|
Chapter 5: Modern Theories of Stratification |
|
| Return to UVaWise Webpage | Link |
| Return to Dr. W's Webpage | Link |
| Return to Stratification Syllabus, Fall 2001 | Link |
| Return to Course Resource List | Link |
| Return to Stratification Review List | Link |
| blank |
|
blank | blan | |||
| Link | - Related links: |
|
blank | |||
| Link | - Introduction: | blabl | blank | |||
| Link | - Summary: | blank | blank | |||
| Link | Early American Stratification Theory: the Lynds & Warner |
|
||||
| Link | Davis & Moore |
|
||||
| Link | Parsons & the Functional Imperatives: AGIM |
|
||||
| Link | Parsons on Stratification |
|
||||
| Link | Weber |
|
||||
| Link | Studies of Occupational Prestige |
|
||||
| Link | Neo-Marxism |
|
||||
| Modern Conflict theories of Stratification | ||||||
| Link | Dahrendorf |
|
||||
| Link | Class Location |
|
||||
| Link | EO Wright |
|
||||
| Link | Stratification based on Gender |
|
||||
| Link | Stratification & Sociobiology |
|
||||
|
Link | |||||
| Stratification was ignored in the U.S. until the Great Depression.
Marxism / conflict theory was ignored until the late 50s |
||||||
| Middletown (1929) & Middletown in Transition (1937):
by Robert & Hellen Lynd established a tradition of stratification studies in the US The Lynds focused on power & economic inequalities; ideas that were later ignored |
||||||
| Yankee City: Warner: classic qualitative analysis:
focus on status
Similar foucs as the Lynds but added an examination of the extent of inequality & social mobility |
||||||
| Warner differed from the Lynds in 3 important ways | ||||||
| 1. Warner defined stratification in terms of status | ||||||
| 2. The Warner School failed to critically examine the actual extent of equality of opportunity | ||||||
| 3. The Warner school emphasized
that stratification was functional
& necessary for complex societies |
||||||
| Early American Sociology had a non-critical view of stratification w/ 4 qualities | ||||||
| 1. Stratification was generally ignored | Link | |||||
| 2. It took our most severe economic crisis to bring social scientists to examine class inequalities | ||||||
| 3. The interest generated by the Great Depression was short-lived | ||||||
| 4. Frequently the less radical topic of status inequality was examined | ||||||
| There are other early American examinations of stratification that were more critical | ||||||
| Thorstein Veblen | Link | |||||
| Floyd Hunter, 1953, study of community power | Link | |||||
| CW Mills, 1956, description of the power elite on the national level | Link | |||||
| Parsons view on Stratification was non-critical, but influential | Link | |||||
|
Link | ||
| Stratification: structure of social positions
Structured process by which soc grps are assigned a social position, resulting in a hierarchy & pattern whereby scarce "resources" are distributed unequally to these soc pos |
Link | ||
| D & M say strat is universal | |||
| Strat is necessary ( functional ) | |||
| Society must fill all positions in society | |||
| Positions vary by costs & benefits,
therefore peoples desire for different positions vary |
|||
| D & M ask: How does society fill undesirable positions
while ensuring that desirable positions are NOT overfilled? |
|||
| Principles of D & M's theory on strat: | |||
| 1. Some positions/roles are more imp than others | |||
| 2. These positions require special skills or are unpleasant | |||
| 3. People sacrifice to gain skills | |||
| 4. Society functions to induce people to sacrifice
w/ 3 general types of privilege & rewards |
|||
| a. Sustenance & comfort | |||
| b. Humor & diversion | |||
| c. Self-respect & ego expansion | |||
| 5. Differential access to rewards creates status/prestige & power | |||
| 6. Inequality is functional and inevitable in any society | |||
| Critique | |||
| 1. Assumption that the present system must continue | |||
| 2. Difficult to rate jobs on pleasantness & importance of jobs | |||
| 3. External restraints:
Those in low positions are blocked from gaining hi ones |
|||
| a. Gaining skills takes money, power, or influence | |||
| b. Access
to Ivy leagues & many professions
is influence by family ties |
|||
| c. Not everyone is capable of performing some tasks | |||
| 4. Internal restraints:
Those in high positions have vested interest in status quo |
|||
| Empirical evidence | |||
| 1. Abrahamson: mil jobs did not /\ in pay much during war | |||
| 2. Level of inequality is highest in the poorest countries | |||
| 3. Level of inequality in ind'ized countries
is not related to efficiency & job allocation |
|||
| 4. Drs. & other prof's pay &
#'s
is related to control of prof by assoc's not by unpleasantness |
|||
| 5. Worth of jobs appears to be most closely
related to
- how much $ it can make for corp's - fickleness of society |
|||
| 6. Level of freely available ed is directly related to soc equality | |||
| In-class project: What influences career choice? | Link |
|
|
|
| 1. Adaptation | Adapt to the environment (social & physical) |
| 2. Goal setting | Set Goals for social & sub-systems of society & people |
| 3. Integration | Integrate in new systems, procedures, people, etc. |
| 4. Maintaining | Maintain old systems, procedures, people, etc. |
|
& Social Structures |
||
| . |
Instititutions |
Function |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Link | |||||
| For Parsons, status/ honor/ prestige is the most important dimension of stratification | ||||||
| Wealth/power is a secondary dimension of stratification that arises as a reward for status | ||||||
| Status is formed by common value system (consensus on values) | ||||||
| People are ranked by living up to the values of society
Stratification will exist in every society because every society has a hierarchy of values |
||||||
| Parsons makes the argument that status/ honor/ prestige cause wealth/ power as do Davis & Moore | ||||||
| The most respected roles in a society coincide with the Functional Imperatives: AGIM | ||||||
| So stratification is shaped by the power of institutions which is shaped by the emphasis of the society | ||||||
| Societies differ on which Functional-Imperative they emphasize | ||||||
| Critique of Parsons stratification theory | ||||||
| 1. Parsons incorrectly assumes that people in top positions act for social, not individual interests | ||||||
| 2. Mills holds that Parsons view of power as a benign force is flawed | ||||||
| blank |
|
Link | blank | |
| Review Major principles of Weberian sociology | ||||
| Weber on Stratification: Weber held that there were THREE
dimensions of stratification:
class + status + party (power) |
||||
| Interests are based on material (economic), social (prestige, honor), political (power) benefit | ||||
| Varying groups w/ varying interests could ally or conflict | ||||
| For Weber, the Political Dimension is the most important:
This is where Weber put organizational struggle: which would inevitably exist ( Marx holds that the class/ economic dimension is the most important ) ( Patsons holds that the status dimenstion is the most important ) |
||||
| While ones political or power status is primary, one must also
consider relationship to the market
ala' Marx, which includes what are you selling, how you produce it, (your labor) & the basis of your knowledge |
||||
| Weber believes that the concept of "common life chances"
provides a better understanding of Class, but does not discount class as represented by economic possessions & opportunities (skills) as framed w/in a commodity market |
||||
| There is also the stratification of Status as seen in a fixed hierarchy of prestige & honor | ||||
| Objective indicators of status stratification include
- ones style of life - ones restrictions or advantages on social interactions (networking) |
||||
| Weberian Theory holds that our system of stratification restrains both the masses & the elites |
| blank |
|
Link | blank | |||
| There are many studies of Occupational Prestige Ranking that utilize Socio-Economic Status Scales | ||||||
| The Ecological School began at
the turn of the century
& is again gaining importance in the social sciences today: While in general, the Ecological School utilizes a residential approach, there are many exceptions |
||||||
| The Residential Approach looks at where people live | ||||||
| Warner's study: Yankee City: utilized the
'reputational method':
Ranking was based on status judgments by members in the community: In this way, Warner developed 6 classes |
||||||
| Duncan’s Socio-Economic Index: (SEI): is one of the most utilized scales | ||||||
| The Hollingshead 2 Factor Index of Social Position ranks people based on occupation & education | ||||||
| The Critique of Scales is a general one: scales are too
linear; rank is a qualitative factor
3 biases against nearly all scales exist: 1. The higher the rankers’ education the greater the agreement 2. Ranking are influenced by power inequalities: 3. The powerful influence what we think about occupation/status/etc. |
||||||
| blank |
|
Link | ||||
| Neo-Marxists vary on what they accept & reject from Marx | ||||||
| Review principles of Marxism | Link | |||||
| Modern Marxism addresses some of the problems, unforeseen circumstance,
etc. in classical Marx:
1. There has been an absence of socialist revolutions 2. There is a lack of working class consciousness 3. Capitalist nations have not experienced crises 4. The Upper Class no longer exists as it did in past 5. The Working-Class no longer exists as it did in past 6. The Soviet Block stagnated in the 70s & 80s & failed in the 90s |
||||||
| General Neo-Marxist Responses to the problems in classical Marxism | ||||||
| 1. Absence of socialist revolutions:
a. could still be coming: Marx said revolution would happen in mature capitalist countries b. we've already had it: New Deal: socialized/state cap |
||||||
| 2. There is a lack of working
class consciousness
a. Marx didn't foresee the strength of popular culture, media, etc. in legitimizing the capitalist system This is called ideological hegemony or just hegemony |
||||||
| 3. Capitalist nations have
not experienced crises
a. The govt. has been able to regulate the excesses of capitalism |
||||||
| 4. The Upper Class
no longer exists as it did in past
a. Land was visible wealth b. Wealth today is mostly not in land c. There is token ownership of "paper wealth" by the Middle Class d. Because of ideological control, most people confuse the UMC w/ the UC |
||||||
| 5. The Working-Class no longer exists as it did in past | ||||||
| a.
Improved
labor-management relations: sharing of Surplus Value
i. Big unions made gains for workers, but have been coopted by management, i.e. they have never opted for worker control ii. Higher standard of living: workers support cap even w/ alienating work conditions iii. Strength of legitimation process of modern society |
||||||
| b. Expansion
of white collar class (tech, sales, clerical, service, & bureaucrats)
unforeseen by Marx: i. didn't change basics of Marxism: part of working class ii. mid class is politically conservative, promoting div of wk class iii. have higher status iv. identify w/ owners v. more social mobility |
||||||
| 6. The Soviet Block stagnated
in the 70s & 80s & failed in the 90s
a. SU created authoritarian communism: state exploited working class |
||||||
| Common principles held by Neo-Marxists ( power - conflict theories ) | ||||||
| 1. Conflict ( such as found in stratified societies ) is grounded in differing individual & group interests | ||||||
| 2. These groups
interests are widely varied & based on individual & group positions
w/in
Imperiatively Coordinated Associations ( Weber & Dahrendorf ) which are organizations centered around major tasks/ structures in society |
||||||
| 3. The group interests as manifest in ICAs are the basis of class conflict | ||||||
| 4. Groups primarily
come together w/in ICAs
& thus ICAs are the location of conflict w/in modern society |
||||||
| 5. Many neo-Marxists accept Marx's idea of the dialectic | ||||||
| 6. Many reject
economic
determinism
& instead support mutual causal interaction btwn the economic base & the cultural superstructure |
||||||
| 7. UC power is based as much on the control of ideology as control of the economy | ||||||
| blank |
|
Link | ||
| Link | Dahrendorf's Chart on the Continuum from S - F to Conflict Theory
shows
that
many of the most important differences btwn S - F & Conflict Theory actually represent poles on the end of a continuum, rather than different realities |
|||
| Link | Society exists btwn these two poles & may even have two simultaneous faces: consensus & conflict | |||
| Link | Dahrendorf interprets Marx through Structural Functionalism | |||
| Link | Dahrendorf differs from Marx on many points
1. The Revolution will NOT end class conflict. There will always be conflict 2. Class conflict in advanced industrial society is NOT based primarily or only on economic interests 3. The UC no longer owns & controls the means of production 4. Dahrendorf accepts the managerial control thesis that control is divorced from ownership w/ nonowning managers controlling the economy 5. The growth of the MC in industrial societies has altered the nature of the economic divisions as described by Marx 6. Conflict Theory ignores order & stability; it's too radical 7. Conflict emerges, unexplained, from S - F-like systems |
|||
| Link | Criticisms of Structural Functionalism
1. Ignores change & upheaval; its too conservative |
|||
| Link | Interest Groups: groups in support of latent/manifest
interests
Conflict Groups: interest groups that are engaged in conflict Social change occurs when conflict groups form |
|||
| Link | Dahrendorf accepts
Weber position that power struggles in modern
society
occur inside bureaucracies, & not as direct conflict btwn classes Class conflict will occur in imperatively coordinated associations ( ICAs ) |
|||
| Link | Imperatively Coordinated Associations
Any association of people that is controlled by a hierarchy, thus an ICA is composed of dichotomous interest groups |
|||
| Link | ICAs are like bureaucratic organizations centered around the major tasks/ structures in society | |||
| Link | ICAs are so pervasive in society, that individual & group interests
are structured by the individual or group relationships to these associations ( org to org; org to network, network to network ) |
|||
| Link | W/in all ICAs there are authority roles of domination & subordination | |||
| Link | Unlike Marx, Dahrendorf recognized all kinds of individual or group
interests
Interests related to - material rewards - freedom - status recognition - leisure - all kinds of services from each other - any kind of interest that develops inside an ICA |
|||
| Link | The key is that the means to attaining interests are related to authority positions in ICAs | |||
| Link | Individuals take positions in many ICAs at the same time
Each position represents a different set of interests in relation to the authority or lack of authority held The interests are latent until they become recognized & acted upon ( manifest ) |
|||
| Link | Critique of Dahrendorf | |||
| Link | a. ICA conflict is much
different than class conflict:
the primacy of the economic base of conflict is lost [ But the dominate ICA in most societies are economic & religion ] |
|||
| Link | b. Where does the middle class
fit in the two class system
of Superordinate & Subordinate Classes? Dahrendorf says it depends on the particular interests of that ICA member This makes the situation very complicated, but the world is complicated! |
|||
| Link | c. ICAs obviously must
be seen in a hierarchy of importance / influence in society
but Dahrendorf gives no logic for comparing them However other analysts have noted that most nations today are dominated by economic religious political ICAs |
| blank |
|
Link | blank | |||
| Analysis of Class Location examines how & why people, analysts,
polticians & the people themselves
view themselves & others as belonging to a particular class |
||||||
| There are SIX variables used to describe a particular class location | ||||||
| 1. Realist: One who believes there are clear class boundaries which are based on self-identification | ||||||
| 2. Nominalist: Primarily based on objective views | ||||||
| 3. Subjective: definition of class which emphasizes whether
people self-identify w/ a class
or whether that class identity has meaning for other individuals themselves |
||||||
| 4. Objective: definition of class emphasizes observable
factors workers have in common:
e.g. life chances, economic characteristics etc. |
||||||
| 5. Continuous class ranking:
Each subclass could be ranked on a scale based on several objective, weighted factors 6. Discontinuous class ranking: A continuous class ranking may be possible, but there are clear breaks that are the most important |
||||||
| There are THREE dimensions of class location
( Not to be confused w/ 3 dimensions of stratification systems: Class, Status, & Power ) |
||||||
| 1. Occupational Structure: ones relationship to the market | ||||||
| Economy: MOP: ROF & FOP | Link | |||||
| 2. Bureaucratic Authority Divisions:
Organizations (eg Weber & Dahrendorf's Imperatively Coordinated Associations: ICAs ) each have their own unique power structure, w/ many similarities which stratify people on - control of resources & - control of other people |
||||||
| 3. Property Structure | ||||||
| For most of the industrialized world,
as recently as 200 yrs ago, property ownership was a clear indicator of class position Aristocrats owned nearly all the property while the proletariat owned almost nothing |
||||||
| Today the concept of property is much
more complicated
It includes real property & paper property such as stock, bonds, trusts |
||||||
| Kerbo: This method of class location
is problematic because many in middle class own stock
& so “own” the means of production In practice they do not control the MOP |
||||||
| The Top 10 % of the US population
own over 88 % of all stocks, bonds, & trusts
Thus 90 % of the population own less that 12 % Review Wealth Inequality Link |
||||||
| blank |
|
Link | blank | |
| Wright
believes it a simple, 4 level class structure
is as effective as a more complex one in demonstrating income hierarchy: - capitalists: own the Means of Production ( MOP ) & employ many others - managers: work for capitalist & control their labor - workers: simply sell labor - petty bourgeoisie: own some MOP but employ few others |
||||
| Wright found his 4 level class structure was as accurate at
explaining income stratification as
- occupational status - educational level |
||||
| Wright's capitalist class have higher income, even allowing for educational level | ||||
| Education does not help workers attain a higher income
Education does help mgrs attain a higher income |
||||
| Within a class there is little economic difference btwn races or genders | ||||
| Blacks & females are more often in the Wright's working class & thus have an overall lower income | ||||
| Robinson & Kelly found similar results as well as separate
mobility patterns
in terms of class position & occupational status |
||||
| Table 10 - 8 Wright & Perrone's Class Divisions of Authority & Ownership by Race & Sex, 1977 | ||||
| Thus Wright's analysis demonstrates that a person's relation to the production system does impact their position in society |
| blank |
|
Link | blank | |||
| Women typically earn 60 to 70% of what men earn for equal work | ||||||
| 60 to 70% of women work outside the home
Only 55% of men work outside the home |
||||||
| In general, the class of both spouses is that of the highest class
spouse:
i.e., the higher class spouse, pulls the other up to his or her level |
||||||
| In the recent past, ( i.e. as recently as the 1950s) a married women's
class
was determined by position of husband i.e. she would even come down to his position if he were lower |
||||||
| The largest group of people marry w/in their class
Second largest group: women marry up Smallest group: men marry up |
||||||
|
Chapter 5: Modern Theories of Stratification |
|
| Return to UVaWise Webpage | Link |
| Return to Dr. W's Webpage | Link |
| Return to Stratification Syllabus, Fall 2001 | Link |
| Return to Course Resource List | Link |
| Return to Stratification Review List | Link |
|
|