Social Stratification Essay ⋆ Essays on Controversial Topics ⋆ EssayEmpire

Social stratification is a structured position of categories of people who receive unequal amounts of wide range, energy, and status from one generation to another. Its a cultural universal within nearly every society from past to present. But the cornerstone upon which stratification rests can vary greatly through time and in one culture to another. In order to be accepted by all members of culture, including those of low rank, every system of stratification need a legitimizing ideology. This legitimizing ideology typically justifies inequality through claims to transcendental some ideas, frequently from faith. Examples of major systems of stratification consist of caste, slavery, property or feudal, and social class.

While the British monarchy is a remnant of a European caste system, the oldest global instance that many closely approximates the sort centered on ideas usually of India. India’s caste system has four primary divisions (varnas), every one with numerous subcastes (jatis). About 160 million individuals considered “untouchables” and known as Dalits (or as harijans—”children of god,” Gandhi’s term) have reached the base of this caste system, which includes been rigid (although this is deteriorating now), with little if any flexibility between castes. Ascribed at delivery, caste place determines virtually all aspects of life, including, including, the sort of work one is permitted to perform, marriage partners, liberties, and responsibilities. Here, caste has determined social status that then determined one’s wealth, in comparison to a class system where wide range mainly determines social status. Finally, this extreme system of inequality has persisted partly as the internalization of this system’s legitimizing ideology rests on Hindu faith.

Slavery is another ancient system of stratification nevertheless present different kinds in some elements of the world. The identifying attribute of slave systems is the fact that an individual may lawfully obtain another person as property. Individuals have usually become slaves in just one of 3 ways: ascription by birth, armed forces conquest or capture, or debt. In ancient communities, slavery was mostly ascribed or the result of military conquest. Slaves could get their freedom by purchasing it from their owner. Slaves also held many different social jobs, including some with high prestige or authority. In the us, slavery had been considering capture (among indigenous Us citizens) or ascription (children of African slaves had been on their own slaves). Although feasible, many slaves would seldom have opportunities to obtain their freedom legitimately. Into the latter instance, a legitimizing ideology—this time racism— justified this training of white superiority.

The property or feudal system is characteristic of agrarian societies. The best approximation to the perfect kind occurred in medieval Europe, in which feudalism existed through ownership of land by militaristic nobility that offered security towards peasants or serfs in return for their labor to develop the land. Around the 12th century, this system developed in to the property system, composed of nobles, priests, soldiers, craftsmen, and commoners. Due to the fact system matured, it became increasingly rigid, with course jobs defined by ascription. Initially considering tradition and custom, through the estate period the legitimizing ideology became increasingly located in legislation, as spiritual leaders argued your nobility represented “God’s” will to govern in their name. Under this system of stratification, social inequality had been high.

Social course is historically the most recent type of stratification, one basically produced by capitalist industrialization. Under a class system, ascribed status continues to be a significant determinant of one’s social position, however it is possible to see social mobility and change place according to merit and effort. Earnings and wide range primarily define social class, even though the system’s legitimizing ideology may be the belief that equal opportunity exists for many. Karl Marx viewed class stratification as determined exclusively by ownership associated with the means of production that generate wide range. But other theorists like Max Weber argued that class position is decided not exclusively by wide range but additionally by status and power. Like, Weber argued that a top rank in one category including wealth did not necessarily imply high rank in status or energy, although usually which was the situation. Instead, some individuals could experience status inconsistency, such as for instance a college professor who may enjoy high social status but a reduced degree of wide range.

The Davis and Moore Hypothesis

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore exemplify the functionalist sociological approach to stratification. They argued that each and every society requires the performance of crucial jobs that want specific levels of skill, training, and innate capability. To induce those capable of performing these jobs to try the required training, they have to receive higher rewards, thereby justifying social inequality. Although their argument appears logical, it does not explain why the salaries of some highly valued jobs, such as for instance clergy and instructors, have actually low benefits. It does not explain why the salaries of film and rock movie stars far surpass those of men and women considered more valuable, such as for example health practitioners or accountants. Finally, their argument will not address why some jobs are respected over other people to begin with.

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theorists, stratification may be the result of the capitalist system that exploits individuals with little to no power. They argue that those who have wealth and energy form legislation in a manner that protects their own class passions. Like, stealing a loaf of bread may be the punishable offense of theft, regardless if the thief is a poor hungry child. In his essay, “Labor Theory of Value,” Marx argued your capitalist course (bourgeoisie) exploits the working course (proletarians) through its ownership associated with way of manufacturing, like factories. This enables the capitalist course to provide employees wages below their fair value. Capitalist business people keep consitently the distinction between what they pay workers and complete value of these work, therefore making the owners rich. Additionally, Marx argued your capitalist system of work results in employees experiencing alienation from their products, culture, and also by themselves.

Marx believed that the only method to end exploitation would be through a social revolution by the working class. He additionally believed your absence of a workers’ revolution had been because of their false class consciousness. Professional don't realize their course exploitation simply because they have actually accepted capitalism’s legitimizing ideology created by the upper class to secure everyone’s conformity toward system.

The Classless Society

The only society without stratification would be a communist one, as advocated by Marxists. Historically, such a society existed in prehistoric times with human teams that were hunters and gatherers and where small difference existed between people as they enjoyed fundamental equality with one another in primitive communal communities.

Nineteenth-century utopian idealists and hippies in the 1960s also experimented with classless communes, many brief. No large-scale, modern communist society has ever existed; the former Soviet Union, Asia, Cuba, and North Korea do not fit the real definition of communism. Instead these communities are better described as socialist dictatorships that base stratification on Communist Party affiliation versus wide range. Authentic communism may never ever occur on a big scale, given the required idealistic preconditions to help make such a society possible. Possibly this is why theoretical communist societies will also be called utopian, meaning for some “admirable but impractical in true to life.”

Bibliography:

  1. Correspondents of this Nyc Times. 2005. Course Issues. Ny: Instances Books.
  2. Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert Moore. 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification.” United States Sociological Review 10(2):242-49.
  3. Domhoff, G. William. 2005. Whom Rules America? Energy, Politics, and Social Change. fifth ed. Ny: McGraw-Hill.
  4. Gerth, H. H. and C. Wright Mills, eds. 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Nyc: Oxford University Press.
  5. Kerbo, Harold R. 2008. Personal Stratification and Inequality. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  6. Milner, Andrew J. 1999. Course. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This instance Social Stratification Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you want a custom essay or research paper with this subject be sure to utilize our writing solutions. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable customized essay writing solutions that will help you to receive high grades and wow your professors with the quality of every essay or research paper you submit.

See also:

  • How to create an Argumentative Essay
  • Argumentative Essay Topics
  • Custom Essay Writing Service

ORDER TOP QUALITY PERSONALIZED PAPER


Always on-time
Plagiarism-Free
100per cent Confidentiality FREE INQUIRY ORDER NOW Special offer! Get discount 10% for the very first purchase. Promo code: cd1a428655 Tweet Pin It

How to cite this essay: