1

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

Sociology Project

Social Basis of Stratification

Submitted by; Submitted to;

Sounak verma, Mr. Uttam Kumar Panda,

Sem-1, sec- A Roll no. - 158 Faculty, Sociology,

H.N.LU. Raipur

Date of submission-26-09-2016
 2

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this research work titled “Stratification: A Gender Perspective” is my
own work and represents my own ideas, and where others’ ideas or words have been
included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I
have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented
or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission.

Sounak verma Semester-1 Roll No.-158

BA.LLB (Hons.)
 3

Contents
. INTRODUCTION TO STRATIFICATION...................................................................................................7
Theories of stratification.......................................................................................................................9
Meanings:.....................................................................................................................................9
Definitions:.................................................................................................................................10
Origin of Stratification:.............................................................................................................10
Types of Social Stratification:...................................................................................................11
Characteristics of Social Stratification:...................................................................................12
Race, Class, and Power....................................................................................................................24
Minority & Dominant Groups.........................................................................................................24
Race and Education Achievement...................................................................................................25
Segregation and Housing Discrimination........................................................................................25
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................26
Webliography......................................................................................................................................27
 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Social basis of stratification”. The practical
realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I express my deepest
regard and gratitude for Dr. Uttam Kumar Panda. His consistent supervision, constant
inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in understanding and
carrying out the nuances of the project report. I would like to thank my family and friends
without whose support and encouragement, this project would not have been a reality. I take
this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the Library and through Internet. I would be grateful to receive
comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.
 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Research conducted is Descriptive and Analytical in nature. Books & other references
(including various websites) as guided by faculty of Sociology were primarily helpful for the
completion of this project. Footnotes have been provided wherever necessary.

OBJECTIVES

The Project seeks to answer the following questions-

1. What is Stratification and more particularly, what is social basis of Stratification?

2. what is ethical and gender and race basis of stratification
 6

Review of literature
In Marxist theory, the modern mode of production consists of two main economic parts: the
base and the superstructure. The base encompasses the relations of production: employer–
employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations. Social
class, according to Marx, is determined by one's relationship to the means of production.
There exist at least two classes in any class-based society: the owners of the means of
production and those who sell their labor to the owners of the means of production. At times,
Marx almost hints that the ruling classes seem to own the working class itself as they only
have their own labor power to offer the more powerful in order to survive. These relations
fundamentally determine the ideas and philosophies of a society and additional classes may
form as part of the superstructure. Through the ideology of the ruling class—throughout
much of history, the land-owning aristocracy— false consciousness is promoted both through
political and non-political institutions but also through the arts and other elements of culture.
When the aristocracy falls, the bourgeoisie become the owners of the means of production in
the capitalist system. Marx predicted the capitalist mode would eventually give way, through
its own internal conflict, to revolutionary consciousness and the development of more
egalitarian, more communist societies.

Max weber perspective on social basis of stratification

he classified it on three basis-

 Class: A person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individual

achievement. Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme
factor in stratification. Weber notes how corporate executives control firms they
typically do not own; Marx would have placed these people in the proletariat
despite their high incomes by virtue of the fact they sell their labor instead of owning
capital.
 Status: A person's prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber notes that
political power is not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one's individual status.
Poets or saints, for example, can have extensive influence on society despite few
material resources.Power: A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of
others, particularly in their ability to engage social change.
 7

. INTRODUCTION TO STRATIFICATION

lineage to the position of chief. This practice has continued into the modern society as well.

Typically the most significant of the basis of division of labour was on the basis of sex and
people of the same sex were involved in the same work. In modern-day complex societies
Stratification does not limit itself to the complex societies, it is also a feature of every
complex society. Stratification arises with Population growth. It is a common observation that
stratification is usually to a larger extent in more populous heterogeneous societies and is
concerned with the unequal distribution of resources between its citizens.

What determines a person’s social standing? And how does social standing direct or limit a
person’s choices?

Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of

socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power1. Social
Stratification is defined as “The ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-inferiority-
equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation.” 2 Just like the earth’s
layers the society’s layers consist of layers of people, and society’s resources are distributed
unevenly throughout these layers. The people placed higher in the social hierarchy are those
who are blessed with more resources. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and
fewer resources, represent the lower layers of our society. Social stratification is a form of
social inequality.

Now, how did this social stratification come about?3

In all societies people differ from each other on the basis of their age, sex and personal
characteristics. Human society is not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Apart from the natural
differences, human beings are also differentiated according to socially approved criteria.
Stratification dates back to the periods of unrecorded history. It is universally known that
Man aims for power and domination over available resources and thus competes to that end.
Hence when the first agricultural civilizations came into existence, individuals with the
1
http://cnx.org/contents/afe4332a-c97f-4fc4-be27-4e4d384a32d8@7.20:39/Introduction_to_Sociology last
accessed on 17 september 6:00 p.m.
2
Definition by Williams.
3
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Early_Social_Stratification.html accessed on 17th september 6:55 PM
 8

required resources or skill-set could easily monopolize and inevitably attain significant
control over their delicate communities. For instance, individuals who controlled the basic
survival needs of a community invariably helped secure the stability of the community by
sharing their resources and skills; while at the same time, these individuals would solidify the
order of importance of each person in the community. As a result, social stratification was a
fundamental part of early civilizations. These individuals would further implement laws
that would only result in establishment of a rigorous hierarchical system. This is most easily
seen during the beginning of early civilizations in the Ancient near East, Greece, and Rom.
The primitive societies would appoint the most senior individual belonging to the highest
there is usually a pre-established formal rank into which a person is born which results is a
sharp difference in the prestige holding and access to resources.

There are no complex societies that are egalitarian or anarchic; a complex division of labour
seems to require government and government always seems to allow some to be better off
than others.4It is without doubt that division of labour brings greater benefits to the society,
but it is irrefutable that these benefits are unequally distributed over the social strata. There
are several explanations- coercive and integrative theories that seek to understand how
stratification and the state arose simultaneously.

The Indian society also provides an example of stratification. The Varna-Jati system is
probably the best example of stratification based on caste.

4
http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/BooksOnline/He26-95.pdf accessed on17th September 4:30 pm
 9

Theories of stratification

It deals with the origin and basis of stratification.

In all societies people differ from each other on the basis of their age, sex and personal
characteristics. Human society is not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Apart from the natural
differences, human beings are also differentiated according to socially approved criteria. So
socially differentiated men are treated as socially unequal from the point of view of
enjoyment of social rewards like status, power, income etc. That may be called social
inequality. The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created
inequalities.

Meanings:

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. All societies arrange their
members in terms of superiority, inferiority and equality. Stratification is a process of
interaction or differentiation whereby some people come to rank higher than others.

In one word, when individuals and groups are ranked, according to some commonly accepted
basis of valuation in a hierarchy of status levels based upon the inequality of social positions,
social stratification occurs. Social stratification means division of society into different strata
or layers. It involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular layer have a
common identity. They have a similar life style.

The Indian Caste system provides an example of stratification system. The society in which
divisions of social classes exist is known as a stratified society. Modern stratification
fundamentally differs from stratification of primitive societies. Social stratification involves
two phenomena (i) differentiation of individuals or groups on the basis of possession of
certain characteristics whereby some individuals or groups come to rank higher than others,
(ii) the ranking of individuals according to some basis of evaluation.

Sociologists are concerned not merely with the facts of social differences but also with their
social evaluation.
 10

Definitions:

1. Ogburn and Nimkoff:

‘The process by which individuals and groups are ranked in more or less enduring hierarchy
of status is known as stratification”

2. Lundberg:

“A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are
evaluated by them as being “lower” and “higher”.

3. Gisbert:

“Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of categories linked
with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordinations”.

4. Williams:

Social Stratification refers to “The ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-inferiority-

equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation.

5. Raymond W. Murray:

Social stratification is horizontal division of society into “higher” and “lower” social units.”

6. Melvin M Tumin:

“Social stratification refers to “arrangement of any social group or society into hierarchy of
positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation and psychic
gratification”.

Origin of Stratification:

Regarding the origin of stratification many views have been given.

(i) According to Davis, social stratification has come into being due to the functional
necessity of the social system.
 11

(ii) Professor Sorokin attributed social stratification mainly to inherited difference in

environmental conditions.

(iii) According to Karl Mrax, social factors are responsible for the emergence of different
social strata, i.e. social stratification.

(iv) Gumplowioz and other contended that the origin of social stratification is to be found in
the conquest of one group by another.

(v) According to Spengler, social stratification is founded upon scarcity which is created
whenever society differentiates positive in terms of functions and powers.

(vi) Racial differences accompanied by dissimilarity also leads to stratification.

Types of Social Stratification:

Social stratification is based upon a variety of principles. So we find different type of

stratification.

The major types of stratification are

(i) Caste

(ii) Class

(iii) Estate

(iv) Slavery

(i) Caste is a hereditary endogamous social group in which a person’s rank and its
accompanying rights and obligations are ascribed on the basis of his birth into a particular
group. For example-Brahmins, Kshyatryas, Vaishyas and Sudra Caste.

(ii) Class-Stratification on the basis of class is dominant in modern society. In this, a person’s
position depends to a very great extent upon achievement and his ability to use to advantage
the inborn characteristics and wealth that he may possess.
 12

(iii) Estate system of medieval Europe provides another system of stratification which gave
much emphasis to birth as well as to wealth and possessions. Each estate had a state.

(iv) Slavery had economic basis. In slavery, every slave had his master to whom he was
subjected. The master’s power over the slave was unlimited.

Characteristics of Social Stratification:

On the basis of the analysis of the different definitions given by eminent scholars, social
stratification may have the following characteristics.

(a) Social stratification is universal:

There is no society on this world which is free from stratification. Modern stratification
differs from stratification of primitive societies. It is a worldwide phenomenon. According to
Sorokin “all permanently organized groups are stratified.”

(b) Stratification is social:

It is true that biological qualities do not determine one’s superiority and inferiority. Factors
like age, sex, intelligence as well as strength often contribute as the basis on which statues are
distinguished. But one’s education, property, power, experience, character, personality etc.
are found to be more important than biological qualities. Hence, stratification is social by
nature.

(c) It is ancient:

Stratification system is very old. It was present even in the small wondering bonds. In almost
all the ancient civilizations, the differences between the rich and poor, humble andpowerful
existed. During the period of Plato and Kautilya even emphasis was given to political, social
and economic inequalities.

(d) It is in diverse forms:

The forms of stratification is not uniform in all the societies. In the modern world class, caste
and estate are the general forms of stratification. In India a special type of stratification in the
form of caste is found. The ancient Aryas were divided into four varnas: the Brahmins,
 13

Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The ancient Greeks were divided into freemen and slaves
and the ancient Romans were divided into the particians and the plebians. So every society,
past or present, big or small is characterized by diversed forms of social stratification.

(e) Social stratification is Consequential:

Social stratification has two important consequences one is “life chances” and the other one is
“life style”. A class system not only affects the “life- chances” of the individuals but also
their “life style”.

The members of a class have similar social chances but the social chances vary in every
society. It includes chances of survival and of good physical and mental health, opportunities
for education, chances of obtaining justice, marital conflict, separation and divorce etc.

Life style denotes a style of life which is distinctive of a particular social status. Life-styles
include such matters like the residential areas in every community which have gradations of
prestige-ranking, mode of housing, means of recreation, the kinds of dress, the kinds of
books, TV shows to which one is exposed and so on. Life-style may be viewed as a sub-
culture in which one stratum differs from another within the frame work of a commonly
shared over-all culture.

The major basis of classifications are:-

1. Gender
2. Race
3. Ethnicity

ETHNIC STRATIFICATION

In relation to our understanding of social stratification based on or around the concept of ethnicity,
there are two main areas that we need to discuss:

Firstly, those forms where biological characteristics (such as skin colour) are a determining
characteristic of an individual's position in a stratification system.
 14

In such societies, both racism and racialism are practised legally (that is, it is considered normal for
a society as a whole to discriminate against particular ethnic groups).

Secondly, those forms where ethnic background is used to discriminate against individuals or
groups, such that biological characteristics are used to deny people equality of status, income,
opportunity and the like.

In such societies, both racism and racialism may be practised, but not "legally" (that is, laws may
exist that explicitly make discriminatory behaviour a criminal offence). In such societies, while there
may be no legally racialist barriers to social advancement / mobility, racist ideas nevertheless
contribute to the congregation of various ethnic groups in the lowest positions in the stratification
system.

Institutionalised Racialism

We can begin this analysis by looking briefly at the first of the categories noted above, mainly
because societies that have practised institutionalised racialism tend to be easier to describe and
evaluate.

Class, Status, Racism (the ideology of) Power and so forth.

In the following section, therefore, we can explore the relationship between ethnicity and social
stratification in terms of "class based" and "status based" theoretical perspectives. In the second
category we have a more complicated situation in which ethnic groups find themselves
disproportionately represented at the bottom of the stratification system not because they are legally
discriminated against but because of a complex interplay of factors involving:

Class, Status, Racism (the ideology of) Power and so forth.

In the following section, therefore, we can explore the relationship between ethnicity and social
stratification in terms of "class based" and "status based" theoretical perspectives.

We can briefly review a number of class-based theories of ethnic stratification in terms of the
following categories:

a. Class Cultures

b. Class Sub-cultures.
 15

c. Class Fractions.

d. "Underclass" theory.

1. Class Cultures.

Writers who advocate the classical Marxist notion of class theorised in terms of a "bourgeoisie /
proletariat" dichotomy argue that, in order to analyse the relationship between social class and
ethnicity, we should view the working class as having a set of common interests that derive from their
relationship to the means of economic production.

This is sometimes expressed as a "unitary" concept of the working class (that is, this class, whatever
the particular differences among its members, has, at root, a common class interest).

For such theorists, what matters most is an individual's relationship to the means of production
(primary stratification) rather than secondary forms of stratification such as ethnicity or gender
(since these forms of stratification are seen to be subservient to and consequently less theoretically
significant than social class).

As Westergaard and Resler ("Class In Capitalist Society", 1976) argue in relation to ethnicity,

"Preoccupied with the disabilities that attach to colour, liberal reformers and research workers have
been busy rediscovering what in fact are common disabilities of class; widespread and long-standing
conditions inherent in the workings of capital, market and state in a divided society.".

Briefly explain how the criticisms in the above could be applied to the concept of a "race relations
industry" in our society.

Within this general theoretical category, the idea that any "minority group" (blacks, women, men or
whatever) should be singled-out for special treatment is seen to be indicative of two main things:

Firstly, the acceptance of a divisive ideology that propagates the myth that "minorities" are
inherently different to the "majority". In technical terms this involves a "discourse of domination";
that is, the idea that if we, as sociologists, begin our analysis by accepting the idea that blacks,
women, the disabled, etc. are socially different, then we have to try to account for their differential
treatment on the basis of qualities that they do - or do not - possess. In this respect, the argument here
is that:
 16

a. "Ethnicity" is only a meaningful category if we apply it in a discriminatory manner (for example,

that one ethnic group is superior to another).

b. To adopt this concept as meaningful, therefore, means that we accept the implications involved in
its use (which is not good sociology).

c. To use such concepts means having to explain why one ethnic group is / is not superior to another
(for example, we have to explain why West Indians, for example, achieve less in our education system
than other "ethnic groups" in terms of what this group does or does not possess).

Writers such as Westergaard and Resler are arguing, therefore, that to use such concepts is a form of
bias, since they are concepts that reflect a partial, highly subjective, view of the social world (one that
reflects the interests of dominant (white) social groups / classes).

Secondly, following directly from the above idea, to accept the category of "ethnic group" as socially
meaningful is, in itself, a way of perpetuating racism, since, by definition, to use the use means
accepting that there are socially meaningful cultural differences between, for example, "blacks" and
"whites".

Thus, to single-out West Indians, Chinese, Americans or whatever as somehow "different" or in need
of "special attention" is both racist and ethnocentric, since by definition you classify the members of
such groups as "disadvantaged" - and once you do this you have to think about what you might be
helping such groups to achieve (assimilation into the bourgeoisie? The ability to pass unnoticed in
"white society"?).

In basic terms, what writers who advocate the idea that questions of "ethnicity" are ultimately a
theoretical distraction or blind-alleyway are saying is not that "ethnic differences" do not exist;
rather, they are arguing that these differences are due to the operation of class, not "ethnicity".
Therefore, we should analyse status differences in terms of an objective concept such as class, rather
than a subjective (and racist) concept such as "ethnicity".

There are a few criticisms we can identify in relation to the above that will lead us into the next
(Marxist) perspective on the relationship between class and ethnicity.

a. Firstly, the "unified working class" theory does not adequately account for the fact that members
of ethnic minorities are not simply confined to the working class - many are to be found among the
middle classes in our society. However, what ethnic minorities have in common, regardless of class, is
the fact that they suffer racial discrimination that is both real in fact and in its consequences.
 17

b. Secondly, to be "colour-blind" in this sense is to accept that there are no empirical differences
between different ethnic groups in terms of their life chances and experiences. Critics of this view
frequently site the fact that working class blacks suffer discrimination from working class whites.

c. Thirdly, it doesn't adequately account for the fact that racial discrimination in employment exists at
all, since why should a ruling class care whether they profit from the exploitation of black workers or
white workers as long as they profit? In short, it is difficult to see why members of various ethnic
minorities are not spread widely across the class structure rather than, as is the reality in our society,
disproportionately represented at the very bottom of the class structure in the worst paid, lowest status
and lowest skilled jobs.

The main problem, here, is that racial discrimination appears to be a potential dimension of
stratification that may, at best, run parallel to class (a position adopt by some Black Marxists).

2. Class Sub-Cultures.

As we have just seen, writers such as Westergaard and Resler implicitly argue that we should
theorise the nature of ethnic group stratification in class, as opposed to either biological or cultural
terms.

Other Marxists, such as Castles and Kosack ("Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western
Europe", 1973) have, however, taken a slightly different approach to the question of ethnic group
stratification. In particular, such writers have focused upon the idea that the working class may, in
some instances, be split into several different class sub-cultures (that is, smaller cultural groupings
within the working class).

In their analysis of immigration patterns in post 2nd World War Europe, for example, Castles and
Kosack emphasise the unequal economic development patterns throughout the continent (Germany,
France and Britain, for example, have developed a level of economic prosperity that has far
outstripped countries such as Greece and Turkey).

In post-war Britain, for example, living standards rose in combination with labour shortages created
by the war. An "economic vacuum" was effectively created at the very bottom of the labour market
and this was filled by encouraging immigration from Commonwealth countries (countries that had,
historically, been part of the British Empire). Immigrants, in this respect, became part of what
Marxists like to call a "reserve army of labour" in post-colonial Britain.

As immigrants were absorbed into the class structure, they entered through the working class and,
according to Castles and Kosack such immigrants were seen by the working class not as potential
 18

"class allies" but rather as potential competitors for jobs that had been traditionally done by the
working classes. As they note:

"In objective terms immigrant workers belong to the working class. But within this class they form a
bottom stratum due to the subordinate status of their occupations.".

Castles and Kosack argue, in this respect, that while the basic Marxist analysis of capitalist class
relationships is correct, we need to recognise that, in cultural terms, the working class invariably
splits into various class-based sub-cultures focused around status differences (in relation to type of
job, ethnic background and so forth). In effect, they argue that the concept of status, theorised within
the context of social class, is a significant one in relation to the explanation of ethnic group
stratification.

In status terms, a ruling class (through various agencies such as the mass media) is able - because of
its powerful social position - to exploit the opportunity presented by status considerations (encouraged
through various forms of economic and social discrimination) to split the working class along ethnic
lines and, by so doing,

a. Contain class conflict by deflecting criticism away from a ruling class and onto socially and
economically powerless groups ("blacks", "immigrants" etc).

b. Continue to exploit "immigrants" as a reserve army of labour that can be brought into the labour
force in times of economic boom and discarded in times of slump.

c. Control the behaviour and wage levels of the working class with the threat of unemployment and
the replacement by workers willing to work for lower wages.

3. Class Fractions.

A development of the above idea is the concept of "class fractions" (for example, Miles "Racism and
Migrant Labour", 1982). This concept emphasises the idea that social classes are neither
homogenous, monolithic, entities (that is, composed of people who see themselves as having
everything in common with people in a similar objective class situation), nor simply divided on
cultural lines. Rather, for someone like Miles social stratification is viewed in terms of groups of
people who share the same economic (market) position but who are divided by status concepts such
as age, gender, skill, ethnic background and the like.

Class fractions, according to writers such as Miles and Poulantzas ("Classes in Contemporary
Capitalism", 1975), exist within each of the two main classes.
 19

Racialised Class Fractions

A significant point to note here is that ethnic groups appear at most levels of the class structure. In
Britain, for example, while most West Indians are working class there are also successful West Indian
intellectuals, professionals and entrepreneurs.

According to this view, what this type of class fraction has in common is not only their class but also
the fact that their status is "racialised"; middle class blacks, for example, have to contend with racial
discrimination in a similar way to working class blacks. In this respect, therefore, middle class and
working class blacks may have more in common with each other (their experience of status
discrimination) than they have in common with whites of their own class - which adds an important
dimension to the understanding of ethnic group stratification.

4. The "Underclass".

The concept of an "underclass" is one that appears in several theoretical perspectives in several,
different, guises or interpretations. Usually it is associated with both Weberian and "New Right"
perspectives (in, it should be noted, different ways) but, before we examine these in more detail, it
will be useful to include a Marxist interpretation of this concept, for comparative purposes if
nothing else.

The basic concept of an "underclass" involves the idea that those at the very bottom of the class
structure form a stratum that is characterised by such things as poverty, political marginalization,
criminality, welfare/ charity dependence and so forth.

Some writers go as far as to suggest that the underclass may actually be outside the "normal" class
structure, since people in this position tend to have no real chance of ever escaping from this social
position, while others have argued that this concept has little actual validity because an underclass
does not, as such, exist.

To investigate this idea further, there are three basic perspectives at which we can briefly look.

A. Marxist Conceptions of an Underclass.

Marx used the concept of an underclass, in his analysis of Victorian Britain, in terms of the idea of a
"lumpen-proletariat" - a class category that he saw being drawn mainly from the very dregs of
society. As he termed members of this class,

For most Marxists, therefore, an underclass has two main characteristics:

 20

1. Its members produce nothing and are not, therefore, considered part of the working class. On the
contrary, such people are seen to be exploiters of the working class by "illegal" means, just as a
ruling class exploits by legal means.

2. They are seen to be politically reactionary, aligning themselves with the bourgeoisie they wish to
join, rather than with a working class that they attempt to exploit.

This first definition of an underclass is very different to its subsequent use by both Weberian and
New Right writers, since for Marxists an underclass consists of people who have two main
characteristics:

a. They attempt to gain a living by exploiting others (through crime and the like).

b. They exist on the margins of all social classes, not simply at the very bottom of the class structure
(since some members of this class will be reasonably successful in their "work").

The underclass does not, in this interpretation, include people who are marginalized in society by
poverty, unemployment, illness, sexual and racial discrimination and so forth, since these are
potentially productive members of society (people who want to be productive) whose needs are
simply stifled by the nature of capitalist exploitation.

GENDER

Gender is one of the most pervasive and prevalent social characteristics which people use to
make social distinctions between individuals. Gender is the oldest and permanent source of
stratification. Here social role expectations often form along sex and gender lines. Entire
societies may be classified by social scientists according to the rights and privileges afforded
to men or women, especially those associated with ownership and inheritance of property. It
is almost a ritual that there are very few men who are “homemakers” and similarly very few
women who are engaged in any form of business or physical activity. The society typically
equates the terms “sex” and “gender” and supposes the existence of only dichotomous
possibilities which are either made empirically or socially. Yet, these classifications do not
properly capture the essence.

In ancient India, Women commanded a lot of respect and led a life of dignity. They were
allowed to participate in certain political units as well. When it comes to talking about
significant female figures of the Vedic period, four names - Ghosha, Lopamudra, Sulabha
Maitreyi, and Gargi - come to mind. The Sanskrit term Shakti symbolizes the feminine
 21

energy. Their position began hitting an abysmal low from the Later Rig Vedic period
onwards. The medieval period was a dark age for the women. Practices like purdah, sati,
jauhar, child marriage and polygamy were a ritual where the women were always at the
receiving end. Women empowerment started with the efforts of activists like Ishwar Chandra
Vidyasagar, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and Jyotiba Phule and so on.

Gender Stratification is often synonymously used with Gender Inequality since they reflect
the inequalities in everyday life aspects. Gender stereotypes are often difficult to break.

GENDER INEQUALITIES

Gender Inequality remains a barrier in the growth of human development. Even though
major strides have been made, females have not attained similar rights as those conferred to
the males. All too often, women and girls are discriminated against in health, education,
political representation, labour market and so on. The Gender Inequality Index- a product of
the Human Development Report, along with the HDI shows the requirements still left to be
attained to achieve equality. The GII measures gender inequalities in three important aspects
of human development—reproductive health measured by maternal mortality ratio and
adolescent birth rates; empowerment.5 The Global Gender Gap Index, introduced by the
World Economic Forum in 2006, is another framework for capturing the magnitude and
scope of gender-based disparities which benchmarks national gender gaps on economic,
political, education and health criteria.  This Index looks at economic participation and
opportunity deviation; educational attainment deviation; health and survival deviation and
political empowerment deviation.6

When normative role behaviour becomes too rigidly defined, our freedom of action is often
compromised. Males are not immune to the negative consequences of sexism, but females are
more likely to experience it because the status sets they occupy are more stigmatized than
those that are occupied by males.

5
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii accessed on 21st august 6:45 p.m.
6
http://www.genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/WhatisGE
 22

Compared to males, for example, females are more likely to occupy statuses inside and
outside their homes that are associated with less power, less prestige, and less pay or no pay.
Sexism as the subordination of one sex, usually female, on the basis of the assumed
superiority of the other sex7.  An example of sexism is the statement "a woman's place is in
the home. Beliefs about inferiority due to biology are reinforced and then used to justify
discrimination directed toward females. While sex is linked to biological determinants,
gender is clearly shaped by society through a process of socialization.Discrimination against
her starts much before she is born, in the form of feticide and continues till her last breath. In
India, there are 917 females per thousand males in India according to the census of 2011,
which is much below the world average of 990 females. This declining sex-ratio is
worrisome.

EVOLUTION OF FEMINISM

The Feministic Movement, also known as the Women Liberation movement was ushered in
the 18th Century as a series of reform for securing women’s rights. The movement progressed
in three waves. The third and current wave of feminism is continuing to address the financial,
social and cultural inequalities and includes renewed campaigning for greater influence of
women in politics and media.

Though the core issue of all forms of feministic theories remains the same that is- granting of
equal rights to women, their perspectives come in different hues.8

1. Cultural Feminism – Cultural feminism emphasizes the essential differences

between men and women based on biological differences and believes that woman are
largely under-valued because they are not adequately paid compensation for their
services. "The cultural feminist reappraisal construes woman's passivity as her
peacefulness, her sentimentality as her proclivity to nurture, her subjectiveness as her
advanced self-awareness.9
2. Individualist or Liberal theory - Liberalfeminism is an individualistic form of
feminist theory, which focuses on women’s ability to maintain their equality through
their own actions and choices. Liberal feminists argue that society holds the false
7
As quoted by Kendall (1998:67)
8
http://www.sascwr.org/files/www/resources_pdfs/feminism/Definitions_of_Branches_of_Feminisn.pdf
9
Alcoff, Linda. "Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: the Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory." Jstor.
1988. The University of Chicago Press. Oct.-Nov. 2006
 23

belief that women are, by nature, less intellectually and physically capable than men;
thus it tends to discriminate against women in the academy, the forum, and the
marketplace. They strive for sexual equality via down-to-earth political and legal
reform.
3. Radical Feminism- Radical Feminism believes that woman subjugation takes place
due to a patriarch society where women are subjugated and are often prone to
violence by their “dominating” half. It calls for a radical reordering of society in
which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. Radical
feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and
institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging
traditional gender roles, opposing the sexual objectification of women, and raising
public awareness about rape and violence against women.

4. Separatists - Separatist feminism is a form of radical feminism that holds that

opposition to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and
girls. Some separatist feminists do not believe that men can make positive
contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate
the dynamics of patriarchy.
5. Black Feminism - Blackfeminism is a school of thought which argues that sexism,
class oppression, and racism are inextricably bound together. The way these relate to
each other is called intersectionality. It believes that each of the above factors only
compounds the level of discrimination meted out to the people.
6. Womanism - Womanism is a social theory deeply rooted in the racial and gender
oppression of black women. There are varying interpretations on what the term
womanist means and efforts to provide a concise and all-encompassing definition
have only been marginally successful. The ambiguity within the theory allows for its
continuous expansion of its basic tenets. At its core, womanism is a social change
perspective based upon the everyday problems and experiences of black women and
other women of minority demographics, but more broadly seeks methods to eradicate
inequalities not just for black women, but for all people.
 24

RACE

Race is not a biological or genetic fact, but a socially constructed myth (Thio 2007; 234). There is no
statistically significant difference in the genetic makeup between racial groups, thus it is often said
that race is socially constructed. These classifications are assigned to people on the basis of often
arbitrary differences like the shape of the nose, the degree of pigmentation in the skin, and the texture
of the hair. There is in fact more genetic variation within a particular racial group than between racial
groups. Nonetheless, the perception of racial differences is a powerful social force.

While we understand that race is a social classification and not a biological one, it is still a very
meaningful concept to most people in America. As we gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau quote,
even the U.S. federal government acknowledges the lack of a scientific basis of racial categories, yet
continues to create distinctions between peoples. The salience of race to individual identity, to group
affiliation, to legal code, economics, and almost all areas of social life is clear. The question arises
then that if these terms we use like white, black, Asian, and Hispanic, are social constructs, and are
not reflected in any great biological differences, then why are they still embedded in our institutional
structures and everyday interaction? Why is race so important to how we define ourselves and our
relationships in American life?

Race, Class, and Power

From early in human history we see a move to classify and categorize people on the basis of their
perceived differences. In the 17th century, with European expansion to new parts of the world, we see
a rise of the ideology of racial stratification with Europeans placing themselves at the top of the
scheme. Following Darwin’s biological theories of natural selection, the concept of Social Darwinism
arose in the 1800s arguing that certain social or racial groups were more successful and thus superior
than others.

Minority & Dominant Groups

The distinction must be made that an ethnic or racial minority group is not necessarily the group with
the least number of individuals, but people who lack power within the stratified social order. A
minority is thus a group “that is subjected to prejudice and discrimination” (Thio 2007; 234) while the
dominant group holds greater power, privilege, and prestige within the society. Interestingly, ethnic
group identity increases when the group has fewer members, has little relative power, and experiences
higher levels of prejudice and discrimination.
 25

Prejudicial attitudes and the belief in stereotypes clearly influence people’s willingness to be open to
those who are different from themselves. Often underlying this prejudice is a feeling that one’s own
group is somehow superior; a concept known as ethnocentrism. Most damaging is when prejudice
leads to discriminatory practices or treating people inequitably on the basis of their race or ethnicity
(aka racism). This unfair treatment can be systemic or individual. Individual discrimination occurs
when one person treats another unfavorably. Yet, an entire social system or institution may establish
practices that favor one racial or ethnic group above others. Racial stratification has become
institutionalized in law, criminal justice, education, the economy, healthcare, politics, and even where
we may choose to live.

Race and Education Achievement

Institutional or structural disparity in education is evident in the achievement gap in standardized

testing. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, which has documented the
achievement gap over decades, reveals that during the 1970s and 1980s, African-American and
Hispanic students attained increased achievement levels; however, performance on the mathematics
and reading tests declined between 1988 and 1992 and has since leveled off, revealing no narrowing
of the achievement gap among the races. Early accounts questioned the ability of the child of color,
for various genetic, biological, or environmental reasons. All seemed to place the minority child as
deficient and inferior to white children. With the quest for equality the differences in educational
opportunities between students of color and white students became of greater importance. Beginning
with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), a new focus emerged on the lack of educational
opportunities for children of color. Attention was turned from the child to the academic environment
that was created by segregation. This differentiated system created by segregation was supposed to be
rectified by desegregation efforts. Yet, the association between school racial composition, school
quality, and student achievement continues to fuel the segregation vs. desegregation debate.

Segregation and Housing Discrimination

Yet another example of structural inequality is seen in residential racial segregation. It is noted that
segregation levels were lower in 1900 then than they are now. Yet, neighborhood associations,
restrictive covenants, racial zoning and urban planning, and municipal ordinances (examples of de
jure discrimination) all played a role in the early 1900s of establishing the segregation that we see
today. Sociologists and urban historians have detailed the ways in which the federal government
actually instituted practices that contributed to racial discrimination of American housing patterns.
Today, we find that while numerous laws are in place to ensure fair housing opportunities, minority
mortgage applicants are less likely to be approved for a loan than white applicants. This is an example
of de facto discrimination.
 26

CONCLUSION
In India, several special initiatives have been taken up to ensure the safety,
protection and empowerment of women through legal frameworks.

1. The National Commission for Women (NCW) established in January 1992

is a statutory body that has been specifically set up for reviewing the
constitutional and legal frameworks affecting women and to suggest
amendments wherever necessary.

2. Reservation for Women in Local self-governments- The 73rd Constitutional

Amendment Acts passed in 1992 by Parliament ensure one-third of the total
seats for women in all elected offices in local bodies whether in rural areas or
urban areas.

In fact social stratification becomes very common now a days, due to this discriminations
occur . Government should have to suggest very strict measures to deal this.
 27

Webliography

1. http://www.genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/WhatisGE
2. https://uncgsoc101.wordpress.com/module-8-gender
3. stratification/http://dmc122011.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/intro/gender.htm
4. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/g/culturalfem.htm
5. http://www.sascwr.org/files/www/resources_pdfs/feminism/Definitions_of_Branches
_of_Feminisn.pdf
6. http://fty.sagepub.com/
7. http://www.britannica.com/topic/womens-movement
8. http://ezinearticles.com/?Gender-Stratification---Males-Vs-Females&id=6881463