterprise in the name of the owners. Similar distinctions are made in the working class based upon skills and what one actually does.
One's occupation places one in the structure and adds to the way one lives. Location on this dimension establishes the kinds of life chances (what kind of medicine, education, how long one will live, how one will live) and life style (preferences for literature, music, recreation and so forth) that a person will have, it relates to income, occupation and the work world. Keep in mind that in this manner we see social class as establishing very important qualities of life for the individual and group. This formulation is closer to what we in America see as constituting a social class than is the Marxist formulation.
These are prestige positions, relate more to how long one has been in a given place or social position. Standing in these groups is based more on social tradition and history than on achievement or ability.
If your parents arrived in Colorado (or in Oregon or Washington) by covered wagon, then you belong to the 'pioneer' elite, a group who have standing simply because they were the first Europeans to settle in the area (note, I said EUROPEANs, there were Native-Americans here before us).
In this same vein, some claim superior social position because they claim membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution or Sons of the American Revolution -- by virtue of their ancestors having been here then.
Social standing in this sense can also derive from ancestry as indicated by being listed in the Social Register. The upper classes (nobility, junkers) of Europe are in this category. Note that often these people do NOT have much economic or political clout (power) in a modern urban - industrial society.
The Evans family was a pioneer in Colorado, one of the early governors of Colorado. The family had high social position in Colorado and Denver up to the death of the last of the Evans sisters, although they did not have a great deal of money by that time. The sisters lived in the Evans mansion at the corner of 14th and Bannock in relative poverty. The property had been lost or turned over to the state in earlier decades. Although poor, they had high social standing.
Thorstein Veblen was an early sociologist / economist who developed the idea of social status and status symbols in his Theory of the Leisure Class. The position of a status group is indicated by the symbols that they display. Thus in the US at one time the Ralph Loren polo pony on clothing was a status symbol, now it is imitated and available on nearly any piece of clothing at discount prices.
We are aware of how the size of our home, the furniture in it, the car we drive and the kinds of clothing we wear relate to and demonstrate our status within the community. Some even go to extremes to downplay status -- the grunge look, for example, with clothing from Nieman Marcus or Sacs Fifth Avenue. Knowledge of how to use wines, food, music, art, and literature are all symbols of status. These are consumption goods that only those with sufficient free time can use (learn to use). It is quite an experience to go to dinner with a wine connoisseur (snob!)
Party as a stratification variable does not make much sense in the U.S. situation because we tend to think in terms of two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. However, if we think in terms of local power, political that is, we can see that it applies here as well as in Europe where there are often many political parties.
For example, look at groups such as the SDS or the Weatherman (radical student political movements of the late 60s and early 70s). Or Think of the Libertarian party. In these cases we see smaller groups active in the political arena. Or the special interest groups that come together to pursue a particular action -- Douglas Bruce and Amendment 1, the proponents for Amendment 2, the term limitation amendment, school board positions, tax groups and so on.
The idea is that power is distributed across groups and this power is separate from either wealth or status, although often related to one or both. This can be seen most clearly in the "Black Power" of the 60s and 70s, or in the grey power of the 80s. It is this type of group and power that Weber had in mind.
The power groups discussed here can be best understood by examining the 'power resources' the groups command. In most of the examples given above the resources is numbers of active participants and in the cohesive organization of these participants. Other power resources exist as well: information, knowledge as well as wealth and control of force. Weber was very concerned with these distinctions and how they work out in human social organization.
This multidimensional view raises some interesting possibilities
For example, individuals need not have the same rank in all dimensions. Consider the discussion earlier of the union leaders, these individuals have a great deal of political clout, but little social or economic power. Differences of this kind are know as 'status inconsistency.'
This existence of 'status inconsistency' has been seen by some (the concept was originally proposed by Gerhard Lenski) as an explanation for behavior that appears to run counter to purely social or economic class interests. For example, people of Jewish background tend to be quite wealthy and often hold powerful economic positions within the community. However, politically they will support very liberal causes, such as welfare, free education and so on. These political positions are seen to be against their "class interests." Status inconsistency is invoked to explain this apparently contradictory behavior.
Position and 'power' on each of these dimensions can be independent, one need not have the same ranking on all dimensions. It is quite clear that people (groups) do tend to develop relatively similar ranking on all dimensions. That is, whenever possible the group uses the 'power' in one dimension to enhance position in the other dimensions. In the US, the most obvious is the case of great new wealth used to purchase status and political power. It also works out that status can be traded for monetary gain, political power used to gain wealth.
For example, Lyndon Johnson came from relatively humble economic and social status in Texas. Through careful and diligent pursuit of politics he was able to amass considerable political power. Through this power he was eventually able to develop considerable economic power, fortune in the form of radio stations and other properties in Texas. However, he was never entirely able to overcome his rural, middle class roots in the social realm as shown by his display of surgical scars on the Whitehouse lawn and his handling of his dogs by the ears in public.
This position, view of inequality tends to be fairly conservative, to support and reinforce the status quo.
1. basic tenets:
Positions that require long tedious training will require higher rewards in order to ensure an adequate supply of candidates
Example: physicians are necessary for the health of the population and require long training. Higher incomes, status and prestige is necessary to ensure that people will take on the years of privation and training that lead to success in medical practice and to meet the needs of the society for health care.
Example: garbage collectors are necessary and important to the society to ensure that the streets are kept clean and free of junk and festering piles of decaying garbage. However, the position requires little skill and training. Garbage collectors receive only enough rewards to make sure the position is filled, and the garbage collected and disposed of somewhere out of sight and out of mind.
In these formulations the existence of a market is understood. The ideas depend on the operation of a free and open market. A market guarantees that people will compete for the positions, that they can freely choose to do their own bidding, they do not have to depend upon any one else. Any activity that restrains the free open movement of people to fill positions reduces the applicability of these ideas and challenges the notion that inequality is necessary for the smooth functioning of the society, or is necessary to provide for the needs of the society. The argument implies that this is the simplest and best way to meet the needs of the society.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that positions of inequality are not based upon the actions of the market, in fact it is often quite the opposite. E.g., return to our example of the doctor. The AMA restricts the numbers of positions in medical schools, thus keeping the numbers of doctors lower than would otherwise be the case, and therefore artificially raising the value of physicians in the US.
Contrast this to the situation of lawyers: until very recently any one could become a lawyer by studying for the law, i.e., reading case law and learning where applied, then taking and passing the bar examination - - no formal education, degree was required. Recently the ABA (American Bar Association) required the applicant for the exam to have degree from an accredited law school in order to take the bar exam. As yet the ABA does not control the number of law schools or the number of vacancies in the schools as does the AMA. But this move to limit Bar examinees to graduates of accredited law school is a step in restricting the numbers of lawyers (some wags would say that is a good idea!!)
These are instances of restrictions on the operation of market forces, artificial attempts to restrict the ease of replaceablity of a person in a position.
The theoretical, conceptual formulation presented above attempt to relate the observed inequalities within given societies to a variety of historical processes.
Marx saw inequality as the inevitable outcome of the forces of production and that these forces were under pressure to change because of the conflict built into the productive system. He further saw inequality as disappearing when the proletarian revolution replaced individual, capitalist ownership of the means of production with collective ownership. For Marx the existence of social inequality based upon classes was unnecessary and bad for the society.
Weber on the other hand viewed inequality as a complex part of the total structure of the society. Inequality is multi-dimensional, a central part of the total social structure. Careful examination of Weber's discussion suggests that the key factor in inequality within a society is some variant of power.
Davis and Moore focus upon the necessity of social stratification as a motivating factor, as a structural device to ensure the filling of the most important positions in the society. Critics of this position have emphasized the centrality of a free, competitive 'market' system and how systems of inequality actually inhibit working of such markets.
I would draw your attention to the power dimension discussed by Weber and that this is likely to be the unifying theme in a universal theory of inequality. Social stratification is then seen as the inevitable outcome of the operation of power and the use of power to govern the distribution and access to the goods and services of the society.
Copyright © 1996, 1997 by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver.
This page last revised: January 12, 1999. Please contact Richard H. Anderson (randerso@carbon.cudenver.edu) if you experience any problems or have comments about these pages.