Some Are More Equal Than Others

By Faith Roebuck

 

Stratification is the division of groups into layers, according to power, property, and prestige.  These are the three factors that Max Weber stated which determine social class.  These features determine a country’s or an individual’s status.  Global stratification takes place between nations, and social stratification is layering within groups on a smaller level.  There are four main systems of social stratification: caste, clan, slavery, and class (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 128-129). 

In a caste system, status is determined by birth and does not change through lifetime.  There are specific occupations assigned to members of different castes; there is no inter-marriage between castes; and there are rules about contact with members of lower castes. 

The clan system is similar, although it allows for “improvement” in social status.  A clan is simply a large group of relatives, with the same status.  Allegiance to the clan is lifelong and unchanging.  Unlike the caste system, marriages can cross clan lines, and added power, property, and prestige can accompany a union. 

Slavery is the most notorious of these systems of stratification: the ownership of some individuals by others.  Slavery has been common in many societies throughout history, but is widely regarded as unjust today (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 130).   

The stratification system most familiar to Canadians is the class system; it is the system at work in our society.  A class system allows for much more movement between layers than the other systems because its divisions are based on achieved status, not status ascribed at birth (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 130).  There are no laws regarding social roles of members of different classes; however, the class system contributes greatly to the inequality in our society.  Although the class system allows for greater “mobility” than other classes, it still places many limits on what the individual may gain or loose throughout their lifetime.  A member of a lower class family will have a very difficult time rising above their circumstances because they will not receive as much opportunity for improvement as others; and an individual born into a wealthy or prestigious family (a higher class) will not encounter many of the challenges facing others.

Karl Marx first described conflict theory, and his theory is the basis for communism and the socialist economic system.  It is also a theory that is based directly on the concept of social stratification.  Conflict theory is the concept that there are two major social groups, a controlling elite (the bourgeoisie) and the working classes (the proletariat), and that the conflict between the classes is the key to all human social history (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 18).  Conflict theorists believe that stratification takes place due to competition for resources, whereas the structural functionalists believe that people must be attracted to filling society’s most important roles by higher rewards (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 161).

Global stratification is the same phenomenon as social stratification on a much greater level.  Max Weber’s concept of power, property and prestige also applies to countries, creating the “most industrialized”, “industrializing”, and “least industrialized” statuses.  In short, countries became rich or poor for many different reasons: how quickly they industrialized, leading to greater imperialism; whether they became dependent on other countries; what type of economic system they use; and how much of the population lives in poverty, since poverty is so self-perpetuating (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 143-144).  Like individuals, countries can become trapped by this stratification, limiting their potential for growth.

Why does stratification continue to exist?  The most basic reason is, quite simply, that the powerful and elite want it to.  Social stratification is maintained through many devices.  One is the use of propaganda, or telling the lower classes that they should not be unhappy with their position in life, and using ideology to justify one’s higher status.  Another is the control of information: not allowing certain groups and individuals to know certain things keeps them from becoming restless and uneasy about social inequality.  The elite maintain control over the masses today by using advanced technology to monitor others’ lives; and finally, social networks promote social stratification by allowing members of higher classes to move in “power groups” that multiply their opportunities.  The poor, on the other hand, are trapped in their powerless groups (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 140-141).

            Global stratification is maintained in two major ways.  Neocolonialism is the argument put forward by sociologist Michael Harrington, that the Most Industrialized Nations could not control weaker ones through imperialism any more and so they turned to economics as a form of control.  The richer countries can choose how much to pay for goods and services from poorer ones, and turn them into international debtors by allowing them to have goods and services on credit.  Least Industrialized Nations remain as dependent on the Most Industrialized as they were when they were colonies (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 145).

            Multinational corporations play a major role in ensuring that global stratification continues to plague society.  They exploit the Least Industrialized Nations for cheap goods and labour while pouring their profits into the Most Industrialized.  In some cases, however, moving operations has proven to bring prosperity to poorer countries (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 145-146); therefore, a global economic system may be one of the best solutions to social inequality.

            The structural functionalist’s view on stratification would be that, since it has remained a part of our societal structure for so long, it must be a functional factor.  This view is partially correct: stratification does not necessarily impede the progress of a society.  In fact, from a Marxist perspective, class struggle actually contributes to social history.  Marx and Weber agreed that social class “penetrates our consciousness, shaping our ideas of life and our proper place in society” (Henslin, Glenday, Duffy, Pupo; 1999; 160).  But how can we choose an advancing society, caught in the throes of inequality, before we know what life would be like without these systems of stratification?

I would argue that a society could function without distinct layering between individuals.  We all understand the pain of being somehow “not good enough” to fit in with a certain group; wouldn’t our lives be better if we could eliminate inequality?   The answer is, of course, yes, but how?

Even though multinational corporations exploit the Least Industrialized Nations, there is evidence that a global economic system could go a long way in eliminating global inequalities.  Debt amnesty (relieving these nations of their obligations to the richer) is a first, major step towards evening the playing field and allowing all nations to participate fully in our global processes.  We need to apply the same principles to our individual lives, forgiving debts and relieving members of “lower classes”.  When we can look at people beyond their power, property, and prestige, our society will be on its way to counteracting stratification and eliminating inequality.

WORKS CITED

Henslin, James M., Dan Glenday, Ann Duffy, and Norene Pupo, editors.Sociology: A Down-to-earth Approach. 2 Edition.Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Ltd.1999.