10.

0 Social Stratification

Gino P. Paradela, MA
This module is strictly intended for educational and classroom use only.

In this module, you are expected to:

1. Analyze cultural, social, and political institutions as sets of norms and patterns of behavior that
relate to major social interests
2. Comprehend social stratification as the ranking of individuals according to wealth, power, and
prestige
3. Examine the concept, characteristics and forms of stratification systems using sociological
perspectives
4. Explain government programs and initiatives in addressing social inequalities e.g. local, national,
global

Social Differentiation

When one looks at society, one notices that not everybody in society is seen and viewed equally. For
example, our society looks at the lowly street sweeper differently compared to a haughty lawyer.
Because society is large, different roles have come out and tasks are shared among different people.

The differentiation of tasks in society – or the division of labour – is a central focus of sociology.
Sociologists have studied the effects of increasing specialization and complexity and have classified
societies in terms of the nature and level of differentiation. Social differentiation is the differential
access to basic resources as well as wealth, power, and prestige available to an individual or group
within society.

Different Kinds of Social Differentiation

Depending on one’s culture and society, the sharing of tasks is viewed rather differently. Some societies,
like the San people of the Sahara desert, do not discriminate between work. All work is considered equal
for the San. A woman gatherer of fruit is as equal to a man who hunts. Other societies, such as ours

SOC SCI 01 SHS MODULE 10 v 2020

1
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 2

would look at work differently. Surgery is obviously seen as something better when compared to a
farmer tilling at some farm. This all boils down to wealth, power, and prestige.

These are the different kinds of social differentiations found in cultures all around the world:

1. Egalitarian Society – Where individuals are

not prevented from getting basic resources of
food, clothing, shelter as well as opportunities to
become wealthy, powerful and prestigious.

2. Rank Societies – Where individuals are

formally differentiated in terms of prestige and
symbolic resources, inherited or otherwise, but
without any significant barriers on anyone
accessing basic resources. For example, a Chief
in the pacific islands will have the same diet as
anyone else and may live in a house that’s made
of the same stuff as anyone elses. The only
difference between him and the commoner is
that he has the social connections, history, and
prestige (or social honor) that sets him apart.

3. Stratified Societies – Where there are wide

differences among individuals and groups are
not only permanent and formal but may also be
inherited. The word strata (singular: stratum)
comes from the Greek word “layer”. Stratified
societies therefore are societies that rank socities
on the basis of wealth or birth. A Social
Stratum refers to those who share the same
degree of access to the such wealth, power,
prestige.

There are two types of stratified societies:

a. Class Societies – Stratified based on member’s degree of ownership of material goods, degree
of influence over others and level or respectability or esteem in society. The Philippines is an
example of a class society.

b. Caste Societies – Stratified based on fixed and closed stratified system. Meaning to say, if
you are born to a particular family with a particular rank, you stay in that rank. Ancient India and
its caste system is a perfect example of this type of society.
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 3

Let’s discuss…

Give your reaction on the article:

The Pasaway and Duterte’s Pandemic Blame Game

Noreen H. Sapalo & Teo S. Marasigan | April 26, 2020| https://forsea.co/the-pasaway-and-dutertes-pandemic-
blame-game/

Neen is a member of AlterMidya, a network of alternative and progressive Filipino media outfits. She is also a lecturer
of culture and politics and a graduate student of anthropology at the University of the Philippines.

Teo is a columnist of progressive publication Pinoy Weekly and author of Na Kung Saan (University of the Philippines
Press, 2019), a compilation of essays on popular culture and progressive politics in the Philippines.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte placed Metro Manila under community quarantine on March
12. Two days after, on March 14, an “enhanced” community quarantine (ECQ) was imposed, putting
the entire Luzon island on lockdown. The ECQ aimed to restrict the movement of the population, with
the exception of medical frontliners and workers from selected government offices. It also mandated
the temporary closure of non-essential shops and businesses.

The ECQ was originally scheduled to end on April 13, but with the number of Covid-19 positive cases
and Covid-19-related deaths still on the rise, it was extended to April 30. Less than a week before the
already extended ECQ’s lifting, Duterte imposed another extension, this time with an even stricter
implementation and with threats of imposing Martial Law.

As of this writing, April 25, there are 7,294 Covid-19 positive cases and 446 deaths in the Philippines.
The country’s figures, according to experts, have made the Philippines one of the worst-hit in
Southeast Asia. Yet these numbers have been highly contested by health advocacy groups. They argue
that the relatively low number of recorded cases may be due to the lack of mass testing efforts, which
only began on April 14 – a month after the ECQ was declared.

More than a month after the start of the lockdown, it remains unclear whether the measure has really
“flattened the curve.” What is sure is that countless Filipinos are penniless and hungry, many medical
professionals at the frontlines are getting sick or have died, and mass testing has yet to be made
available to the most vulnerable. To date, most efforts to raise funds to support health professionals
and distribute aid can be credited to grassroots organizations, the private sector, and groups of
individuals who have acted on basic common sense and compassion.
Duterte, who is almost always surrounded by military men in his weekly addresses, and who has put
military men in charge as members of the National Taskforce Against Covid-19, finally, but rather
belatedly, met with health experts on April 20. He initially offered a Php 10 million (USD 197,000)
reward for anyone who can discover a vaccine for Covid-19 and then increased the prize money to
Php 50 million on April 24. So much for a scientific approach to fight a pandemic and actual funding
for health R&D be damned.

With mounting cases and deaths despite the lockdown, the Duterte government is scrambling and
trying to find something or somebody to blame — except itself. As it clumsily plays the blame game,
the Philippine government has repeatedly refused to recognize weaknesses in its handling of the
pandemic, and even persists in repeating its mistakes. This blaming-everyone-but-oneself strategy is
consistent with Duterte’s policies and leadership style since he was elected in 2016.

Forcing and shaming into obedience

Duterte makes every effort to distract the increasingly angry and frustrated public.

The Duterte government has not provided scientific and evidence-based explanations for the
measures it has taken and for actions it wants the public to take. Instead, it has forced people into
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 4

obedience and shamed those whom it accuses of non-obedience. This is reflected in government
propaganda: from statements made by the president and officials closest to him to mainstream media
commentators, all the way to social media “influencers” and paid trolls.

When he declared the lockdown on March 12, he called on the public to “just obey” the the authorities
and the government. In social media, paid trolls virulently attacked critical reactions to the speech.
They claimed that critics do fail to understand the president. One of their mantra was that the
Philippines does not have the worst government, but it does have the worst citizens. Subsequently,
Duterte, in another televised speech, commanded the public to just “follow orders.” As if on cue, paid
social media trolls repeated the message – “sumunod ka na lang” – in reaction to innumerable
complaints about the lockdown’s chaotic implementation and the seeming lack of any plan in dealing
with the pandemic.

Then, the government’s messaging further shifted from coercion to outrightly blaming those who do
not obey government orders for the virus’ spread. At a virtual media briefing, the presidential
spokesperson himself said, “There are many pasaways in our ranks. Because of that, we are again
number one in the ASEAN for the number of COVID-19 [cases]. That is shameful! Stop
being pasaways. Stay in your houses.”

Some reporters have translated the Tagalog word “pasaway” as “hard-headed people.” The root word
is “saway,” which means “to discipline,” and the Filipino prefix “pa-” indicates a person who needs to
be disciplined. This pasaway rhetoric was echoed by a Filipino actor whose TikTok post became
viral, in part thanks to paid trolls. In the post, he argues: “Why does the quarantine keep on
extending? Because Filipinos are hard-headed. When told not to go out, they keep going out and when
they get sick, they blame others.”

Repeated again and again by the government’s social media influencers and paid trolls, a narrative has
been created wherein Filipinos are portrayed as “pasaway” and “walang disiplina” (having no
discipline). They need to be forced to obey, not just with words, but by the very real threat of being
arrested or shot.

In his latest televised address on April 24, Duterte repeatedly slammed the New People’s Army
(NPA), the Communist-led armed rebel group in the country. Claiming that the NPA is fomenting
“lawlessness” and killing indiscriminately, he called on the military to destroy the rebel group, and
threatened to impose martial law nationwide. Coming one day after an ex-soldier who had Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder had been shot to death by policemen for allegedly violating quarantine
restrictions, the message was taken seriously by the public.

Many observers have commented that the president’s attacks on the NPA is part of an effort to distract
the increasingly angry and frustrated public. They point out that Duterte seems to want a war with the
NPA, not with Covid-19 – and as if the NPA is the reason for the non-containment and spread of the
virus. The president’s tirade against the NPA, however, is a continuation of its blame game for the
virus’ spread.

Why the blame game?

To lay the blame is much easier than being accountable to an increasingly angry public. Until mid-
March, the Duterte government had downplayed the threat posed by the pandemic. Duterte himself
issued many statements belittling the virus and the disease, making it a pretext for his jokes and using
it to project his strongman image. His Health Secretary even bragged that the country is very well-
prepared for the virus and has distinguished itself in dealing with the pandemic in Southeast Asia. His
spokesperson promoted the fake news that bananas and gargling saltwater can cure the disease.

By mid-March, it was already too late, as a Philippine Daily Inquirer editorial said, to “fortify the
creaking health system, particularly the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine; prepare hospitals as
well as laboratories and other testing institutions; launch an aggressive public information campaign
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 5

on the virus; and marshal personnel and resources, including, most importantly, securing test kits for
the teeming population.”

It was during this time when the government started deploying the police and the military everywhere,
giving them orders to arrest or “shoot to kill” violators of the quarantine. Many Filipinos criticized the
government’s general approach. Soon after, the hashtag #SolusyongMedikalHindiMilitar (medical,
not military, solution) became trending because of the government’s refusal to carry out decisive steps
to improve the country’s ramshackle healthcare system.

Duterte’s shift from underestimating the dangers posed by the virus to being alarmist about the latter
may have contributed to the spread of the virus. In contrast to the sobering and calming speeches
made by leaders of South Korea and New Zealand, for example, Duterte’s imprudent statements and
rash orders left Filipinos even more dazed and confused. His pronouncements led to people to
massing up on highways and streets and panic-buying in supermarkets, in violation of physical
distancing measures. The day after Duterte ordered the lockdown, bus stations were crammed as
people hurriedly sought to go home to the provinces. Because of ill-planned and disorganized military
checkpoints installed in various points of Metro Manila, people, especially motorcycle drivers and
pedestrians, were brought dangerously close to each other in massive traffic jams.

Duterte’s policies and rhetoric

Blaming the pasaway fits perfectly well with Duterte’s policies and rhetoric. Crises, it has recently
been said, accentuate features of society which have existed even before the crisis, even as they also
change other features. The government’s scapegoating of the pasaway during the pandemic is only a
continuation, albeit in a heightened and more grotesque sense, of its approach towards the poor.

Duterte’s main campaign promise was to end illegal drugs and criminality in the country within six
months after he is elected. His “war on drugs” campaign took the form of killing suspected drug
addicts and pushers on the pretext that they had been armed and were resisting arrest, and by means of
hitmen riding in tandem on motorcycles. An estimated 30,000 have been killed under the drug war,
mostly street-level suspects from the urban poor. The said war was accompanied by a propaganda
offensive in which drug addiction in the country was exaggerated and the lives of drug addicts were
debased. One radio advertisement said that the mind of a drug addict is worse than that of an animal.

The government’s depiction of the lockdown as being rendered ineffective by the people’s hard-
headedness finds its precursor in its repeated declarations that the drug war has failed. In both cases,
the root causes are not addressed, so even if measures designed by the government were actually
implemented, the problem is not solved. In both cases, failure is used to justify even more violent and
draconian measures against the people. On the pretext of the pasaways, the government toys with the
idea of imposing Martial Law.

Duterte also waged brutal wars against groups in the country whose members predominantly come
from the poor. He intensified the counter-insurgency campaigns against the NPA in the country and
tries to crush the progressive organizations he accused of being the rebellion’s fronts. He also engaged
Muslim armed groups in the country’s southern island of Mindanao in a war which he depicted as a
war against terrorism. In both wars, Duterte refused to examine the historical and socio-economic root
causes, choosing to merely demonize the groups. Because of these wars, the police and the military
have become very powerful political forces in the country, and these forces have been loyal to Duterte
so far.

Duterte’s government has already been described as divisive by many observers, and rightfully so. In
its version of “Us vs. Them” populism, it has identified its “enemies,” and has publicly demonized
and attacked them in various ways. Only Duterte and his law-abiding followers are believed to be
good; the country’s elites (“greedy oligarchs”), the political opposition (“opportunist dilawan”), the
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 6

mainstream media (“biased”), the Catholic church (“full of pedophiles”), the Left (“communist-
terrorist”) and all other political forces are not.

The enemy is not the pasaway, the poor or the rebels

It has been said that changing human behavior is key to tackling pandemics. This was the case during
the Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where long-practised traditions in burying
the dead, particularly touching corpses, were modified to become safer. Indeed, the famous Filipino
hospitality and sociability will temporarily have to be tempered. But such cultural adjustments can
only do so much. The situation calls for an overhaul not just of social behaviors, but of social systems
that reproduce various kinds of health and socio-economic crises.
As the lockdown enters its second month, what is to be expected? If the Duterte government persists
in its militarist approach, more deaths. The Philippine health system, the so-called frontline itself, will
be completely inundated and unable to cope with the rising number of cases. The number of infected
Filipino health workers, which currently exceeds 1,000 cases, will inevitably increase.

The Duterte government will never be able to correctly deal with the pandemic unless it recognizes
what, not who, the real enemy is. The enemy is not the pasaway, the poor or the rebels, but problems
of a systemic nature which have festered long before the coronavirus reached Philippine shores: an ill-
equipped and state-neglected public health system, widespread poverty and hunger among the people,
dependence on foreign powers and aid with strings attached, lack of land reform that could have
paved the way for the country’s food sovereignty, and the lack of national industries which could have
bolstered health-related R&D in the country.

1. How do the elements of stratification (wealth, prestige, and power) affect the poor and vulnerable
communities during this period of pandemic?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Do you think that it is right to blame and call out marginalized communities for being “gahi’g ulo”
(hard-headed) given the arguments stated by the article?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Social Stratification

The more complex societies are, the more unequally they tend to distribute their scarce resource. The
unequal distribution of scarce resources leads to social stratification, meaning that the society is divided into
a number of strata or layers. Stratified societies use a system of ranking according to:

 Wealth or how much of the societal resources a person owns;

 Prestige or the degree of honour a person‟s position in society evokes; and
 Power or the degree to which a person can direct others as a result of the preceding factors.

Wealth, which includes income and property, is an element of social class, whereas prestige is an element
of status. To begin with, class, status and power are important dimensions of stratification. That is,
stratification systems are analysed by looking at each of these phenomena.

Stratification occurs in every society that has produced a surplus. A society that produces no surplus provides
a little opportunity to acquire wealth or prestige and the power based on them. Remember when we talked
about the San people of the Kalahari being less differentiated than the street sweeper vs. the doctor in our
own society? Thus, stratification is intimately related to economics because the layering of people into social
levels boils down to attempts to answer the question: who gets what, and why? That is, how shall the scarce
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 7

resources in the societies be distributed and for what reason? Different societies (political regimes) answer
these questions differently, according to these economic systems. Consequently, their stratification systems
vary.

Dimensions of Stratification

We have discussed in that stratification systems are the ranking of people according to their possession of
things that are scarce and, therefore, highly prized. These scarce resources are popularly categorized as
wealth, prestige and power, or in more sociological terms, class, status and power. It is according to these
dimensions that people are assigned a rank in society and relegated to a stratum with others who are ranked
similarly.

1. Class - a significant contribution to structured social inequality in contemporary societies. However, it is a

multifaceted concept with a variety of different meanings. There is no absolute definition of the concept, or
any single absolute way of measuring it. Nevertheless, questions of both definition and measurement have
been endlessly contested over the years. Broadly, three dimensions of class may be identified:

(a) The economic;

(b) The cultural; and
(c) The political

The economic dimension has a focus on patterns and explanations of material inequality. The cultural
dimension focuses on lifestyle, social behaviour and hierarchies of prestige. The political dimension
addresses the role of classes and class action, in political, social and economic change.

2. Status- A hierarchical position in a stratifed social order, an overall social rank, standing and social
worth. In this context, individual statuses are associated with privileges and discriminations. For example,
when one is born as a man in a Filipino home, one has a bit more privilege compared to a woman. Women
traditionally have more normative expectations when compared to a man – i.e. a woman ought to be the one
to take care of the children, a woman ought to be sexually reserved, etc.

3. Power - the ability to carry out one’s wishes in spite of resistance. It is the ability to get other people to do
what one wants them to do, with or without their consent. Power may be divided into personal power and
social power.

 Personal power is the freedom of individuals to direct their own lives in a way they themselves
choose, without much interference. Such freedom often goes with great wealth.

 Social power is the ability to make decisions that affect entire communities or even the whole
society. Social power may be exercised legitimately, with the consent of the members of society. In
this case, it is called authority. Parents, teachers and the government all represent different levels of
authority. Social power may also be exercised illegitimately, that is, without the official and ethical
approval of society.

Let’s discuss…

Look into the current situation in the country and critique the way those in power have been using their
social power for unethical means. State three (3) abuses of social power at present that you have noticed
happening in the country.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
continuation… SHS MODULE v201720 8

PERFORMANCE TASK

Critical Review
Watch this documentary produced by Al-Jazeera Slums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmvFBCqVers

You are a cultural critic commissioned by an international journal to write a short critical review of
the episode consisting of at most six paragraphs. Your review ought to tackle the following points:

1. How stratification can be seen in the documentary

2. How people cope with regards to their situation
3. The attitude of the rich and the privilege vis-à-vis those living in the slums.
3. Research and share your findings on how poverty levels came to be at such levels in Metro Manila.
4. Reason for this stratified state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Knowing our Social World: A Comprehensive Worktext in Understanding Society, Culture, and Politics
for Senior High School by Dr. Amper, Dr. Bersales, and Dr. Nolasco. SOLINE Publishing House, Corp.

Social Structure and Social Change. Retrieved from

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/courses/109103023/download/Lecture%2014.pdf. Accessed on July
22, 2020

Weber, Max. Economy and Society. G. Roth and C. Wittich, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1958.