What is Social Stratification?

It refers to the arrangement of society into status groups – a hierarchy with those having more of what
the society values in the upper rankings. Today, in almost all societies, social stratification is mainly
based upon wealth. However, although persons who are highly qualified in a field of knowledge, e.g.,
professors, may not have that much money they wield status and privilege because they have
specialised knowledge and skills. Similarly, members of the clergy and holy men also merit high
status in their societies though they may not be wealthy.
Social stratification is a major concept in sociology partly because it tends to be found in all societies
and partly because it is constraining to many. In other words, it affects life chances. It may facilitate
some (those in the upper levels) to achieve a superior position in society, with the wealth that goes
with it, and it may coerce others (those in the lower levels) to accept an inferior standard of living or a
disadvantaged position in society. Communism is based on a philosophy of removing the social class
barriers found in all stratified societies. However, the communist societies of the last century or so
(e.g., Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba) have found that difficult to achieve. Evidently, it is in human
nature to sort persons according to how much they have of what the society considers desirable.
Caribbean scholars have made a significant contribution to the dialogue on social stratification largely
because our societies developed within rigid stratification contexts and we are still struggling with it,
and how it changes form in the present era.
To make what is invisible visible, society is portrayed as a triangle-shaped entity, divided up into
horizontal layers (strata) which represent people who are ranked differently or unequally. Those in the
top strata have the most of what the society values and desires, which tends to be wealth, power and
prestige.
Social Stratification Pyramid

N.B.: Dividing up society into a pyramid diagram to show the position and relationships of its various
social classes is only a convenient device to concretise and make sense of something that is
intangible. Society itself is intangible and so is the concept, social class. However, in social life it
does not matter if something is intangible, if we believe that it exists then it does – and, furthermore it
serves to organise our lives.
A social class is a group of people who have similar levels of wealth, power and prestige. The
different social classes in a society have an unequal share of the society’s resources. It is possible in
such a system for persons to move up or down depending on their income.
Note: Usually an individual’s location in the model of social stratification in operation in Caribbean
countries is influenced by his or her occupation.
What is the difference between social class and socio-economic status (SES)?
Social class is a more or less fixed category related to income or wealth. SES refers to a wider variety
of background factors than social class such as level of education, occupation, and lifestyle. They both
tend to be used interchangeably and we can do so if we keep in mind that one is a broader version of
the other.
Social class is an indicator of inequality. It assumes differences in how wealth, status and
prestige are distributed among people. To a large extent today, social class reflects a person’s
occupation and hence their labour market position. For example, the upper class or elites usually have
inherited family wealth or have become wealthy through business interests such as investments in
land, stocks and bonds and other assets. Their occupations may be as business owners, heads of
corporations, or successful entrepreneurs. Also located in the upper middle classes are the
professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects, and senior managers of businesses and
corporations. Usually, their position is dependent on attaining high levels of education and having
specialised knowledge. Less successful professionals and business owners can be classified as middle
middle class. The lower middle class may include mid-level clerks and administrative personnel, bank
workers and skilled blue-collar workers. The working classes or lower classes consist of factory
workers, store clerks, unskilled and semi-skilled workers. A sub-stratum exits below inhabited largely
by the poor. Amongst the poor too there are subcategories – the working poor and the underclass (the
unemployed or intermittently employed or underemployed, and the near destitute). However, there are
many different kinds of occupations available today and significant distinctions exist between the
categories of employed, self-employed, underemployed and unemployed, and whether the work
involves manual labour.

CLASSWORK
Define the following concepts:
Stratification 1 - is the allocation of individuals and groups according to various social hierarchies of
differing religion, wealth, power, status or prestige.
In essence: Ranking people based on what society deems important
Vertical mobility/stratification2 - a vertical ordering of society into groups of people that have unequal
amounts of resources, life-chances, and power. Life–chances – opportunities that people have to
acquire "things" that are valued and desirable in a society.
E.g.: Lower to middle class… due to the acquisition of wealth (western hemisphere)
Bank manager to bank teller (moving down)
Horizontal mobility/stratification3 - The concept of horizontal stratification in education refers to the
distribution of children from the different social classes in the qualitatively distinct tracks at the same
level of education.
E.g.: Teacher to Principal
Intergenerational mobility - a change in social position that takes place over two or more generations
E.g.: Grandmother was a taxi driver; your mother becomes a teacher and then you become a lawyer

1
For Haralambos and Holborn (2008), stratification ‘refers to the presence of distinct social groups which are ranked one
above the other with regard to factors such as prestige and wealth’.
2
Vertical mobility refers to movement up or down in the social hierarchy, which results in a change in social class. Vertical
mobility normally involves intergenerational mobility – a change in social position that takes place over two or more
generations.
3
When people experience changes in their jobs, but there is no corresponding change in their social status, then they are said
to be experiencing horizontal mobility.
Intragenerational mobility - a change in the social position of a person that takes place during his or
her lifetime.
E.g.: Mother is a janitor and you become a lawyer
Closed stratification4 - meaning they allow little change in social position, or open, meaning they
allow movement and interaction between the layers. A caste system is one in which social standing is
based on ascribed status or birth.
In essence: Irrespective of what happens, your status doesn’t change
E.g.: Plantation system (blacks, mulattos, whites), Caste system
Open stratification5 - which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between
layers and classes. These different systems reflect, emphasize, and foster certain cultural values and
shape individual beliefs.
In essence: Is not based on ascription as persons are given the opportunity to go up due to
meritocracy.
E.g.: Doing exams, gaining a bachelors, working and moving up the social ladder
Rank - someone's position in society based on wealth, education and prestige (in the west)
Class - This refers to the amount of honour and prestige enjoyed by a person occupying a particular
role in society.
In essence: Share the same social characteristics…prestige, education, job, mannerism, wealth
Status - describes the position a person occupies in a particular setting. A role is the set of norms,
values, behaviours, and personality characteristics attached to a status.
In essence: Whatever position you fill and the prestige attached to it
E.g.: The Prime Minister does not have money but there is a prestige associated with his position.
Prestige caste6 - a division or class of society based on wealth, rank, or occupation
In essence: What is valued by society… a particular mannerism, position
Colour - pigmentation of the skin (complexion), especially as an indication of someone's race.
E.g.: Apartheid – (very similar to slavery) it is not blatant in South Africa but remnant is still there
Race - refers to physical differences that groups and cultures consider socially significant.
Ethnicity - refers to shared culture, such as language, ancestry, practices, and beliefs.
Particular way of life for a particular people. This is not commonly seen in this hemisphere but in
Central America, the Mayans are seen at the bottom of the ladder due to their ethnicity.
Gender - Gender is a term that refers to social construct or cultural distinctions associated with being
male or female. Gender identity is the extent to which one identifies as being either masculine or
feminine.

4
A ‘closed’ society, based upon ascribed statuses, determines at birth the life chances of its members.
5
An ‘open’ society, based upon achieved statuses, allows its members to attain upward social mobility based on education
and skills, regardless of race.
6
Prestige refers to the reputation or esteem associated with one's position in society. A person can earn prestige by his or her
own achievements, which is known as achieved status, or they can be placed in the stratification system by their inherited
position, which is called ascribed status.
The concept of gender varies (E.g.: Women in the Caribbean are seen as independent while some in
the east are dependent) and is sometimes used for stratification. Gender depends on the roles each
play in the society.
Sex - refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both
primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and
muscularity.
At times this will determine where you are on the ladder. This is not seen commonly in the Caribbean
but more in the traditional and primitive societies.
Nouveau Riche
Nouveau riche is a term used, usually in a derogatory way, to describe those whose wealth has been
acquired within their own generation, rather than by familial inheritance. The equivalent English term
is the "new rich" or "new money". E.g.: Usain Bolt
Colour, Race, Ethnicity and Caste
These are attributes of individuals and groups which serve to differentiate them from others and could
be the basis of social differentiation leading to social inequality and or social stratification. In the
history of the Caribbean skin colour differentiated persons who belonged to high status groups from
others who did not. The marker was based on being ‘white’ or ‘light’ - which placed the individual or
groups nearer to the white colonial masters of the society – the centre of power and privilege. It is
because skin colour was so universally regarded in the society as a justifiable claim for being accepted
as high, middle or low class that a complex gradation scheme developed to assign persons to one
category or the other.
To a large extent those wielding power in Caribbean societies during slavery and afterwards tended to
be white or near-white. The middle groups were assigned labels such as ‘red’ or ‘brown’ and the
lower classes were ‘black’. The high status accorded to light-coloured skin influenced marriages so
that persons tried to ‘marry light’ because that would have increased their social standing and the
prospects of their children. All this preoccupation with colour stemmed from the fact that in the
colony there were basically two races – the white, European overlord and the black, enslaved African
population. The stratification was so rigid that the only way someone could make her/his way up in
society was either through unions with those of a higher class or by being sponsored and helped,
again, by such persons (for example, manumission). Race and ethnicity are related terms but, in the
Caribbean, where there was tremendous mixing of races, not only of African and white, but also with
Amerindian groups and much later on with Chinese, Indian and other peoples, it is more precise to
speak of ethnicity. Race refers to the physical characteristics of a person – skin colour, facial features,
eye colour, bone structure and the like – but ethnicity refers to a wide-ranging set of factors that
includes culture, heritage, ancestry, language and beliefs.
Caste is a term used to describe the rigid system of social stratification that was maintained in India
for centuries. Today, ‘caste’ is a term used in sociology to refer generally to one’s ascribed status, as
opposed to achieved status. Race, ethnicity, gender, caste, and colour are examples of ascribed status
and most if not all of them are the basis for inequality in the society. Achieved status is important in
an open system of social stratification because it holds out the possibility for upward social mobility.
Gender
Whether one is male or female is usually a basis for some sort of inequality. There are societies where
gender inequality is minimal, for example Scandinavia. In other places, notably Islamic countries,
there are entrenched legal and religious customs and traditions that discriminate against females. Even
in countries where there is a commitment to gender equality, those that are signatories to international
agreements that promote gender fairness and gender justice, there are subtle and not so-subtle ways
and means of discriminating against women. One of the most widespread is lower pay for women
compared to men who are doing the same work.
Gender Inequality or Stratification?
How is the social class of someone determined? Goldthorpe and other theorists treat the family as the
basic unit of stratification and regard members as being dependent on the occupational standing of
the male as head of the household or breadwinner. The social class position related to the type of work
the male does is assigned to his family. This assumption has several implications:
1. In using the male’s occupation to define the social class of a family, stratification theorists have
unconsciously accepted the notion that females’ occupations would be of a lower status. They
therefore overlooked the existence of a parallel system of inequality (gender stratification).
2. This leads to the well-documented fact that women are often paid lower salaries for the same
work as men. Categorising an occupation according to its name or title hides the reality that the
same job may involve different conditions of work depending on whether it is a man or woman
holding it.
3. In the case of those females who earn higher wages than others in the family, census-takers, and
others who gather empirical data to support occupational stratification schemes, may or may not
record them as the actual head of the household.
Goldthorpe’s model treats the male as the traditional head of household. This is a Functionalist
perception based in biological theories of sex roles which see men and women performing different
and complementary roles stemming from their ‘natural’ masculine and feminine tendencies. The sex
division of roles and responsibilities results in the efficient functioning not only of the family but also
of society. Women, even today, play the dominant role in the private sphere of caring and organising
the home, while still going out to work. Men are traditionally cast as breadwinner and act more than
women do in the public sphere. This Functionalist explanation gives a tidy and traditional picture of
the family with the male as head of household. However, today this is increasingly irrelevant to
understanding life in families and even occupational stratification because there may actually be two
heads of a household or the head may be the female.
Functionalist sociologists tend to ignore this development, seeing it as dysfunctional for families and
causing competition between wife and husband, thus threatening a major function of the family, the
socialisation of children. They even see it as dysfunctional for the society, threatening social stability
if members of one family occupy different social class positions. They ignore the position of women
in the labour force, such as their over-representation in stereotypical office, sales and semi-
professional jobs reflecting the perceptions of employers (and others) about gender appropriate work.
Treating with gender when examining social class issues brings out overlapping systems of
stratification (which contribute to social differentiation).
Within a society already stratified by social class (denoted by occupations), gender is superimposed as
another category of social inequality. While both men and women contend with inequalities in
negotiating the labour market, women have the added burden of contending with the unfair conditions
of work that females tend to experience. In other words, men seldom experience disadvantage just by
being male. Both men and women also experience other overlapping systems of stratification – that of
race, colour and ethnicity. Ethnic groups that are socially disadvantaged suffer unequal treatment on
the labour market, but women experience double inequality – that of belonging to the particular ethnic
group as well as that of being female.
The above arguments notwithstanding, stratification theorists state that social class is the most
significant indicator of social stratification – not gender or ethnicity. They say that gender itself does
not by itself determine how much of the rewards of the society (wealth, status and prestige) a woman
experiences – that has much to do with the social class standing of her father and husband. And,
whilst there may be exceptions, it does not change the overall pattern of social stratification. In other
words, while there is some level of gender stratification occurring in the society, for the most part it is
not as all-encompassing as stratification by social class. What may be more pertinent is the
intersection of gender and social class to identify groups who are persistently disadvantaged in the
society, for example poor black women. Therefore, Goldthorpe’s and similar models, although
described as conventional, are still widely accepted as the ways in which social class positions are
measured in contemporary society.
Social Mobility
In a system of social stratification based on social class it is possible for persons and groups to move
from one social class to another - horizontally or vertically, as well as from one generation to the next
(intergenerational) or within one generation (intragenerational). This is largely a result of changing
occupations.
Upward vertical mobility - means that a person moves from lower middle to middle middle
class and then on to upper middle class if conditions remain promising. By contrast those persons
who have come upon difficult economic times and now have less income may have had to sell
their home and car and move to a cheaper residence. Even vertical mobility is largely incremental
within one main social class, meaning that a person hardly moves directly from low to middle
class.
Horizontal mobility - indicates that a person changed his/her job but that it did not involve
enough change in income to promote that person into another higher income bracket or demote
him/ her into a lower one. Horizontal mobility can be experienced for example by a nurse who
becomes a teacher; occupations may change but the person remains in the same social class.
Intergenerational mobility - similarly could be up or down the social strata. In many Caribbean
countries’ education has facilitated the rise of a prosperous middle class between the 1960s and
the present of persons whose parents were farmers, clerks and domestic servants. Today these
persons are professionals representing a rise in social standing, moving from the lower class
steadily to the upper classes.
Intragenerational mobility - represents a movement, whether it is upward or downward, from
one social class level to another within someone’s working lifetime. For example, if a person
earned $5,000 a month at age 25 years and $30,000 a month by age 50 then this represents a
substantial gain in economic resources.
Structural mobility - refers to a change in a person’s social status because of economic
situations. The person can become downwardly mobile when there is an economic downturn. 7
Sponsored mobility - some groups find their advancement blocked by too few alternatives, high
fees and high stakes examinations, thereby limiting their chances at intergenerational mobility.
Contest Mobility - more groups to gain access to more options and resources enabling them to
strive for and obtain social mobility.
Inequality and Social Stratification
Social stratification results in inequality in the society. Not all inequality in a society however is
rooted in social stratification. Inequality is also a condition whereby people have unequal access to
valued resources and positions in the society.
E.g.: a physically handicapped person may find that there are only certain job openings for her/him
and few places of study which are built to accommodate the disabled student.

7
An economic downturn occurs as part of a cycle of economic activity. In a downturn the economy falters, production
declines, and consumer spending drops, usually resulting in rising unemployment and poverty.
Social stratification, on the other hand, refers to entrenched forms of inequality which are backed up
by the historic and existing system of social relationships, and which persist from generation to
generation. The reasons for this persistence often lie with those who hold wealth, power and prestige
in the society. They have little incentive, because of prevailing ideologies about wealth and material
possessions, to use their resources to assist those lower down in the social hierarchy to improve their
living conditions and life chances. The poor person may therefore find it virtually impossible to be rid
of inequality and climb out of poverty. Thus, social stratification is the institutionalisation of
inequality. It is institutionalised because of dominant beliefs and values in the society which become
ideologies. One of the most dominant beliefs in a society is that individual achievement is important
and significant, and ‘achievement’ is really prized if it comes with financial gain. Those who opt out
of this ‘rat race’ and are content to build a small dwelling, live by farming or handicraft or other forms
of self-employment, represent distinct groups who ‘stick out’ because their values and beliefs are so
patently different from the whole society.
Social inequality and social stratification increase diversity in the society. There are many groups
defined by some aspect – disablement, gender, religion, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation – that
experience some sort of disadvantage or inequality. The existence of these well differentiated groups
increases the heterogeneous nature of the society. When to that is added a system of social
stratification, based on social class, which encompasses the whole society, there are now large sectors
of the population who can then be further subdivided.
Social differentiation is intensified by social inequality and social stratification. It involves the social
ranking of groups and increases diversity in the society. This ranking and all that it signifies
become entrenched or institutionalised in the society and persons are socialised to accept this
structure of inequality.

Questions:
1. Does a system of stratification indicate inequality?
2. What is the relationship between ‘social differentiation’ and ‘social stratification’?
3. How is social class related to social stratification?
4. Does the term, social stratification, also include gender stratification?
5. Identify one system of social stratification that is based on individual achievement.
Social class is the basis for social stratification in most of the countries of the world today. However, in the
Caribbean, since our history is bound up with a separation of the races by social class (whites at the top, blacks
at the bottom), ethnicity, race and colour are also valid influences on social stratification. In another country,
with a different history, social class may be the only determinant of social stratification.

Types of Stratification Systems

There are many different types of social stratification worldwide. However, in this section we are
going to focus on closed and open systems. A closed system is akin to what we had in the past under
slavery and indentureship where ascriptive criteria assigned groups to different levels of the social
hierarchy. There was little movement between levels. Open systems are based on achieved criteria
where the different levels are defined according to social class, and one could move up or down.
Closed Systems
A closed system of social stratification is described as ‘rigid’ because people cannot move to another
social class or category easily. These systems are based on ascriptive criteria which an individual
cannot change, such as birth or family background (caste), gender, race and colour. Inequalities are
therefore entrenched. No system however functions exactly as described above; there will always be
variations. This will become clearer as we look at different societies or groups to analyse the criteria
they use to sort or stratify people. Here we look at two examples of closed stratification systems, the
caste system of India, and slave societies in the Caribbean.

Caste System of India

While the ancient and complex caste system of India has broken down in the modern era, it still
influences beliefs and behaviours especially as they relate to marriage and family life. It was based on
ascriptive criteria. A person was born into a caste (a position in society based on family lineage) and
expected to marry another member of that caste (a practice referred to as endogamy). Family lineage
defined one’s status in terms of ethnic purity8. Family lineage was also associated with inheritance of
wealth, power and prestige. Being an endogamous system, it was closed and permanent and it was
reinforced by elaborate practices and procedures to keep the castes separate. Hinduism legitimised
this separation because of the belief in reincarnation. Persons were expected to be born again into the
upper levels of the hierarchy if they displayed virtues in this life, or into lower levels if they displayed
inadequacies (a cycle known as karma).

Historical caste system of India

Slave Societies in the Caribbean

Social stratification during slavery and through the 19th century

8
the degree to which one had or had not mixed with others of a different caste and had maintained this separation.
 UPPER-CLASS (Owners, WHITES
managers,
supervisors)

MIDDLE-CLASS Small Business, COLOUREDS

artisans, clerk

Slaves: field and domestic

LOWER-CLASS BLACKS
workers and artisans

Diagram above shows the system of social stratification under slavery in the Caribbean. This was also
based on the ascriptive criteria of birth – namely, race and colour. Each group in the Caribbean’s
social hierarchy was also linked to certain occupations but even if a black person became free and
worked as a tradesman, he was not considered equal in status to white tradesmen. Skin colour or race
was the basis of stratification and being white automatically conferred higher status (power and
prestige, if not wealth). No individual could cross the caste/class barriers in India or the Caribbean
without severe consequences, incurring physical punishments, banishment and death. In the
Caribbean both caste (meant as social divisions based on ascriptive criteria) and class (meant as a
group having the same social, economic, and educational status) are used to describe the groups
under slavery.
Open Systems
An open system of social stratification is one where the possibility exists that one’s status can change,
i.e., that social mobility can occur. The system is based on achieved criteria such as education
credentials and is described as a meritocracy because one can move upward (or downward) via merit.
The social class system is open to some degree but it still reflects inequalities.
Note: A person’s social status today normally refers to his or her position or rank in society and is often spoken
of in terms of social class or SES – the major indicator of which is wealth or income. This does not mean that
race and ethnicity are no longer major bases of social stratification, but with the opening up of educational
opportunities in the Caribbean after Emancipation a more ‘open’ system of stratification emerged based on
what people could achieve as individuals.

Sociological Perspectives on Social Stratification

Functionalist
Assumptions
 Social inequality is necessary and Contributes to the well-being of society.
 Stratification systems are fair people are placed in positions base on merit.
 Inequality of rewards exist because some roles are more demanding than others.
 All societies as some form division

(Mustapha)
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore
The functionalist perspective of society begins with the assumption that the needs of society are
greater than the needs of individuals; in other words, the good of society is greater than the good of
individuals. Hence, functionalists, when assessing the usefulness of social stratification, begin by
asking the question: Does the stratified social system contribute to the maintenance of society?
For Davis and Moore, social stratification provides an effective mechanism for role allocation and
performance. Every society is faced with the double challenge of selecting the best individuals to fill
the social positions required for its survival and maintenance, and at the same time, motivating them
to execute their role expectations. Davis and Moore argue that, in order for society to attract the right
talent to fill the myriad of social positions, a differential system of rewards must be offered and, based
on meritocracy, must be implemented.
Davis and Moore argue that rewards offered must take into account three factors:
1. First is the functional importance of the job. Some social positions or jobs in society are
functionally more important than others. For example, the role of a doctor is believed to be
functionally more important to society than that of a janitorial worker. Therefore, according to Davis
and Moore, doctors must be offered higher rewards than janitorial workers.
2. Natural ability and talent may not be widespread in society. Hence, a system of stratification
offering high rewards is necessary to motivate those with the requisite talent to compete, which
theoretically would lead to the most skilled and talented filling the important roles in society.
3. A stratification system with differential rewards depending on the functional importance of the job
is necessary, to reward people who have to undergo long periods of training and personal sacrifices. It
is critical that the differential package attached to each functional role in society should have a built-in
motivational inducement that would produce a minimum acceptable degree of diligence and
conscientiousness in the execution of performance. In essence, therefore, Davis and Moore are of the
view that social stratification is an effective mechanism for ensuring that all the social positions in
society, especially the functionally important ones, are filled by the most skilled, talented and
qualified members of society.
The functionalist perspective of social stratification is captured in the work of Davis and Moore
(1945). They argue that social stratification is useful as it contributes to the maintenance of society.
These authors state that there are basic functional prerequisites that must be fulfilled to ensure the
survival and maintenance of society. These functional prerequisites are similar to those enunciated by
Parsons for the survival and maintenance of society, such as the provision of shelter and food, and
filling the manifold social positions in society, such as teachers, engineers, doctors, janitors, police
officers, construction workers, and lawyers.
Let us apply the reasoning of Davis and Moore to two social positions in society: medical doctors and
garbage collectors. The social position of a medical doctor requires a minimum degree of skill and
intelligence beyond the average, long hours, and years of training, and sometimes having to work in
stressful circumstances. To motivate the people with this relatively scarce talent to fill such an
important social position, Davis and Moore would argue that high rewards in the form of prestige and
income must be offered. Society, however, may deem that little reward should be offered to those who
fill the important role of keeping the society clean of garbage and reducing the risk of disease
outbreaks. Davis and Moore would argue that although the role of the garbage collector is important,
the potential to fill the position is widespread, especially as little specialized training, skills and
qualification are needed. Hence, the position of garbage collector does not necessitate high rewards in
the form of prestige and income.
From the example above, it is evident that inequality is viewed as a rational response to a social
problem. The Functionalist perspective on society views inequality as a result of societal agreement
on the functional importance of social positions and the need to reward them accordingly.

Functionalism
According to Davis and Moore (1945) people have different talents and abilities. This occurs naturally
and therefore some are destined to be leaders – the movers and shakers of the world – and others to
perform the necessary tasks, though they may be menial, for the society to survive. The greatest
rewards of the society – wealth, power, prestige – go to those who perform the most important tasks
in the society – governing, managerial, supervisory and professional roles – and those persons will
usually be the most talented. Therefore, there is always inequality. Stratification is useful for the
society because it provides the motivation to capture the services of the most talented (they are greatly
rewarded) and at the same time the processes of socialisation motivate the less talented to strive to
work hard so that they could receive more. This ensures social order through having values consensus
– the values important to the society are shared and accepted, even by those who are disadvantaged by
those values. Functionalists then view stratification as functional for a society.
Talcott Parsons, in The Social System (1970), theorising about social systems and what they needed in
order to survive, put forward the view that all societies had functional prerequisites. These were the
most important requirements of the system that had to be met in order for individuals to feel satisfied
and to minimise conflict. Table 9.3 shows, in the first column, the four criteria or functional
prerequisites which must be fulfilled in order to create and maintain a harmonious society. The second
column shows how each of these prerequisites can be matched with an argument supporting social
stratification. The table offers a summary picture that shows how the ‘needs’ of the society, as
identified by Parsons, can be met within a system of inequalities. In other words, social stratification
is not at odds with a stable and harmonious society.
Parsons’ ideas show how individuals and groups could be incorporated into a stratified social system
and be content with their lot because of values consensus. Functionalism makes the case that social
stratification and the resulting inequalities actually grow out of the needs of the society. For example,
if society only needed a few tasks performed – as in early hunting and gathering clans who survived
on what they could collect to eat – then there would be no stratification and hence no inequality.
Davis and Moore (1945), however, pointed to the variety of tasks in societies today, some more
important than others, which would need highly talented manpower who would earn high rewards.
Others, who might have jobs the society considered less important, would earn less and so there
would be inequality. However, in this view people are not likely to complain because they have
internalised (through socialisation) the values that some jobs are more important than others and if
one wishes to acquire such a high-paying job then one has to have academic ability (talent) and the
required resources (funds, aptitudes and attitudes).
Criticisms of Davis and Moore
The Functionalist perspective, particularly the work of Davis and Moore, has attracted many
criticisms. The major critique of this perspective has been the work of Melvin Tumin (1953).
1. The assumption that some social positions in a society are functionally more important than others
have been questioned by many theorists. According to Tumin (1953) there is no unanimously
accepted way of measuring the functional importance of social positions. For Tumin, the concept of
functional importance is highly subjective. Hence, he would argue that garbage collectors and doctors
are equally important in society.
2. Tumin views these propositions as challenging the idea that social inequality is uniformly
functional for guaranteeing that the most important tasks in a society will be performed
conscientiously by the most competent persons.
3. Davis and Moore, according to Tumin, did not fully appreciate the importance of power in
determining the unequal distribution of rewards. For Tumin, the differences in prestige and pay
between different groups have been as a result of power rather than functional importance. For
example, in Trinidad and Tobago the difference in salaries and wages between workers in the oil
industry and the cocoa industry may be a result of the relative bargaining power of the two groups of
workers. Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary
to procure the acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalizes the status quo, whatever it
may be, as logical, natural, and morally right.
4. According to Davis and Moore, a limited number of individuals have the necessary talent to acquire
the skills needed to match the functionally important positions in society. Tumin disagrees with Davis
and Moore by arguing that there exists no effective mechanism for measuring talent and ability.
5. Tumin argues that the unequal opportunity structure of society fails to provide any guarantee that
the stratification system, as pronounced by Davis and Moore, would be able to adequately fill the
functionally social positions with the most talented. According to Tumin, those individuals born in the
lower strata of society would always be at a major disadvantage with regard to the opportunity to
realize their true potential, when compared to those born in the upper strata.
6. Social stratification systems function to encourage hostility, suspicion, and distrust among the
various segments of a society, and thus limit the possibilities of extensive social integration.
Similarly, stratification lowers the loyalty and motivation of the lower classes to participate in
national efforts.
Parsons, in The Social System (1970), theorising about social systems and what they needed in order
to survive, put forward the view that all societies had functional prerequisites. These were the most
important requirements of the system that had to be met in order for individuals to feel satisfied and to
minimise conflict. Parsons’ ideas show how individuals and groups could be incorporated into a
stratified social system and be content with their lot because of values consensus. Functionalism
makes the case that social stratification and the resulting inequalities actually grow out of the needs of
the society. For example, if society only needed a few tasks performed – as in early hunting and
gathering clans who survived on what they could collect to eat – then there would be no stratification
and hence no inequality. Davis and Moore (1945), however, pointed to the variety of tasks in societies
today, some more important than others, which would need highly talented manpower who would
earn high rewards. Others, who might have jobs the society considered less important, would earn less
and so there would be inequality. However, in this view people are not likely to complain because
they have internalised (through socialisation) the values that some jobs are more important than others
and if one wishes to acquire such a high-paying job then one has to have academic ability (talent) and
the required resources (funds, aptitudes and attitudes).
According to the functionalists, stratification does perpetuate inequality but this inequality is needed
so that people will work hard and achieve the finer things in life. Stratification motivates persons and
promotes competition in order to get a job.
How can this be applied to Caribbean reality?
Concerning rewards, we see that doctors are valued more than janitors or garbage collectors.
And when it comes to Jamaican businesses, they tend to hire persons with more experience and
subjects.
We are also accepting to the rules that govern stratification … If we do not acquire a certain
number of subjects then we will not be able to apply for a certain job.
Marxist Perspective on Social Stratification
Conflict theorists are deeply critical of social stratification, asserting that it benefits only some people,
not all of society. Social stratification is said to exist where persons are all born equal but some are
more privileged as they have greater access to socio-economic and political resources, status and
power. In this hierarchical ordering of groups, the most privileged occupy the top strata and the least
privileged occupy the lowest strata. The groups are ranked according to criteria viewed as important
by members of society. Such criteria include differences based on gender, class, age, race or ethnicity.
It may appear that status ranking is based solely on economic differences between groups.
The nature of social class systems is debated in the theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber. Marx
thought that classes came about when differences in income and wealth were so great that one (small)
dominant group exploited the labour of the other, a large mass of ‘propertyless’ individuals (who
owned nothing but their labour). Marx used historical analysis to trace the development of European
society. For him, society passes through four stages before stabilizing into the final stage of
communism. The initial stage, according to Marx, was primitive communism in which there were no
classes. In all the following stages, a divided stratification system persisted for many centuries. In
ancient slavery the unequal relations between the slave-owners and the slaves characterized the
stratified system. In feudal society9 (the third stage) stratification was between nobles and peasants.
He believed that it was in the womb of feudalism that capitalism (fourth stage), was born, along with
the exploitative relations between the capitalist (the bourgeoisie) and the workers (the proletariat).

9
Feudal Society - a type of social and political system in which landholders provide land to tenants in exchange for their
loyalty and service.
E.g.: is someone farming a piece of land for a lord and agreeing to serve under the lord in war in exchange for getting to live
on the land and receiving protection.
In Marx’s view, social stratification is created by people’s differing relationship to the means of
production: either they own productive property or they labour for others.
In Marxist theory, the capitalist mode of production consists of two main economic parts: the
substructure and the Superstructure.
In a capitalist society, the ruling class, or the bourgeoisie, owns the means of production, such as
machines or tools that can be used to produce valuable objects. The working class, or the proletariat,
only possess their own labour power, which they sell to the ruling class in the form of wage labour to
survive. These relations of production—employer-employee relations, the technical division of
labour, and property relations—form the base of society or, in Marxist terms, the substructure. From
this material substructure, the superstructure emerges. The superstructure includes the ideas,
philosophies and culture of a society. In a capitalist society, the ruling class promotes its own
ideologies and values as the norm for the entire society, and these ideas and values are accepted by the
working class.
A temporary status quo could be achieved by employing various methods of social control—
consciously or unconsciously—by the bourgeoisie in various aspects of social life. Eventually,
however, Marx believed the capitalist economic order would erode, through its own internal conflict;
this would lead to revolutionary consciousness or in other words a workers’ revolution and the
development of egalitarian communist society. In this communist society, the state would own the
means of production, and it would equally distribute resources to all citizens. The means of
production would be shared and owned equally by all members of society, and social stratification
would be abolished.
egalitarian communist society: A society in which the state owns the means of production and equally
distributes resources.
Marx’s vision did not come true. As societies modernized and grew larger, the working classes
became more educated, acquiring specific job skills and achieving the kind of financial well-being
that Marx never thought possible. Instead of increased exploitation, they came under the protection of
unions and labour laws. Skilled factory workers and tradespeople eventually began to earn salaries
that were similar to, or in some instances greater than, their middle-class counterparts.
Criticisms of Marxism
Working class is not homogeneous group.
Economic factors are not only criteria for social stratification.
Marxist do not acknowledge the existence of a middle class.
Max Weber added to Marx’s notions of social class. Weber argues that social stratification is the
product of economic power, political power and status. Weber has elaborated upon Marx’s analysis,
using three hierarchically ranked strata. Examples include the following:
The ruling class in any society possesses more wealth than the lower class and therefore holds
more economic power.
In patriarchal (including Western) societies, men are ranked above women in all institutions. For
instance, in the family, men will make the decisions the spouses consider most important, while
their wives will make the less important decisions, such as interior decorating and the purchasing
of children’s clothes.
In white-dominated societies, less economically powerful groups (for example blacks, Asians and
Hispanics) may face discrimination in housing, education and employment.
Weber expanded the ruling class to include managers, professionals and administrators.
 Peoples’ skills, qualification and work experience may give them an advantage other (class
situation).
People in the same class share the same chances of obtaining scarce resources of jobs, income and
property.
Weber’s Class Structure
1. Propertied upper class 2. White-collar professionals
3. Petty bourgeoisie 4. Manual working class

Symbolic Interactionist
Max Weber sought to arrive at an Interpretive understanding of social action and felt that Marx had
had a much too narrow concept of stratification. Weber’s ideas about social stratification went beyond
the economic aspect of things and emphasised that the goods and rewards of the society were tangible,
intangible, material and symbolic. Power was perhaps the most important dimension in how goods
were distributed. He therefore refined the ideas of Marx and put forward three dimensions of
stratification:
1. A social class is a group of people who has similar levels of income or wealth. The important thing
to note is their buying and selling power because this determines the kind of lifestyles they lead. In
Marx’s view, being a worker put a person in the social class of all workers. But Weber saw the
workplace as changing, and today some workers such as professional athletes earn incomes far greater
than even some capitalists. Thus, the kind of lifestyle someone had defined their social class. This
could be described as economic stratification.
2. A party is a group with similar levels of power. Weber defined power as being able to influence
others and override opposition. Such power does not necessarily have to be allied with wealth. A
politician may have come from the grassroots of society and may not be earning a high income but he
or she exercises power to change laws and institute policy. This type of stratification makes up the
legal and political order of society.
3. A status group is one with people of similar levels of prestige. Some groups enjoy much prestige in
the society while being only modestly paid, for example, university professors, whilst masons and
plumbers, during times of economic boom earn a considerable income. Status groups reflect how
groups are stratified according to levels of prestige.
In Weber’s view then social stratification is a complex phenomenon. It has three strands – economic,
political/ legal and social. Each of these stratification systems intertwines and influences the other, so
that power and wealth almost always go together. While Marx’s idea of social class still has
widespread currency, Weber’s ideas about stratification being a multi-dimensional phenomenon bears
more relevance to social reality and is better captured by the term socio-economic status – the income
level someone has, together with his or her educational attainments, occupation, prestige and wealth.

Feminist
While there are many Feminist perspectives, they all agree that not only is there stratification by
social class in Western societies but gender stratification is also evident. Refer to Goldthorpe’s system
where ways of determining social stratification are discussed showing that ‘occupation’ is used to a
large extent in locating someone in the system of social stratification. But for the most part, this has
been taken to mean the occupation of males. Unconscious bias in how social stratification is presented
allocates females to being housewives, and – if employed – as earning less than their partner. In other
words, the social class position of a woman is determined by how her male partner is classified.
Feminists raise the issue that while social class is a recognised way of determining social stratification
in modern societies, there is a parallel system of gender stratification that goes unnoticed. This means
that the system of social stratification is not fully understood because gender inequalities are left out.
Liberal Feminists
They focus on promoting equal rights for women in relation to men and lobby for legislation to
equalise opportunity for women, especially in education and the workplace. One of the key areas in
which they work for women’s rights is in gaining them entry into male dominated occupations – air
traffic controllers, bus drivers, the military and jobs in industrial settings. By the same token they are
also prepared to usher men into women dominated fields such as secretarial work, especially in
difficult economic times when young people find it hard to get jobs. The idea is to ‘equalise’
opportunities for both genders as much as possible rather than maintaining the idea of difference
between the genders.
Marxist/Socialist Feminists
Their focus is on the capitalist labour market and on calling attention to the role played by women in
the structure of capitalism. While Marx did not pay much attention to the role women played in the
home to support capitalism, Marxist and Socialist Feminists draw attention to the unpaid work that
women carry out in the domestic sphere. Who pays for this work? No one. Women’s work supports
the home and the breadwinners who go out into the capitalist market place. In other words, if women
were not at home keeping that end up (maintaining the family) then capitalism would founder because
men would not be able to focus on work, they would have other duties to see about on the home front.
These feminists also argue that women take up the responsibility when, with the vagaries and
contradictions inherent in capitalism, their menfolk become unemployed or their wages decrease.
Women find jobs, of whatever kind, to continue to nurture and maintain the family unit. And it is this
unit upon which capitalism depends to reproduce the next generation of workers. They argue for the
recognition of women’s place in the economy and moreover point out that women experience gender
stratification as well as social stratification.
Radical Feminists
These Feminists emphasise patriarchy more than the other Feminisms and see it as the basis of the
oppression women experience in society. They claim that gender stratification has ancient roots and
was well-established long before social class stratification. The conventional view is that social
stratification is the major type of stratification in Western countries and while gender stratification
exists it is not as all-encompassing as social class. Radical feminists disagree and say that all other
types of disadvantage and inequality build successively on gender inequality. This is a source of
contention with Black Feminists who feel that because of this Radical Feminists do not give the
attention that they should to the inequalities suffered through ethnic stratification.

Caribbean Theorists

In the 1960s and 1970s decolonisation and independence were major goals or purposes that swept the
region, becoming enshrined in government policies as well as in the research interests of social
scientists. Our early sociologists were energised by this spirit and looked for different methodologies
from those of Functionalist Western sociology to confront the realities of Caribbean social life. This
goal became translated into ‘development’ and was taken up by sociologists, students and colleagues,
such as the New World Group, including Lloyd Best and George Beckford, who established the
Plantation Model of Caribbean society opposing the ideas in the Plural Model Both theories were
vigorously contested by the Creole Society Model put forward by Kamau Brathwaite and others.
In essence: This section sought to describe and explain the variety of theoretical perspectives on social
stratification. This is an enduring area of research and theorising because the eradication of inequality is a
goal of national governments and international organisations such as the United Nations. Yet, inequality
persists in some form or other. Theorists range from those who feel that social stratification is functional for the
society (functionalists) to those who believe that gender stratification is even more significant because it
supports other forms of inequalities (Radical Feminists). Marxists understand social stratification to stem from
the social relations of production, whilst Weberian Interpretive sociology sees it as more complex, intersecting
with class, power and status. Caribbean theorists added their voices to those of international theorists because
the Caribbean context, historically and at present, offers a unique site where multiple forms of social
stratification, oppression and violence played out over the centuries.

Evolution of Caribbean Stratification

The subject of social stratification is of the utmost importance to Caribbean people because our
societies began with violence, oppression and subjugation, with certain groups privileged and others
not. Differences in status depended on differences in race, ethnicity and colour as well as social class.
The complex relationships between these attributes of groups and individuals are peculiarly
‘Caribbean’, the study of which can continue to help us understand ourselves and contribute to
international scholarship.

Plantation Societies
Figure 9.5 (page 278) shows the system of social stratification in the colonies during slavery and
afterwards. It shows a hierarchy of people organised according to social class (occupations) and race.
The people are ranked so that those at the higher levels (the upper class) enjoy much status and
prestige and those at the bottom (the lower class) are regarded as having little worth. This is a closed
system based on ascribed status. On the plantations (and in the wider society at the time) this pattern
of stratification was rigid. No one could hope to move up because race and class were linked. The
whole system of social stratification was based on the ascriptive criterion of race. For example,
Africans were the workers on the plantations. They were field and domestic slaves and included some
artisans but they had few rights and were regarded as the property of their masters (chattels). This
placed them at the bottom of the social hierarchy. If you were black you had to be a slave (with only a
few exceptions) illustrating how race and social class were inextricably tied. The middle class (small
in numbers) consisted of coloureds (mixed race), who were free, educated and had set up small
businesses. A coloured person enjoyed more social status than a black person – an acknowledgement
of the ‘superiority’ of his or her European ancestry. Such a person would not work as a labourer and
at the same time was blocked by the whites from entry into occupations reserved for white folks.
Whites were at the top of the social pyramid, being the owners and managers of the plantations and
the colony. A white person could not be employed in menial activities or trade. (Experiments in
bringing white indentured workers to various Caribbean countries were short lived.) Figure 9.5 then
shows a society rigidly stratified according to race and class – the society mirrored the relationships
on the plantation, and became known as ‘plantation society’.
Post-Emancipation
An important study of social stratification in Trinidad was carried out by Lloyd Braithwaite in 1953.
Figure 9.6 is adapted from this work (Braithwaite, 1975, p.42) and demonstrates the changes that
ensued in this social pyramid in the 20th century. In Trinidad, Indians were introduced as indentured
labourers in the 19th and early 20th centuries and they were inserted below Africans in the social
hierarchy. You will note that some shifting occurred over time once slavery was abolished and very
limited social mobility became possible. In diagram A the basic social class divisions remain intact –
that is high-, middle- and low-income levels –
which are horizontal lines on the diagram. When we try to match the income levels to race and
ethnicity, we do not get a perfect one-on-one correspondence such as in Figure 9.5. In the post-
Emancipation period (1834 –1940s), although the previously enslaved were now free, and the
indentured populations were no longer legally bound after 1917, these groups remained at the bottom
of the social hierarchy. Some had moved up into the middle-income groups but to a large extent no
other ethnic group had moved down – the poorest classes were the Africans and the Indians. Figure
9.6(a) shows an ever-so-slight drop in status and income for a few whites. In most Caribbean
countries there were a few white families who descended into the middle-income groups as their
fortunes declined. However, the bulk of the white population in Caribbean countries after
Emancipation constituted the highest income earners and owned most of the lands and commercial
establishments. They continued to be the major employers and made a successful transition from
being solely plantation owners to taking up the wholesale and retail trades, banking, commerce and
shipping. They began to build elite family-run businesses, some of which survive today in Caribbean
countries as major corporations. Note that the coloured groups during this period tended to be
upwardly mobile and some actually breached the ranks of the white upper class. The coloured group
had long had access to certain privileges, such as education and the resources of their white family
members, if those members acknowledged them. Education would have made them eligible for the
professions so the coloured population tended to be lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, publishers, writers,
teachers and principals as well as managers in business and administrators in the public service. While
education and the possession of some reserves of wealth helped the coloureds to maintain a middle-
class existence, and some of them even attained higher than that, they also had another means of
social mobility – marriage. To a large extent they made strategic choices so that marriage could be
advantageous to them in more ways than one. Braithwaite (1975) reported that a black or a dark-
skinned middle-class man who was a professional stood a good chance of marrying a coloured or
lighter skinned woman – her skin colour would give him reflected prestige and maybe open some
doors to him in society, and his money and professional knowledge would be welcomed by her as
having the potential not only for a life of comfort, but for further mobility. If over time their children
followed suit, this meant that gradually the family would be experiencing intergenerational mobility,
they would also as a family be getting lighter in colour. This is the major reason why the upper
echelons of Caribbean society today tend to be white, ‘high-brown’, ‘red’, ‘yellow’ as well as black
but the lower classes are mostly black. Thus, a light-skinned young lady from the lower or middle
classes had better prospects than her darker-skinned sisters in this system of social stratification,
sometimes described as a pigmentocracy. According to Figure 9.6(a) the black and Indian population
of Trinidad & Tobago remained firmly in the lower classes with only some found in the middle-
income groups. In the years after Emancipation, some Africans remained as workers on the
plantations. Others moved to the interior – and this was more or less the trend in all Caribbean
countries. They became small or peasant farmers, using family labour. They grew cash and food crops
as well as raising a few animals. Over time they became involved in building a strong peasantry who
sought to diversify farming by looking to alternative crops – bananas and coffee in Jamaica, arrowroot
in St Vincent, spice in Grenada, cocoa in Trinidad. Agriculture is plagued by many difficulties, so
while they made a living, on the whole they remained poor. Those Africans who moved to the towns
became involved in a host of different economic activities – buying and selling, retail trade, crafts,
working as stevedores and porters and in construction. Some entered white collar occupations as
clerks, minor public servants, bookkeepers and accountants. As the 20th century began some families
could afford the fees to enrol their children (mainly boys) into public and private secondary schools. It
was quite clear to the lower classes that education was the major route for their children to climb the
social hierarchy. It is remarkable that some of the major Caribbean statesmen went to school in this
era, winning scholarships from primary to secondary school (only a few of these were available), and
even places at prestigious British universities. They were very few in number but it showed everyone
what was possible with access to education beyond the elementary level. Whilst the poor masses
pushed for more education, the upper social classes sought to obstruct their aspirations by only
allowing very few scholarships from the elementary schools to high schools. In addition, the elites
were not concerned about building more schools, so that there was intense competition for the few
places for those who couldn’t afford to pay.
Post-World War II
The most important factor affecting the system of social stratification in the Caribbean in the 1940s
and 1950s was the opening up of education. More primary schools were built as well as more
secondary schools. To a large extent Caribbean countries achieved close to Universal Primary
Education (UPE) in these early years. However, there were not enough secondary schools and the fees
to enter them were prohibitive for many poor families. So essentially primary schools catered to the
mass of the population and secondary schools to the more affluent. A secondary education, then, with
its potential for bringing individual rewards (higher salaries and prestige), was the preserve mainly of
the children of the rich. However, this period saw the beginnings of mobility based on achieved status.
Among the lower social classes there were those families who could afford, though with great
difficulty, to send some of their children to secondary school. Usually, a primary education was all
that a poor family could afford because they needed the child to begin to contribute financially to the
home, and so the children of the poor went to work at an early age. Among the poorer groups in the
society there were gradations of income (upper lower class, middle lower class) and it was those who
were better off who were able to access a secondary education. To all sectors of the population
education acted as a beacon promising credentials leading to a life of comfort and high salaries and
prestige in the society. To poorer folk who struggled with hard work, manual labour and uncertainty,
this was what they wanted for their children. They therefore scrimped and saved and made great
personal sacrifices so that their children could go to secondary schools. Ethnicity also played a part in
certain Caribbean countries in easing the access of some groups to schools. In Trinidad, for example,
Hindu and Muslim organisations sprung up which built primary and secondary schools across the
country for their faithful. The Presbyterian Board – a Christian denomination that had mostly an
Indian congregation – not only built schools but a teacher training college as well. Religion here acted
as a facilitator for those who could not afford schooling but who showed academic promise. Not
surprisingly, by the 1940s and 1950s and afterwards, the pattern of social stratification began to
change. This was more evident among the lower social classes. The more affluent groups maintained
their position. But the black and Indian populations who secured primary and secondary education
were beginning to access minor positions in the civil service, the police service, nursing and teaching.
The gifted among them went further to attend universities abroad and come back as lawyers, doctors
and writers and it was this group who pushed into the middle classes and began to infiltrate the upper
social classes. extent Caribbean countries achieved close to Universal Primary Education (UPE) in
these early years. However, there were not enough secondary schools and the fees to enter them were
prohibitive for many poor families. So essentially primary schools catered to the mass of the
population and secondary schools to the more affluent. A secondary education, then, with its potential
for bringing individual rewards (higher salaries and prestige), was the preserve mainly of the children
of the rich. However, this period saw the beginnings of mobility based on achieved status. Among the
lower social classes there were those families who could afford, though with great difficulty, to send
some of their children to secondary school. Usually, a primary education was all that a poor family
could afford because they needed the child to begin to contribute financially to the home, and so the
children of the poor went to work at an early age. Among the poorer groups in the society there were
gradations of income (upper lower class, middle lower class) and it was those who were better off
who were able to access a secondary education. To all sectors of the population education acted as a
beacon promising credentials leading to a life of comfort and high salaries and prestige in the society.
To poorer folk who struggled with hard work, manual labour and uncertainty, this was what they
wanted for their children. They therefore scrimped and saved and made great personal sacrifices so
that their children could go to secondary schools. Ethnicity also played a part in certain Caribbean
countries in easing the access of some groups to schools. In Trinidad, for example, Hindu and Muslim
organisations sprung up which built primary and secondary schools across the country for their
faithful. The Presbyterian Board – a Christian denomination that had mostly an Indian congregation –
not only built schools but a teacher training college as well. Religion here acted as a facilitator for
those who could not afford schooling but who showed academic promise. Not surprisingly, by the
1940s and 1950s and afterwards, the pattern of social stratification began to change. This was more
evident among the lower social classes. The more affluent groups maintained their position. But the
black and Indian populations who secured primary and secondary education were beginning to access
minor positions in the civil service, the police service, nursing and teaching. The gifted among them
went further to attend universities abroad and come back as lawyers, doctors and writers and it was
this group who pushed into the middle classes and began to infiltrate the upper social classes.
Teaching was considered to be a respectable profession that could enhance status, if not income.
Across the Caribbean, students in primary school who did well were considered for the position of
monitors. They were usually from the poorer classes and accepted this prestigious post even though it
came with little or no salary. They worked with a master teacher and learned to become a teacher that
way. They had rigorous teaching examinations sent down from England and this was how a primary
school teacher was trained. They were indoctrinated with books on English values and culture which
they were expected to pass on to their students. If a poor student had the ability and worked had
enough s/he could access social mobility through becoming a primary school teacher. The teacher
readily traded a life of poorly paid manual labour for one where s/he commanded respect in the
village. Here was born the ideology of being a dedicated teacher – there was little in terms of
remuneration but teachers were paid in terms of respect and the altruism they displayed. They exerted
herculean efforts to ensure that all their charges successfully negotiated primary school and some
(who received extra training) were groomed for entrance examinations to the colleges. Notice that the
curriculum and knowledge did not matter. The emphasis was on mastering whatever content was
necessary so that the children of the poor could get a chance at social mobility.
This post-World War II era, then, saw the fruits of all this effort in the beginnings of the impact of achieved
status on the system of social stratification. Persons were now being located on the basis of educational
qualifications and jobs and not because their race or ethnicity tied them to a specific social class. Black and
Indian educated adults were now taking up social positions at every level of the middle-income groups. The vast
majority of the poorest people, though, continued to be blacks and Indians. Education was a scarce commodity
and although some secondary schools had been built in this period, there was still a problem of provision and
fees were charged in most instances. The bulk of the poor then continued to be obstructed in their quest for more
education for their children.

Post-Independence
In the 1940s and 1950s there were local and often highly educated persons, who began to agitate for
self-government and independence from Britain. This was the start of the decolonisation era and
patriotic sentiments ran high. It was also a time when the Pan African Movement and Garveyism
promoted black consciousness and black pride. The masses flocked to these home-grown trade
unionists and politicians who promised to open up education further, saying that it was the right for
all, and had been blocked by the colonial authorities. Many Caribbean countries achieved
Independence in the 1960s and 1970s. These were hard economic times and the poorest groups in the
society felt marginalised and abandoned. When Independence came, the new national governments
sought the help of international lending agencies to begin a programme of school building, especially
for those previously left out of secondary education. The tide had turned towards an open system of
stratification based on achieved status. No matter how many secondary schools were built, however,
they could not accommodate all of the age cohort. The Common Entrance Examination was an
instrument to select the more academically able from the 11+ age group and allocate them to
secondary schools. Some countries tried a shift system, so that they could select twice the intake by
doubling the numbers enrolling every year at school. This proved to be unsatisfactory for many
reasons but it did appear to be opening up education still further to the most marginalised in the
population. Further access to education helped the black, Indian and coloured populations to achieve
jobs in the civil service and as professionals and continue their upward climb. Some of them made a
substantial income as professionals and some entered business and became wealthy. Race and class
were no longer so rigidly tied. Figure 9.6(b) shows that the lines indicating the divisions into social
class groups remained fixed – high-, middle- and low-income groups. The lines indicating racial
groupings no longer coincide with a specific economic (occupational) group. Hence, these lines are no
longer horizontal. This shows a continuation of trends first revealed in Figure 9.6(a). Africans,
comprising the bulk of the population, are represented in all three social class groups – high, middle
and low. Black, white, coloured and Indians are now found in the highest strata but the whites and
coloureds dominate. Note too that both whites and coloureds, though a minority, are also found in
lower income groups. The Indian and African population show similar trends. These demographic
trends and shifts altered the basic contours of the pure Plantation Model shown in Figure 9.5. To a
large extent these changes in the system of social stratification in the Caribbean, a legacy of slavery
and the plantation economy, were due to the expansion of educational opportunity. In the post-
Independence era, one could safely say that achieved status was the basis on which social classes were
organised and the society had attained an ‘open’ system of stratification. Whilst it may appear that
there is social and economic equalisation taking place among the various racial groups, whites
however remain at the top and the bottom is still occupied largely by blacks and Indians. In the latter
half of the 20th century theorists such as George Beckford, Lloyd Best and Kari Levitt continued to
refer to Caribbean societies as ‘plantation societies’. The models or theories they put forward to
explain Caribbean society emphasise the economic dimensions of the social relations of production as
shown in the diagrams above. The economic dimension introduces into the equation how the
Caribbean articulates with metropolitan countries. In the view of these theorists the basic contours of
‘plantation society’ remain evident in today’s society.

In essence: This section charted the evolution of Caribbean stratification from the era of slavery and
Emancipation to the period after World War II and continuing to Independence. It chronicled changes in how
people were ranked socially, from being mainly based on ascriptive criteria such as race, ethnicity and colour,
to achieved criteria such as education credentials. This marked the transition from a ‘closed’ system of social
stratification to one that was more open and based on merit. However, Caribbean scholars continue to see
strong connections between the plantation society of the 19th century and the system of social stratification in
Caribbean societies today. They reiterate that, despite the role of education in allowing people of lower social
standing to access higher-paying jobs, and thus gain social mobility, to a large extent poverty in the society
continues to be experienced by the black and Indian population – and so there is a clear connection between
race and social class. Moreover, whites and coloureds continue to dominate the higher echelons as they have
done for the last two hundred years.
 Impact of Stratification on Caribbean Societies

Trends in social stratification over the last few hundred years show that while many persons have
been experiencing social mobility, many more still are ‘trapped’ at the lower levels of the social
system. This is shown in rising poverty levels and social marginalisation or social exclusion – where
a significant proportion of a country’s citizens, because of poverty, cannot effectively participate in
social life. They perform poorly in education, which is a major obstacle in procuring well-paying jobs
so that they exist on the fringes of the society. Social marginalisation has major implications for a
society – social, economic and political.
Impact on Social Life
Marginalisation
When we say that groups in Caribbean societies are marginalised, we refer to the fact that they do not
have the resources and services that others in the society enjoy. They live in slums and poorly
constructed dwellings in urban and rural areas. They are, for the most part, unemployed or not looking
for a job, or are among the underemployed or the employed poor, including a low level of self-
employment that can hardly sustain living expenses for a family. In addition, the poor do not have
access to the processes and positions of decision making in the society. Poor communities may be
courted by various political parties for support but the payback falls far short of improvement in
physical infrastructure, social amenities and job creation. It is clear that successive governments have
not gone far enough in attempting to raise incomes and the standard of living for this group. There
may be many reasons for this but what is of significance is that once incomes rise (for example, the
minimum wage) employers would not be happy and can pull their support from the ruling party. To a
large extent in the Caribbean the poor have been used by politicians in different ways for their own
gain. They have allowed political rivals to arm poor communities and fight among themselves in
promoting one political party over the other. The result is a high level of gun crime and homicide and
the further marginalisation of the people in these communities. Even in the absence of violence, poor
communities do not seem to secure the attention of their political representatives. In short, it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that since they are poor, they cannot command power in the society
and therefore they are mostly ignored by those who are in a position to help. Inequality and the Gini
Coefficient Social marginalisation is closely related to inequality in a society. The Gini coefficient is
the most widely used indicator today to measure inequality. Calculated on the basis of income (GDP),
it is an important tool in comparing levels of inequality between countries and within a country. It
reflects the proportion of persons in a society who have the resources to live a comfortable life and
those who do not, by measuring the gap between the richest and poorest citizens. If the gap is small
then it is safe to say that that country has a low level of inequality. If the gap is large then that
signifies that there are very wealthy persons and others who live in abject poverty.