Unit II Social Stratification (Part V)

COMPARISON OF KARL MARX AND MAX WEBER ON CLASS

Karl Marx Max Weber
Society is divided into two classes It is divided on the basis of class (economy),
status (social) and power (politics)
He focused on the evolution of society from Capitalist society
primitive societies to capitalist society where
believe in communism there will be a
classless society
Two classes that is haves and have-nots Four classes; property owning upper class,
property-less white-collar workers, petty
bourgeoisie and manual workers
Did not discuss about middle class though Discussed on middle class group
petty/petite bourgeoisie were mentioned
Believe in inevitable revolution Does not hold the view in revolution

SOCIAL MOBILITY
Social mobility means transition of individual or group from one position to another in the
social hierarchy. In other word, strata subcultures tend to be distinctive when there is little
opportunity to move from one stratum to another. This movement is known as social mobility.
The amount of movement from one stratum to another is significantly higher in industrial and
modern societies than in pre-industrial societies. As society makes transitions from tradition to
modern, it becomes more fluid. It is relatively low to closure whereas in pre-industrial societies
it is largely ascribed, ascribed is characterized by caste, sex, race and ethnicity. Status is
‘achieved’ on the basis of merit, talent, ability, and hard work. Mobility can take place over the
course of few years, or over the span of decades and generations.

By social mobility is meant any transition from one social position to another. Change in social
position involves generally significant change in life-chances and life-styles. The concept of
social mobility is classily defined by Pitirim A. Sorokin. According to Sorokin, the shift of
position may be undertaken by an individual or social object or value. That is to say, anything
that has been created or modified by human activity can experience social mobility.

1
The anthropologist Ralph Linton first coined the terms ‘ascribed status’ and ‘achieved status’
in his book The Study of Man. Ascribed status is the social status which is assigned to a person
on his birth and remains fixed throughout his life. Thus, in societies which are based on
ascription groups, people have little freedom to move to another group or status, whereas, in a
society based on achievement, an individual can work his way up the social ladder through his
talents, abilities and skills.

(i) Ascribed or biological bases of stratification

These are the attributes that a person is born with. The position of a person in the society is
decided by these attributes. Some of these attributes are sex, race and caste.

Race and Caste stratification: Discrimination on the basis of race and caste is the prime example
of ascribed stratification. Here, race refers to the aspects of your physical appearance that make
you a part of a particular group which is recognized by the society. Throughout history, caste
and the colour of their skin have determined their social status. Today, racism and casteism are
considered forms of discrimination.

(ii) Achieved or socio-cultural bases of stratification

Social stratification is not only based on biological bases but on socio-cultural bases as well. A
person can control some of the attributes like power, prestige, wealth and education. According
to Max Weber, three Ps form the base of social stratification. These are Property (wealth),
Power (influence) and Prestige (status).

(iii) Closed and Open Stratification Systems

Corresponding to the ascribed and achieved social stratification, there are two types of
stratification systems, namely closed and open systems. Most sociologists agree that there is
no stratification system which can be considered perfectly open. This implies that there is no
system which is totally based on achieved statuses. When sociologists look at societies which
have open stratification systems, they want to determine the extent to which the society is more
open than closed. Sociologists determine the openness of a society’s stratification system by
finding out its permissible social mobility.

Social mobility is also linked to stratification. There is also a feeling of inferiority or superiority
and domination of the top class meted out to the low class. Mobility can happen at individual

2
level, collective level and even structural level. Sociologists have identified two levels of social
mobility that is, intragenerational and intergenerational mobility. The intragenerational
mobility refers to social mobility within a single generation. It is measured by comparing the
occupational status of an individual at two or more points in time. Thus, if a person begins their
working life as an unskilled manual worker and ten years down the line a person climbs up the
ladder of becoming a clerical worker. The intergenerational mobility refers to social mobility
between generations. It is measured by comparing the occupational status of sons or daughters
with that of their fathers (or less frequently with that of their mothers). Thus, if the daughter of
an unskilled manual worker becomes an accountant, she is socially mobile in terms of
intergenerational mobility (Haralambos & Holborn 2020; 80).

It is Functionalists like Talcott Parsons believed that mobility is a result of the process of
differentiation in society and role filling by those who suit them the most. Karl Marx on the
other hand believed that the high rate of social mobility is embourgeoisment. He also saw
downward mobility in capitalism, when the petty bourgeoise will sink into the proletariat class.
Sorokin in his book ‘Social Mobility (1972), argued that mobility is in fact functional for
society as it promotes efficiency and social order. He compared vertical mobility to stairs and
elevators and to blood streams in human body. Social mobility breaks the exclusiveness of
classes and makes them open. Equal access to all strata becomes an idea of equality in modern
societies.

Ken Roberts, in his study of class in contemporary Britain, 2011, has given two reasons for
studying social mobility in modern societies;
• Mobility acts as an indicator of meritocratic society, and a society that lives up to
fairness. Meaning when you go for job interview, they look at your certificates, grades,
hard work, merit, that helps you climb the ladder.
• Indicator of stability of class architecture in a society
• We have spoken only on functional aspects of social mobility and there are also a few
dysfunctional aspects, like disruptive reaction from members of a strata and a high rate
of mobility may lead to a state of social anomie.
Sorokin listed four primary factors affecting mobility;
+ Demographic factors – factors like sex, age, race, affect social mobility. Other factors
are aged people, people from lower strata etc.

3
 + Talent and ability – abilities of parents and children do not match. Pressure may force
people to vacate their positions.
+ Faculty distribution of individuals in social positions – structural factors can force
people to land in wrong positions and hampers chances of social mobility
+ The change of social environment - Industrialisation, laws change can lead to structural
changes and can lead to collective mobility

India is culturally a diverse nation. This makes it indeed a challenging to explain and theorize
the multi-dimensional, diverse social realities in India. Different concepts and approaches have
been put forth to the study of social realities and the process of social change in India.
Sanskritisation and westernization are two such concepts propounded by M.N. Srinivas.

Sociologists have developed several concepts to study social change in India; development,
modernization, westernization, universalization, social development, great and little traditions
are some of them. For a long time, sociologists and anthropologists in India used the concepts
of parochialization and universalization, and great and little traditions which were developed
by McKim Marriot and Robert Redfield in studies of Indian and Mexican villages.

What is Sankritisation
+ The term sanskritisation was first used in Srinivas’s work ‘Religion and Society Among
the Coorgs of South India’ (1952). Sanskritisation is the process in Hinduism in which
low caste person or groups tries to acquire the values, ideologies, and rituals of higher
caste Hindu. It used to explain the process of upward mobility within the caste system.
In a nutshell, the rites, customs, beliefs of the Brahmins (dwija or twice born) and the
adoption of the Brahmanic way of life by a low caste is called sanskritisation.
Therefore, Srinivas exploded the myth of caste system as static. He puts forward a
dynamic view of caste and contends the caste system is far from a rigid system.

Westernisation
+ M.N.Srinivas had used the concept westernization instead of modernization or any
other terminology because westernization is ethically neutral. He found westernization
to be more objective.

4
 + It refers to all cultural changes and institutional innovations in India as this country
came into political and cultural contact with the western nations specially Britain. More
precisely, it is the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of
over 150 years of British rule. The term subsuming changes occurring at different levels
- technology, institutions, ideology and values as a result of cultural contact with
western society for a long period. Srinivas, (1972). He prefers to call this process
westernisation and not modernisation.
Class
A social class is a group of individuals who have more or less similar wealth. The possession
of wealth enables the individual to obtain those goods and services that are scarce and are
valued by others. These goods and services differ from society to society. Most modern
societies have class-based stratification. However, many features of traditional stratification
may be observed in modern societies, such as elements of caste system and feudalism found in
parts of the world. However, with economic development, class-based stratification is
becoming increasingly important globally.

Any society is said to be relatively open or closed depending on the number of opportunities
available to its members for upward social mobility. Equally important is the attitude of the
society towards the mobility of its members. If the society offers many opportunities and
encourages members to achieve higher positions, then the society can be called an open
stratification society. On the other hand, if the society has a limited number of opportunities
for upward mobility and its normative values prohibit its members from achieving higher
positions, that society is called a closed stratification society. Along with development, the
system of stratification becomes open and achievement oriented. The class system is a form of
open stratification system. An individual with his achievements can gain entry to a higher class
and acquire prestige.

Social mobility in modern societies is based on intelligence, merit, competence, and

achievement of individuals. However, in every society, in spite of the openness, factors like
socio-economic background, parental status and resources, social networks, cultural factors
and various ascribed factors play an important role in determining individual motivation,
achievement and the availability of opportunities. Since these factors are not in control of the
individual and cannot be easily modified to his advantage, it cannot be said that modern
societies are fully achievement oriented and open. That is why we have said class-based

5
societies are relatively open, that is, in relation to other societies. In other words, the difference
between traditional and modern social hierarchies lies in the difference between (status
ascribed and status achieved) the bases of social stratification. Traditional social hierarchies
are based on ascribed states, while modern social hierarchies are mostly based on achieved
status.

Impact of class system in India, membership of particular class groups influences the behaviour
of its members. It makes them conscious about their position in society. However, in the Indian
context, more importance is given to caste and related issues rather than other factors. The class
character in India is quite different from western societies. In India, class and caste categories
co-exist in India and class categories like upper, middle and lower are parallel to caste
categories. They jointly determine the class status, power and prestige of the individual in the
society. Studies have shown that the upper classes, predominantly belong to the upper castes,
which are an ascribed status. There have been significant changes in the last decades, but the
pattern still continues. The accumulation and distribution of resources including education is
determined by the social position of the individual. Those who are higher in terms of the class
and caste terms control available resources to a great extent. The forces of globalization and
liberalization seem to have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, between urban
people and rural people and the upper caste and the lower class.

Importance of studying social stratification

The study of social stratification is extremely important for sociologists. The importance of
studying social stratification can be summed up as follows:
o It helps in understanding the type of life people live. Knowing what type of life
individuals in a given social group or stratum live is very important for sociological
analysis.
o It helps in understanding the bases on which a society is stratified.
o It helps in understanding the kind of interaction and relationship that exist between
individuals of different strata.
o It assists in investigating the relationship between individuals or groups belonging to
the same hierarchy.
o It helps in understanding which type of social system gives rise to a particular type of
hierarchy. It implies that the type of social stratification varies across cultures, times
and types of social systems.

6
7