Stratification and mobility

1) How equality emerged?

2) Marx on stratification and functionalists refutation
3) Conflict perspective on stratification. Social stratification
sows the seed for social inequality
4) Different theorists on social stratification
5) Malvin Tumin criticism of functionalists
6) Stratification on the basis of CLASS, RACE, ETHNICITY
7) Social mobility
8) Cause of social mobility
9) Studies on social mobility


Q: how the concept of equality emerged in society.

Answer: Equality- Right to be treated equally under

equal circumstances.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

equality emerged with rise of modern capitalism

Bourgeoisie against feudal ascription
Equality Before law
Then, political eq.
So, universal adult franchise developed
But, ended up engendering socio-economic
inequality.
7) LATER LIBERALS- equality Of opportunity(to
nurture merit) ----> Indian model of +ve discrimination
8) Essential amenities: Provide health-medicine
and education
(connection) Durkheim - equality of
9) Concept of social justice(reservation)
opportunity, abolish property rights
and rule of inheritance,criticised
10)Accepted meritocratic inequality/minimal
forced DOL
inequality for all(Indian model)




Q: Marxist view of inequality and functionalist response to them.

Answer:

Marx

A) above 3 equalities +
B) Equality of outcome too
C) Equal reward for barber and
surgeon

Functionalists

A) Peter Saunders - equality of

outcome
impossible(discourage
merit),undemocratic and
inhuman,unjust.
B) Finally, communism collapsed
and only equality of opportunity
survived

Some
instancesEugenics,
aryans and
nazis,less
wages to
women

Q: briefly discuss the conflict perspective on social stratification and examine the
view that social inequality in India is the function of rigid social stratification
system(2004- 60marker)


Answer: conflict perspective:

1) Karl Marx:

A) Rewards of society overlap with each other

B) Economy/FoP -a base structure, determines
superstructure
C) Wealthy attracts prestige and power
D) So, CUMULATIVE INEQUALITY
E) Symmetry in. 3 axis of WPP

2) Max weber:

A)
B)
C)
D)

Not necessary cumulative

Wealthy may not have prestige or power or both
DISPERSED FORM OF STRATIFICATION
Symmetry not necessary

3) Gerhard Lenski(midway)

A) status crystallisation- symmetry eg. Nehru. (~Marx)

B) Status inconsistency- unsymmetry eg.JNU unemployed, Ambani. (~weber)
C) Status inconsistency generates conflict(jats got but no political power)

Social inequality in India is the function of rigid social stratification system:

Question means that rigid stratification system in India is a causal factor of social
inequality. (because we generalise from group to individual,sometimes)

The traditional caste system in India was a rigid system of classifying people into different
categories. The then prevalent stratification did have scripture backing to legitimise and
rationalise the inequalities it created. If somebody is shudra, means he knows nothing,
generalise from group to individual.

The four Varnas and an outcast viz. Brahmin,Kshatriyas,Vaisya,shudra and untouchables.

The mobility was very limited between castes; nevertheless, the incidences of intra-caste
mobility was prevalent. It created different life chances for people belonging to different
castes, and the manifestation of it can be observed in present society also.

The brahmins were educated and considered to be pure. They were supposed to provide
education to dwi-vija viz. Kshatriyas,Vaisya. Shudras were not allowed to study and
learning of scripture text. The conditions of untouchables(PANCHAMS) were even awful.

Therefore, the rigid hierarchy created by Brahmins stratified the society into different layers
where mobility was either not allowed or limited mobility was there; Nonetheless, the inequal conditions along with differential life chances created by social ranking proved
deleterious for society.

Andre beteille:
Before, there were less or no
protests, bit after independence due
to the fact that normative charter
changed from scriptural text to
our constitution, that the
oppressed classes started raising
their voices in a hope to get equal
treatment, which has been denied to
them since ages.









Q: explain different theories of stratification.

Q: analyse critically the functional theory of stratification(1998-60 marker)

Q: write a short note on functional theory of stratification(1991-20 marker)

Q: what are the reasons for calling Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore theory of
social stratification a functional theory(2009/30)

Q: formal functionalist theory(Davis & Moore).

Answer: Theories are generalisation and explications of nature of sth.(stratification in this

case)

Comparative question may come

Davis and Moore- some roles are more important----> functional

uniqueness,functional dependency,irreplaceable.

Eg. Manager vs foreman,more training,more reward, more talent required.

MOTIVATION BY HIGHER REWARDS

Names
Of
Scholars

Basis of
Structure of Consequenc Whether
stratification stratification es of
stratification
stratification desirable/
universal?

CONFLICT
THEORISTS
1)Marxists

FOP & inst.

of private
property
CUMMILATIVE
INEQUALITY,
SYMMETRY

2) weber

WPP &
market
situation,
DISPERSED
INEQUALITY,
UNSYMMETRY

3)
Dehrendorf

Power and
authority in
modern
society

Bourgeoisie Unjust and No

vs proletariat inhuman-
Subjective
awareness> Revolution
4classes
Status groups No
(class based CUT ACROSS
CLASSES,
division)
Eg. Club
membership.

No revolution

Conflict
within ICA

Conflict
without
revolution

No

FUNCTIONA ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------LISTS

1) Davis &
Moore

Unequal
merit,right
person at
right place

Nope!

2) parsons

Value
consensus

Nope!

Integration

Yes

Integration

Yes

Criticism - since
looked for
consequences not
structure

Q: Explain Melvin Tumin's critique related to the theory of social stratification.

(2002/60)

Answer: tumin criticised Davis and Moore

A) criticised DM assumption that society is

absolute meritocratic
B) Criticised the assumption that rewards are
integrated with talent since talent is
immeasurable
C) In reality, it is cyclical
D) Worker vs engineer
E) Workers with vs workers without trade union
F) IN INDIAN CONTEXT-

Agricultural labourer not organised

Industrial labours organised

G) unequal rewards will bring inequality than
motivation
H) poor do not have education thus no
nurture to talent
I) Accept low paid jobs
J) training time is not sacrifice,education
and training Par se a reward

It's not unequal talent that is creating

inequality,but inequality that is creating
unequal talents.
-Prince
(Use in Tumin)



Criticism of TALCOTT PARSONS

TALCOTT PARSONS

unequal rewards make ppl act as per value (VALUE CONSENSUS), which in turn
establishes value consensus

Every society needs value consensus, stratification provides this VC. Every society
has some dominant value, whoever conform to it, is rewarded.
Bravery can be dominant value in one society.

Critic:
1) As Davis and Moore,TP did not provide structure of stratification(connect)
2) Failure people may ask for unequal rewards and can organise a rebellion.

Q: conflict vs functionalists

Answer: Gerhald Lenski (a moderator)

A)
B)
C)
D)
E)

amalgam of functionalists and conflict theorists

Lenski- both theorists are complementary
Stratification dual role
Divisive and integrative
Discourage and encourage talent

Q: Write short note on social class and vertical social mobility(1993/20)

Q: Write short note: class as a criterion of stratification (a dimension)

Q: write short note on: economic basis of stratification



Answer: CLASS- A group of people sharing common economic interest(economic
basis)

Theories on class as basis of stratification:

1) Karl Marx:

A)
B)
C)
D)
E)

first class based theory

Bourgeoisie and proletarians are two classes
Ownership vs non-ownership class
Bourgeoisie hold on FoP
Oppression----> capitalism----> class
consciousness----> revolution

2) Webarian theory:

A)
B)
C)
D)

Class based inequality- market situation not FoP

Determine life chances
Heterogenous rather than polarisation
Conflict but revolution is rare

A)
B)
C)
D)
E)

ownership lost its appeal in advanced industrial society

Class- a faction in ICA
Faction tries to seek authority for vested interest
Thus, conflict
FoP thing of past since authority is buzz word (connection with Marx)

3) Ralph Dehrendorf:

4) E.O. Wright:

A) Anomaly by middle class expansion

B) Supervisory middle class
C) Contradictory class location viz. where to put manager



Wright identified the basis of class division:

A) ownership not the sole basis
B) Class is determined by
I) ownership
II) credential skills
Iii) organisation asset position

Connection- marx's ownership,

weber's credentials/market
conditions

Some divergence(basically explaining the loopholes in Marx and Marxist):







E.O.WRIGHT (and Marx thought there are only two classes!)

Runciman:

A)
B)
C)
D)

same model as E O wright

3 criteria (ownership,marketability of skills,control)
Asymmetry is possible
Eg. Indira nooyi at par with owner

STUDIES ON CLASS BASED STRATIFICATION/Representative model of advanced

industrial society:

1) study in Britain:

Upper class

0.1%

Upper class professionals

10%

Middle class

15%

Lower-middle

20%

Skilled workers

20%

Unskilled/manual

30%

Under class- food stamps

49%

2)JEAN PAULSKI & MELCOLM WATER :

A) class is past
B) Book "death of class"
C) New buzz words are - ecology, gender class, ethnicity

Conclusion- Capitalism passed through many stages

A) Marx was relevant in 19th century, not anymore

B) 20 th century class matters but not divisive since welfare state
C) Status are less dependent on wealth
A) Fragmentation of statuses
B) Autonomisation
D) Society is market driven and meritocratic
Marxist reply:

Neo-liberal shift----> survey----> economic inequality

increases----> globalisation strengthened class division

Q: Race as a medium of social stratification.

Answer: Race- scientifically, race is a classification of human species,purely a biological

classification of human population,basis of those characteristics, which breed
true(generation to generation)---> skin colour,facial features

A) no pure race

Austroid - andmanis are intermixing between mongoloids and negroits

Why race is significant:

1) racist ideology
2) White mans burden
3) No scientific backing

4) Racism is a social construction----> created inequality

5) IQ Intelligence test
6) Eugenics. Francis Galton
7) NAZI'S PURE ARYAN RACE
8) Christian Germans aryans, but Jews germans are not!
9) Legitimisation and justification by wealth and power
10) South Africa apartheid
11) Our caste system (HERBERT RISLEY AND JYOTIBHA PHULE)
12)Racial discrimination is actually ethnic discrimination

Q: Ethnicity as a basis of stratification.

Answer: ETHNICITY

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

common identity
Common ancestors ( real/imaginary)
Practice in breeding (aryans)---> it confuses ethnicity with race
Identify with common homeland
Common culture(language,dress,food habits)
Aryans- an ethnic group not a race(same features since in breeding)

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

multi-ethnic plural society

Minority migration
Numerical inferiority
Ethnic distinctiveness
Exclusion by host group+lack of skills and resources
3 studies from harlambos
1) Collin brown and pat gay
2) Kim and noon study ( Ivan's vs Patel) job resume
3) Brown and gay study( European>Asian>black)

Ethnicity and stratification in modern society:

Q: what is social mobility,and different types of it.

Q: Historical Perspectives on social mobility.

Q: W.S.N. : Vertical and Horizontal mobility.(1998/20)

Q: W.S.N. : types of mobility.(1997/20)

Q: W.S.N. on social class and vertical mobility.(1992/20)

Q: W.S.N. on Social Mobility.(1985/20)

Q: W.S.N. Intergenerational mobility.(1986/1991/20)

Answer: mobility: movement of individual or a group across SS.


Closed system:

1) eg. Traditional caste system in India

2) Buddha: no one is Brahmin or shudra by birth but deeds(social mobility). So Buddha
supported his version of stratification

3) manusamriti

4) Karma theory(previous bad, this birth shudra. Stick to it to be Brahmin in next life)

5) connection( weber's law of social closure)

6) Gupta period a blot~ feudal/estate system(Eco. Down, stick to jati dharma)


Exception-

Exceptions- 1) Rajputs we're political elites, descendants of hunus and shakas.

2) Marathas captured political power under Shivaji, so mobility followed it.

They were kanbi caste originally ~ UP, Bihar.~Gujarat kanbi pattidar

3) British period stopped mobility by capturing political and economic

power since agriculture down.
De-urbanisation AND REVERSE-migration.

Education of Brits was expensive and knowledge intensive, helped Brahmins only

Q: Causes/sources/factors of contribution to Mobility.

Answer:

1) individual merit/talent as a factor of mobility:

A) for them open/close does not matter
B) Albeit, their chances are high in open
C) Very few in quantity----> not a structural phenomenon

2) Mobility by structural conditions:

A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
G)
H)

Industrialisation
Urbanisation
Service sector
Specialisation/occupational division
Bourgeoning economy
Formal skills-formal training
Rewards w.r.t. Skills
Meritocracy

3) democratic society:


A) People participation
B) People's access to power

4) collective mobility of deprived:

A) Russia and china's revolution



5) protective discrimination (Reservation) by state:

A) State's action

Q: Studies in Social Mobility.

Answer:

1) D.V. GLASS:

A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)

Britain in 1949
British Society ----> 7 classes
No single case of long range----> jump from 7 to 1
Most mobility short range----> 1 level
Half of sons in class 1, had their fathers in same class
1/3 change

2) oxford study (Nasfield college):
A) 1973
B) Chances of mobility are high
C) But class of origin matters





3) Essex study:

A) Essex county
B) Chances of absolute mobility up
C) Inequality in family background remains

Eg. Father vis a vis to son and daughter

D) Opportunity for women is less



4) Peter Saunders:

A) Longitudinal study
B) 70000 children
C) Trace 7000 after 33years

Conclusion:

52% experienced mobility as that of their

childhood supporters(parents)

Britain becoming a meritocratic society

Challenge Meritocratic but

class of origin matters :

Savage and Egalten:

A) comparative study
B) High ability children

C) All equal in abilities

D) Class of origin matters
E) Perhaps, economic reasons

Q: Why meritocracy?

Answer:

1)
2)
3)
4)

economy goes up, ask for talent for high positions

More emphasise on education
Fertility rate less
Working mothers

1)
2)
3)
4)

Sustainable economic growth

Urbanisation
Achievement motivation
Expansion and easy access to education

Q: Conditions need to be presented to bring mobility.

Answer:


Q: consequences of mobility.

Answer:

1) Economic development----> cause as well

as consequence~cognitive process!
2) Incentive for efficiency and creativity
3) Open society
4) Vertical cohesion
5) Cultural homogenisation
6) Fragmentation of horizontal class
ties,which existed once
7) Less class conflict
8) Political safety valve
9) Less revolutionary change(connect Marx)

Negative consequences:

1) Weaken ties with Yuppie (short for "young urban professional" or "young upwardly
mobile professional") class
2) Divorce rates high( Ram vilas paswan)
3) Family ties less
4) Anomie of infinite aspiration (Amitabh bachhan)
5) Using illegitimate mean for social climbing