Social Stratification and Mobility

5.
STRATIFICATION AND MOBILITY

In one of his best known children’s books, Dr. Seuss writes of
the Sneetches, birds whose rank depends on whether or
not they have a large star on their stomachs. Star-bellied
Sneetches have high status, and plain-bellied Sneetches have
low status.
Similarly, in the classic novel Animal Farm, George Orwell

creates a barnyard society where the animals overthrow their
human master to form their own soon-to-be stratified society
in which pigs ultimately take over the previously classless
animal society. The animals’ motto changes from ‘All animals
are equal” to “All animals are equal- but some animals are
more equal than others”.
Both the classic books

mock the tendency of
humans to form ranks.
Social Stratification is the

creation of layers (strata_ of
people who possess unequal
shares of scarce resources.
The most important of these
rsources are income, wealth,
power, and prestige.
Why should we study

social Stratification?
Social stratification can
influence your life chances.
• Life chances: refer to opportunities, advantages or disadvantages people may have

which can affect how well they succeed in relation to their education, health,
employment, income and housing. Life chances are not distributed equally because
factors such as class, gender, age and ethnicity affect a person’s life chances.
(b)THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Social stratification can be examined from different sociological perspectives—
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism (This one is not in the
syllabus)
The functionalist perspective states that systems exist in society for good reasons. Conflict
theorists observe that stratification promotes inequality, such as between rich business
owners and poor workers. Symbolic interactionists examine stratification from a micro-level
perspective. They observe how social standing affects people’s everyday interactions and
how the concept of “social class” is constructed and maintained through everyday
interactions.
Functionalist Theory:
• Argue that stratification or inequality in society is based on meritocracy. Stratifying

the population on the basis of merit ensures effective role allocation and efficient
DOL that maintains the system.
LEVELUP IAS, Shop No 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: students@levelupias.com
• Some positions are highly rewarded, some industries are more appealing than
others and therefore individuals are more privileged to be part of those industries.
Functionalists will examine the purpose of such high salaries, while conflict
theorists will study the exorbitant salaries as an unfair distribution of money.
• Parsons believed order and stability are based on value consensus (general
agreement among all of us regarding good and bad).
• Stratification is a product of what position we consider good or worthwhile. For
example, Indian society considers holding power position as something valuable,
and we tend to see IAS as something valuable and worthy.
• These positions require talented, hardworking and meritorious individuals.
• In order to motivate such a pool of talent, these positions are given certain rewards
and incentives.. E.g. whoever becomes IAS receive a variety of rewards. Similarly, in
every society certain things are valued more than others, and whosoever perform
successfully in terms of society’s values reaps variety of rewards.
• If value consensus is an essential part of all societies, then ranking of few people on
top and few at bottom is inevitable. For example, American society place a high
value on individual achievements and skills, and therefore Business executive is
placed at top.
• There is no denial that there will be conflict between those at top and those at
bottom, but conflict is kept in check by the common value system which
justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.
• No group is sufficient in its own, and therefore exchange goods and services with the
other group. Hence relationship between social groups is one of cooperation and
interdependence. In industrial societies, some member will specialize in
organization and planning, others will follow their directives. But this power relation
serves the interest of society as a whole.
Overall, stratification is both inevitable and functional for society.
• Inevitable- because it derives from shared values which are part of all societies.
• Functional-because- because it serves to integrate various groups in society (just
like Durkheim said that specialized DOL creates interdependencies).It means
without social inequality, it is difficult to see how members would cooperate and
work together.
Inequality of power and prestige ultimately help further collective goals which are based on
shared values.
DAVIS AND MOORE

• The thesis states that social stratification is
necessary to promote excellence, productivity, and
efficiency within society.
• Some positions are most important and
Strat is a device through which societies ensure
that the most important positions are filled by the
most qualified persons (ROLE ALLOCATION).
Hence, Strat is inevitable part of all human
societies
• In order to motivate most talented people to fill
these important positions, certain rewards (money,
prestige) have to be offered to them. Basically unequal
distribution of society’s rewards is necessary to encourage people to take on the
most important work that requires rigorous training. E.g. Without the incentive of
higher pay and better benefits, why would someone want to become firefighter and
be willing to rush into burning buildings? If pay levels were the same, the firefighter
might as well work as a grocery store cashier.
• Certain positions are functionally more important than others. They require special
skills for their effective performance, and there are limited number of individuals
with the necessary ability to acquire such skills. Certain jobs, such as cleaning
hallways or answering phones, do not require much skill. The employees don’t need
a college degree for these things. Other work, like designing a highway system or
delivering a baby, requires immense skill.
• Therefore, major function of stratification is to match the most able with the
most imp position. This is called as Role allocation : positions be filled by
those who are best able to perform.
Which positions are important? Importance can be measured in two ways;
1) Rarer the skill, longer the education, greater the reward, and greater its functional
importance. If the position is unique, and no other position can perform same
function. Thus, it could be argued that a doctor is functionally more important than
a nurse. Since his position carries with it many of the skills necessary to perform a
nurse role, but not vice-versa.
2) If others are dependent on the one in question. Thus, it may be argued that
managers are more important than routine office-staffs. Since the latter are
dependent on direction from management. In conclusion, Social stratification is
functional necessity as it insures important positions are filled by talented people.
MELVIN TUMIN
In 1953, Malvin came up with

Principles of Stratification and
criticized Davis and Moore ideations
on stratification.
• How can we measure the

importance of any position? Tumin
questioned the adequacy of Davis
& Moore’s measurement of the
functional importance of
positions. Davis and Moore have
tended to assume that the most
highly rewarded position are indeed
most important. However, many
occupations which afford little
prestige or economic reward can be
seen as vital to society, and many which afford high prestige or economic reward
may not be that vital to society. Thus, Tumin argued that – some labour force of
unskilled workmen is as important and as indispensable to the factory as
some labour force engineers.
• If inequalities of rewards, wealth, and power are based solely on degree of skills and
functional importance of position in the society, then how do we explain why a
media personality with little education, skill, or talent becomes famous and rich on
a reality show or a campaign trail, how do we explain why a basketball player earns
millions of dollars a year when a doctor who saves lives, a soldier who fights for
others’ rights, and a teacher who helps form the minds of tomorrow will likely not
make millions over the course of their careers. The thesis also does not explain
inequalities in the education system or inequalities due to race, gender, class or
caste.
• According to Davis & Moore the major function of unequal reward is to

motivate talented individuals and allocate them to the functionally most
important positions. Tumin rejects this view, he argues that social stratification
can act as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. Social inequality is
rooted in the system and system rewards those who come from higher classes and
who have the resources to obtain better jobs. This readily apparent in a close system
of caste and racial stratification. . In general, someone’s lower class may limit his
possibility to get higher education and fill the imp position. ascribed status of
untouchable and black prevented the most talented from becoming Brahmins and
administrator in USA. Until civil rights movement, ascribed status of blacks blocked
imp and rewarded positions for them
• There is no objective way to measure functional importance of positions. Whether

one considers IAS more important than doctor is simply a matter of opinion. He says
The differences in pay and rewards between occupational groups may be due to
differences in their power rather than their functional importance. Some have more
bargaining power than others. Those who occupy highly rewarded positions will
erect barrier to recruitment like strict requirements and lengthy and expensive
training. Occupational groups often use their power to restrict access to their
positions, which creates a high demand for their services and increase their
rewards.
• Overall, stratification is dysfunctional because those born to lower strata can never
have the same opportunities for realizing their talent as those born into the higher
strata. Hence stratification is hindrance to the equality of opportunity.
• Finally, Tumin questions the view that social stratification functions to
integrate the social system. He argues that differential rewards can
encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among the various segments of
society by giving members of the lower strata a feeling of being excluded from
participation in the larger society.. From this viewpoint stratification is a
divisive rather than an integrating force.
MARXIST THEORY
• Class is the main strata in all societies.
• One’s class position is determined on the basis of his relation to the means of
production.
• There are two major social classes: ruling class and subject class. Ruling class holds
the power since they own the means of production (land, capital, labor power,
buildings and machinery), whereas proletariat sell their labor to the bourgeo.
• Ruling class exploits the subject class and appropriate surplus value.
• Super structure of the society legitimize the oppression (Neo-Marxists like Althusser
& Gramsci) focus on how ruling class use institutions to communicate their ideology
(ideas and beliefs about society) to everyone. Ruling class ideology becomes common
sense and prevents workers from rising up against them.
• Communal ownership of the means of production will bring an end to exploitation.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Institutional gains of stratification and the conflict are inherent in social
inequalities.
WEBERIAN PERSPECTIVE
The unequal distribution of 3Ps (Property, Prestige and Power) form the basis of Social
stratification.
These three overlapping elements produce multiple positions within society, in contrast to
bipolar model proposed by Marx.
Weber developed a multidimensional approach to social stratification that reflects the
interplay among property, prestige, and power.
Wealth:
• Weber noted that owning

the means of production was not
the only way of achieving upper
class; a person could also
accumulate Income and wealth:
assets, real estate, stocks, bonds,
mutual funds. E.g. Think of
shareholders of Microsoft and
Facebook.
• Class: a group of people
having similar market situation,
by virtue of which they enjoy
similar life chances. Those who
have substantial wealth will enjoy
superior life chances.
• Life chances : Market
positions of individuals decide
their life chances (health, food,
dress). E.g. richer people have access to good health, live longer, & get education.
People from same class will have similar life chances.
• Propertied upper class are able to purchase expensive consumer goods, control
other people’s opportunities to acquire wealth and property, and monopolize status
privileges (such as education) that provide contacts and skills for their children.E.g.
Rentiers.
• But Propertyless groups are not homogeneous. Weber saw differences in the market
situation of this group in society.
Weber formed an Ideal Type of Class:
• The propertied upper class:

• The propertyless white-collar workers:
• The petty bourgeoisie:
• The manual working class.
The class position does not have necessary translate into status situation and power
position.
• Class forms only one basis of power/ collective action.

• Class is not a community. It means they are not aware of their common situation.
Prestige:
Prestige: Respect, honor, esteem with which a person or position is regarded by others is
Prestige/status.
Sources of Prestige: Occupation, wealth, social positions of power, ethnicity, Lineage, and
lifestyles are common source of prestige. E.g. White collar occupations(doctors, ministers,
schoolteachers) have higher prestige than blue-collar jobs(carpenters, plumbers,
mechanics).
Status Group: people who share similar prestige regardless of their levels of wealth have
identifiable lifestyles.
Features of Status Group:
• They socialize with one another

• They monopolise over highly values skills, knowledge, occupation and cultural
attributes.
• Marry within their own group
• Share similar lifestyle.
• Spend leisure time together
• Safeguard their status by restricting outsiders from joining their ranks.
• They are aware of their common status situation.
Power:
Probability to exercise one’s will even against the resistance of others.
Party: group of people having common interests and concerned with gaining political
power. E.g. Political parties and Pressure groups (trade unions). Parties may represent the
interest of classes or it may represent the interest of status groups. E.g. Congress,
• Wealth and ownership of the means of production are not the only resources that
can be used to exercise power.
• Status (Fame) is another source of power. E.g. Albert Einstein was offered the
presidency of Israel.
• Social positions in Bureaucracy is another source of power. Elected officers in
organizations have more power than rank-and-file members. Charisma to mobilize
people can also be source of power. People in top executive positions in the mass
media are powerful, even if they do not have great wealth. Social media influencers
also have power to influence social life, even if they do not have wealth.
Class versus Status Group
• Unlike classes, members of status group are almost always aware of their common
status-situation. Therefore, status group forms a community.
• Those who share similar class situation will not necessarily belong to the same
status group. E.g. the nouveaux riches are sometimes excluded from the status
groups of the privileged becue their tastes, manners, and dress are defined as
vulgar.
• Status group may create division within class. E.g. Margaret Stacey found members
of working class distinguished three status groups within them: respectable working
class, ordinary working class, and rough working class.
• Status group can also cut across class divisions. E.g. In the USA, Blacks,
irrespective of their class position belong to same status group. This can form the
basis of collective political action.
Relationship between Wealth, prestige, and

power
Weber stated that wealth, prestige, and power

are separate continuums on which people can
be ranked from high to low. Individuals may be
high on one dimension while being low on another.
E.g. people may be very wealthy but have little
political power. They may also have prestige but
not wealth (e.g. college professor who receives
teaching excellence awards but live on a relatively
low income).
Sociologists often use the term Socioeconomic
status (SES) to refer to a combined measure that, in order to determine class location,
attempts to classify individuals, families, or households in terms of factors like income,
occupation and education.
Marxist Theory Weberian Theory

Reduced all forms of inequality to social Stratification is the result of unequal
class and classes formed the only distribution of property, prestige, and power.
significant group in society.
Power and Status is the result of one’s The three are not necessarily
class position synonymous to each other. One may have
prestige even after loss of wealth. Even
though each is influenced by class, both
prestige and power can in turn influence
the economic circumstances of
individuals/groups, thereby their class.
Collective action is the product of class Collective action/Party may appeal to
position concerns cutting across class differences.
E.g. Party may be based on religious
affiliation or nationalist ideas.
Polarization of class is inevitable Middle class inflates rather than deflates as
capitalism develops. He saw diversification
of middle class.
Proletarian revolution is inevitable There is no reason why those sharing similar
class situations would necessarily develop a
common identity and take collective action o
further those interests.
Andre Beteille: proposed ‘harmonic’ and ‘disharmonic’ as two models through which
the system of stratification in India and the west could be compared. Harmonic system
is the one in which hierarchy is present and acceptable(China and Middle east), and
disharmonic is the one which upholds equality and practice inequality(USA and India).
All societies are, however, stratified to lesser or larger extent. Simple societies are less
stratified than complex societies that are characterised by large number of social classes,
ranks and groups differentiated in the basis of economic, social and political criteria.
Egalitarian societies are only theoretically real, for all societies do afford differences in
status and privileges to some individuals. Social inequality continues to remain relevant in
society and in sociological writings too.
Anthony Giddens: Globalization as a complex multidimensional process involving

dialectical relationship between global and local is leading ot new global inequalities and
stratification.
a)Concepts- Equality, Inequality, Hierarchy, Exclusion,

Poverty and Deprivation
EQUALITY
Equality literally means equal or similar in the terms of privileges and disadvantages,
whereas inequality is unequal treatment in terms of opportunities, advantages,
disadvantages. But the issue of equality and inequality is largely complex because it is
guided by the concept of ideologies of different societies.
Liberal society believe that equality lies in equality of opportunity i.e. any social system
which has absence of any form of hurdle for the individual to ensure social mobility can be
called as equal society. Hence, for the liberal ideology, if any society has a system of not
putting any form of obstacle and individual on the basis of their capabilities, efforts and
motivation can go to any extent in the social hierarchy
But Marxist or Socialist ideology do not accept the definition of equality given by liberal
ideologies. They believe that the real equality lies in “system of distributive justice” i.e. when
the economic resources of the society does not lie in some hands rather it is equally
distributed in all the members of society is only equality. Hence, the absence of private
property and equal treatment in all the situations is equality in true sense. In reality though
like Marx, many a thinkers believed that there should be an equal society but in reality
never ever in history any single reformer was born who opposed inequality in all forms.
Only, they have opposed some form of inequality. For example, Dr. Ambedkar opposed
inequality based on caste, feminists in western society opposed gender inequality, Martin
Luther King opposed inequality based on colour.
Rousseau believed that social inequality is the extension of natural inequality. Mountains,
trees, rivers, etc. are nothing in equal shape, means nature in itself is unequal in its shape.
Hence, inequality is a natural phenomena which is extended on the society also. This is the
reason why all societies have certain form of inequality which is natural. He believed that
all individual are not equal in their potential, talent, etc. that is why the society reflects
unequal because the unequal talent leads to unequal society. But, this is a rejected theory
because it is believed that unequal training leads to unequal potential. If given equal
environment there is a larger chance that potential will be always equal. Hence, inequality
is not a natural phenomena, rather based on unequal training system of all the societies.
Inequality
Many scholars of different political persuasions regard equality of opportunity as a pre-
condition for a fair society. Of course, equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of
outcome.
Inequality has been studied and been a point of discussion for long in economics. The
famous work of Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen on ‘Measurement of Inequality’ is
taught across the world and has always been considered as monumental in empirical and
technical economics. In economics, as soon as the concept of inequality is confronted, most
economists reach out to the Lorenz curve or Gini coefficient, Atkinson’s index, Sen’s index
and so on. The sophistication has been reached but rarely an economist entered into the
intricate features of inequality and perpetuation of inequality.
ROUSSEAU in book ‘Discourse on Inequality’

identified two kinds of inequality among people:
• natural or physical inequality referring to

difference of age, health, bodily strength, and
mental abilities;
• moral or political inequality referring to
differences in privileges that are established or
authorized by the consent of people themselves e.g.
power, honour.
Unlike biologically created inequality, socially

created inequality 'consists of the different privileges
which some men enjoy like being more rich,
honored, powerful'. He believed that biologically based (natural inequalities) were small and
relatively unimportant whereas socially created inequality provides the major basis for
systems of social stratification.
Andre Beteille:
In real situations, pure hierarchy or equality does not

exist. All systems are only ideal types. The great
paradox of the modern world is that everywhere men
profess equality and practice inequality. Equality of
opportunity need not result in equality of outcome. In
fact, it leads to inequality of reward and reproduction of
inequality in another form.
• Concept of natural inequality is artificially

created to justify social inequality. The scale used in the gradation of qualities are
socially constructed. E.g. Varna represent natural order of Gunas. The notion of
gun is arbitrary and socially constructed. In an industry, division of Labor only
implies people working in different position, but when some positions are given more
prestige and wealth, it becomes social inequality.
• Reproduction of inequality: Earlier caste was the source of reproduction of
inequality, today, today it is the institution of family and school which play active
role in the reproduction of inequality. E.g. cultural, social, and material capital that
the children from the wealthy family enjoy gives them upper hand over the rest.
That’s how inequality is sustained and status quo is maintained.
• Dispersed inequalities: when the link between caste and class is broken
• Cumulative inequalities: link between caste-class has been called cumulative
inequality
BR Ambedkar: the fundamental principle of the caste system is graded inequality. It

vertically ordered the classes and not on the horizontal plane. the division of labour is
accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers. They are not only different but
unequal in status.
The process of graded inequality involves:
• fixity of occupations according to hierarchy;

• graded wage structure—higher wages for Brahmins per unit of work and lower to
Shudras;
• forced immobility of labour and wages;
All have a grievance against the highest grade and would like to bring about their downfall
but will not combine together. The high wants to overthrow the higher who is above him but
does not want to join hands with the low and the lower.
• Raewyn Connell: notion of ideal men (wealthy, tall, handsome, qualified) and ideal
women (fair, slim, beautiful, and docile) create their own set of inequalities within
men and women and are termed as Hegemonic masculinities and Essential
femininities.
• SM Channa: the notion of Devi-Dasi creates inequalities within women.
• Tocquiville: distinguished between Aristocratic (rigid estate system of Europe before
19th century) and democratic society(class mobility of USA after 19th century).Even
though institutions were hierarchical, America had recognized equality as the
principle.
• Marx: Economic inequalities
• Weber: in addition to economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social
structure cause conflict. unequal distribution of Wealth, Status and Power.
• Dahrendorf: that Stratification lies neither in human nature nor in private property.
It lies in 'authority structure' of a society necessary for sustaining norms and
sanctions. Authority relations are always relations of superordination and
subordination, hence stratification. 'Institutionalized power' based on norms creates
inequality and heirarchy.
INTERSECTIONALITY
Earlier sociologists focused on social class only or gender only as the measure of inequality.
But in the latter half of 20th century, focus shifted away to explore other inequalities of
gender, ethnicity, racism, sexuality and disability together. Sociologists found ways of
connecting class with other inequalities. One attempt has been the concept of
INTERSECTIONALITY (complex interweaving of diverse inequalities which shape individual
lives and complicate
the earlier class
analysis).
When we conduct
intersectional analysis,
no particular social
division is primary to
other (e.g Class isn’t
primary and race,
gender aren’t really
secondary to the class).
Instead,
Intersectionality posits
that race, class,
gender, sexuality, and
various aspects of
identity are
constitutive. Taken
together, they produce
a way of experiencing
the world as
sometimes oppressed
and marginalized, and
sometimes privileged
and advantaged depending on the context. e.g. When sociologists talk about the experience
of 'Working class', who exactly are they referring to? the lives of white, heterosexual,
working class men may be very different from those of black, working class, lesbian
women and only empirical research hi batayegi ki which of these identities is more
important in specific socio-historical contexts.
P.H.Collins describe Intersectionality as particular forms of intersecting oppressions, for

example, intersection of race and gender, or of sexuality and nation'. It can be seen as
methodology bringing into focus interplay between race, gender, class, disability which
aims to generate more comprehensive account of experience of an individual. Black working
class women may then be seen as multiply disadvantaged, on the basis of their color,
gender and social class position.
HIERARCHY
Hierarchy is the form of social inequality but unlike social stratification posts/ranks are
vertically divided in the chain of command and obedience. In stratification, the groups are
divided into the privileged and disadvantaged group whereas in hierarchy it has nothing to
do with any individual or group. It is vertically divided on the basis of post and according to
the post rights, responsibilities, and privileges are attached. Generally, the system of
hierarchy is the concept of formal organization which forms a pyramid shape. Many
sociologists use the term hierarchy and stratification interchangeably which is not true.
Louis Dumont(to be covered in Paper 2) in his book ‘Homo Hierarchicus’ called the Hindu
caste system as the hierarchy because he believed that Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and
Shudras are not a group or community, rather it is a post based on “purity and pollution.”
But except Louis Dumont other sociologist believed that caste system is the form of social
stratification and not hierarchy.
The term hierarchy is largely used to understand the unequal privileges in professional
organization where every post is vertically divided and mutually joined with a system of
command and obedience. In this system, individual does not get privileges or
disadvantages. It lies in the post. Hence, any individual moves up in the hierarchy they get
the same privileges. Hierarchy, since is a form of inequality, is a subject-matter of sociology
and also of political science and public administration, but sociology only studies in social
hierarchy
and not the hierarchy of formal organization.
DISCRETE CASTES and Muddled Hierarchies( Based on article written by Dipankar

Gupta in EPW)
The caste system is considered to be a graded hierarchy based on purity and pollution (
Louis Dumont and BR Ambedkar) . While there is agreement over hierarchy, there is no
agreement over how this hierarchy is quantified, along which scale, and what kind of scale
is it? Brahmins are universally acknowledged as most superior. But There are powerful
Kshatriya who consider themselves most superior. In fact, even among Brahmins, there is
no consensus on their status.
Moreover the cultural scale of Purity and pollution is highly problematic for it is understood
differently in different contexts. e.g. Vatalia, a subcaste of Kumhars is a polluted Brahmin.
Also, when it comes to eating, again a scale of purity is observed when there is no
unanimity as to who can accept water or food from whom. It also refuses to acknowledge
castes who refuse to accept low status and claim elevated origins of their own.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Definition: Social exclusion refers to ways in which individuals may become cut off or
prevented from full involvement/having opportunities in the wider society.
In order to live a full and active life, individuals must not only be able to feed, clothe and
house themselves, but should also have access to essential goods and services such as
education, health, transportation, insurance, social security, banking and even access to
the police or judiciary.
Social exclusion is not accidental but systematic – it is the result of structural features of
society. Banks might refuse to give a current account or credit card to people living in a
certain areas. Insurance companies may reject a policy application because of applicant’s
personal history
Voluntary exclusion: some choose to drop out of education, turn down a job offer, abstain
from voting in elections.
Veit Wilson: Strong and Weak version: Weak version(actor based) focus on inclusion of
excluded, and strong version(structural based) focuses on the process and tackle the
processes through which powerful social groups exclude people. Version adopted by govt
will shape their policies towards social exclusion. e.g. In drop out cases, weak approach
would focus on how children can be schooled again or mainstreamed, while strong would
focus on potential problems within the school systems and the role of powerful groups
which have power to exclude.
Types of Social exclusion :
• Exclusion from adequate income : BPL, EWS, INFORMAL (poverty), women

• Exclusion from labor market: can lead to exclusion from income and exclusion
from social relations and service exclusions. Jobless, unemployed, retired, domestic
and caring activity workers, disabled people who cant work, and students. Labor
market exclusion can’t be seen as a sign of social exclusion, but it can risk of wider
social exclusion.
• Exclusion from basic services: electricity, oxygen, water supply, transport,
financial services. E.g. unelectrified and unbanked areas, slums, villages, hilly
areas.
• Exclusion from social relations: result of people lacking civic engagement (voting,
involvement in national politics) and when you have no one to talk to, or Marx’s
alienation, Hinduism had excluded Avarnas, debtors, women, slaves, Exclusion from
Citizenship, public sphere, species being (Alienation of housewives), victims of AIDS,
leprosy, homosexuals, Physically handicapped, muslims
• Exclusion on the basis of achievement: This exclusion is not imposed by the
society, rather it is a self chosen form of exclusion, generally found among the
celebrities. They disconnect themselves from the larger involvement with the society
because they believe that they are no more common social being. They live in fenced
houses and do not permit individual to come to them easily.
F. Parkin: Social closure is a “process of subordination whereby one group monopolizes

advantages by closing off opportunities to another group of outsiders”.
CHARLES TILLY AND GRUSKY: Tilly uses the term “opportunity hoarding” for situations
in which actors monopolize valuable positions or resources for people like themselves.
Inequalities that we confront today are ‘durable’ and multigenerational. Durable
means those categorical pairs have been institutionalized.
Murphy: We socially close our professions. Since it is socially acceptable to exclude an

incompetent person from a job, educational background thus becomes a socially
acceptable means of enacting one’s unconscious biases toward racism, sexism, or
exclusion for other factors not actually related to competence.
POVERTY & DEPRIVATION

Poverty can be defined as “a socio-economic condition of an individual in which individual
and their dependents are devoid of or deprived from those basic things which are essential
for the effective functioning of body and mind.”
The cause and effect of poverty is multi-dimensional in which following causes are
considered as important:
• Culture of poverty (Ocsar Lewis): living in poverty creates its own culture which is
learned and shared and transmitted among groups. It creates a cycle of poverty
which makes it difficult to escape. They internalize the values of their culture.They
make little use of instns like banks, hospitals, museum. They are separate part of
society.
• Lack of opportunity due to overpopulation
• Natural disasters prone society
• Religious dominance which discourages individuals not to go for worldly
achievement (Weber)
• Concentration of wealth or resources in the hands of a particular group (Marx)
• CULTURE OF CLASSISM: Based on deficit theory. Poor are poor because of their
own moral and intellectual deficiencies. They are unintelligent, inarticulate and
overtly emotional.
• Feminization of Poverty: Think of Horizontal and Vertical segregation of workforce
in labor market and see how poverty is feminized. Think of Bina Agarwal’s article on
women’s absence from ownership of land.
There are two types of poverty identified:
Absolute Poverty – Absolute poverty refers to the inability of a person or a household to

provide even the basic necessities of life. It refers to conditions of acute physical wants,
starvation, malnutrition, want of clothing, want of shelter, total lack of medical care. At
times “absolute poverty” is also called “subsistence poverty”, since it is based on an
assessment of minimum subsistence requirement. Nutrition is measured by intake of
calories and proteins, shelter by quality of dwelling and degree of over-crowding, and the
rate of infant mortality and the quality of medical facility. In broader sense it suggested that
one should go beyond the physical need and also include cultural needs—education,
security, leisure and recreation.
Relative Deprivation/Poverty – Poverty according to this concept is to be measured

according to standards of life at a given time and place. The idea is that standards of society
can be changing standards. Definition of poverty should therefore be related to the needs
and demands of changing societies. For example, in India in 1960 those who had a per
capita income of Rs.20/- or less per month in rural areas were considered to be below the
poverty line. In 2011-12 those who have an income of less than Rs.816/- per month in
rural area and Rs.1000 (Tendulkar Committee) in urban area are considered to be below
the poverty line.
The poverty and deprivation have various socio-economic consequences:

• It may lead to class conflict and proletariat revolution (Marx)
• It may lead to sequential migration (Notestein)
• Poverty leads to moral corruption, law and order problem, bad habits etc.
• Concentration of population at the place of emerging opportunities which on the one
hand will lead to over population of one place and under population at the another.
• It develops a sense of retreatism and pessimism.
• It may cause social movements, civil wars, communal tensions, separatist
movements, etc.
Thus, in socio-economic dimension, poverty and deprivation is always considered as
dysfunctional for the society, especially, the conflict theorists in sociology consider that
the poverty and unequal distribution always create tensions, conflicts which leads to
social changes but functionalists like Parsons do not agree with.
Solution to fight deprivation, exclusion, poverty
SOCIAL JUSTICE: used to ensure wellbeing of the people irrespective of their sex,religion,
gender,age,race, belief, sexuality,disability,class.
• We can ensure wellbeing of the people when everybody gets equal opportunity (just
distribution of resources like education,health, hosuing, wage, welfare schemes.
Basically you ensure social justice through just distributive system.
• Thinkers are divided on what is called just distribution.. marx says free acess to
distribution of goods and services. Socialism will ensure everyone produce to satisy
their needs (frome ach according to his ability, to each according to his needs).
• Some say ‘to each according to his rights’, to each according to his labor, and to
each according to his capability.
• Generally we tend to equate poverty with poor living having low income. What if its
more than that? A person may be having enough money but is not able to vote in his
community. He is also impoverished. Monetary deprivation is incomplete picture of
poverty.
• Poverty is basically capability failure due to social and cultural injustices. Capability
basically refers to functioning a personc an achieve and things that he can do or be.
• Capability is what you can do, and functioning is what you are doing. Take away
freedom to choose, and two things become one.
• Suppose your capability is to become IAS, but you are functioning as a worker of
MGNREGA. Then development would be not to raise wages of MGNREGA but focus
on individual’s capabilities which can be increased by adequate and supportive
facilities. Lack of such facilities is an unfreedom and constraint to development. In
the capabilities paradigm, poverty is understood as deprivation of basic capabilities.
Peopl’s capability is constrained by several factors
• Bundle of unfreedoms : oppressive state policies, lack of financial resources, ill
health, lack of proper education, sudden accidents, gender, inequality,
discrimination of all types, social exclusion, disability, environmental conditions,
high inflation, corruption, urban violence, child labor, All these can possibly
influence human capabilities which is the prime measure of human well-being
• That means development goes beyond income. Development is basically enhancing
people ’freedom to become what they want(right of choice). poverty that way is not
material deprivation. Rather it is deprivation of capabilities.
• Hence Anti-poverty programs must not focus on reduction of income-poverty alone.
Enhancement of human capabilities (for example, by promoting education and
healthcare) must also go hand in hand with the expansion of earning opportunities
for the anti-poverty programs to be sustainable.
• The basic objective of development should be to create an enabling environment for
people to live long, healthy, and fulfilling lives. This goal is lost when the immediate
concern becomes accumulation of commodities and financial wealth. In reality, they
are only means to expand people’s capabilities and freedom of choices, not ends in
themselves.
• he CA is perhaps best known for having inspired the creation of the Human
Development Index (HDI) in 1990 by the United Nations Development Program
(UNDP) in order to gauge countries’ level of human development or people’s well-
being. The HDI offered an alternate measure of human progress in terms other than
GDP growth and has played a key role in advancing alternative ideas about
development and welfare. The HDI covers dimensions of material well-being, health,
and education.
• The fact that the per capita GDP has no direct correlation with people’s well-being is
clearly observed in the development status of different states of India. Kerala is a
unique state in India; it has only a moderately developed economy but has achieved
significant poverty reduction. It did so through the expansion of basic education,
healthcare facilities and equitable land distribution. In comparison, Punjab with
much higher per capita GDP also has higher poverty. Therefore, people’s well-being
is not directly related with economic growth. Basic essentials like education and
health directly improve the quality of life and capabilities; they also improve the
ability to earn more.
• Another example is presence of racial bias in the society or extreme bureaucracy in
the system; these things affect different people to different extents. Impact of such
non material factor hardly ever show up in the GDP model of national development.
(c) Dimensions- Social Stratification of Class, Status Groups,

Gender, ethnicity and race
CLASS
Sociologists typically use three methods to determine social class:
• Objective method: measure and analyses hard facts

• Subjective method: asks people what they think of themselves
• Reputational method: asks what people think of others.
Marx: defined class in terms of its relation to the means of production. Objective &
subjective dimension
Weber: defined class in terms of market situation/life chance.
Like Marx and Weber, most modern sociologists use economic factors as the basic
criteria for differentiating social classes.
Eric Olin Wright: believed that Bourgeoisie and

Proletariat are very broad categories. In post-
Industrial society, many top executives, managers,
and supervisors do not own the means of
production, but to call them proletariat would be
wrong since they control the fate of many assembly
line workers. They are capitalist and workers both
at the same time. This middle class experience
contradictory class location- It has things in
common with both classes at different times. E.g.
they may own shares (part-ownership of modern
means of production) but may also lose their
livelihood at the will of the ruling class.
E.O. Wright modified Marx’s model and identified four classes wrt its location in the
production process.
• Capitalists: business owners who employ many workers

• Petty Bourgeoisie: small business ownersPurchase of labor of others(employing
others)
• Managers: who sell their own labor but also
exercise authority over other employees
• Workers: who sell their labor to others.
Franc Parkin: defined class on the basis of strategy

employed by a group to control resources. This
reflects importance of ‘racial ideology’, ethnic
cleavages or communal divisions, which helps one
group to exclude others. He Defined classes not with
respect to their relations to the means of production,
but on the basis of their strategy to control resources.
• Dominant class: who obtain
resources by Exclusionary social
closure.
• Subordinate class: who obtain
resources by Usurpationary Social
closure
• Intermediate class is the one who
obtain resource through Dual closure.
Closure is ubiquitous, being found in

groups all over the world at all sizes and
classes. Some examples of social closure
include, “
Exclusionary Social closure: Exclusion refers to practices which separates the group
from outsiders.
• Access to private schools follows explicit rules and depends on financial capacities;
access to university depends on a certificate or diploma, eventually from certain
schools only; Indian education system denied women education for long time as the
resource was hijacked by brahminic men(cultural capital bourdieu).
• membership in a highly prestigious club depends on economic and social capital
and the respective social networks; and finally,
• in the case of migration, people will have to be eligible for citizenship and pass the
thorny path of naturalization. This is also a way of keeping resources in the hands
of those who are citizens.
USURPATIONARY SOCIAL CLOSURE:
Usurpation is a strategy adopted by low status or less privileged groups to gain advantages
or resources which others are monopolizing; Civil rights movement and Sanskritization
are examples. Similarly, strikes by lower class workers are an example of usurpationary
closure. Lower class workers refuse to perform their job in order to gain privilege, because
they know their work is necessary to those above them.
Bourdieu: defined class in relation to varying levels of economic and cultural capital
or lifestyle and consumption pattern. He divided people according to cultural taste
(lifestyle) in addition to economic or occupational standings.
Anthony Giddens- major classes in advanced capitalist society
• upper class- based on ownership of mop

• Middle class- based on possession of educational or technical qualification
• Lower class- possession of manual labour-power.
Charles Murray- Underclass- They are long term unemployed, dependent on state
welfare benefits, marginalized, and socially excluded. Welfare payments encourage
young girls to get pregnant (to access lone parent benefits), young fathers not to be
responsible for their children, and people not to go to work. This has led to creation of an
underclass- a class of long term unemployed people who have different values from the rest
of society. Murray argued,’ We tried to provide more for the poor, and produced more
poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty and inadvertently
built a trap.
David Rothkopf the leaders of the globe’s top multinational companies overlap to such a
degree that they form a small circle, that we call as the ‘Superclass’- the global power
elite, and at the very bottom we have the underclass (slum dwellers, street children,
refugees in the developed world). The Superclass is not only extremely wealthy, but also
extremely powerful. These people have access to the top circles of political power around the
globe.
G. Schmoller: Classes are occupational groups created by DOL and maintained by

heredity.
Malcolm waters and Pakulski: in their book ‘Death of Class’ argue that
• Wealth has become equally distributed, which means class differences are not so
important.
• Postmodern politics is based on non-economic issues like ethnicity, identity, and
environment.
• People are less likely to vote along class line- e.g. manual workers don’t always vote
for left wing parties.
• Society has changed from economic class society to a status society. Individuals
define their own social status through symbolic consumption. The things they buy,
talk about, and music they listen to define their identity. Basically, it is the lifestyle
and beliefs that divides individuals today more than their class position.
NEW MIDDLE CLASS

• According to Abhijeet Banerjee and Duflo , New Middle classes are those whose
consumption and expenditure based is set at 2 $ expenditure per day. However, this
is more of an economic dimension, and not a sociological dimension to new middle
class.
• They drive both consumption as well as savings in the national and global economy.
• Social composition of the New Middle class: In terms of social composition, they
are still dominated by upper caste Hindus(included in other castes category), while
lower castes are mostly found among poor. In 2011-12, The table shows that when
50 % of India was in new middle class, 67 % of them were from upper caste hindus.
Whereas lower castes are underrepresented in the new middle class. The difference
among religious groups (hindus and muslims) aren’t as stark as among caste
groups/.
• What’s New about this New middle class? Das and Jeffrolet and Van der veer:
view newness in terms of more socially inclusive middle class that has transcended
traditional caste barriers.
• Fernandes, fuler and Upadhyay: Newness in the new middle class lies in its
employement in service activities brought forward by LPG post 90s.they have made
a shift from earlier public sector occupations to IT and Mostly found in IT and BPO
industries.
Features of New Middle class:
• Banerjee and Duflo: high entreprenual spirit in them (start up culture)
• At a personal level, they aspire to live in their own houses, and many of them closer
to the lower end of the threshold fondly look forward to owning their first
refrigerators, washing machines and two-wheelers.
• They want their children to be better educated them, and are ready to spend
amounts they can scarcely afford on their education in English-medium schools.
This is because they see proficiency in English as a passport to success.
• They prefer simple laws and hassle-free processes. They frown on subsidies financed
out of taxes they pay. Like taxpayers the world over, they want to see the fiscal
connection between the taxes the government collects from them and the benefits
they get in return. Voluntary compliance often suffers when they fail to make this
connection. As such, they are unlikely to happily pay taxes for large-ticket dole
schemes such as the Congress party’s NyuntamAayYojana (NYAY).
• No political party can really afford to take these people for granted. Since they are
educated, they cannot be easily manipulated as a vote bank. In Delhi, many of them
supported Anna Hazare’s crusade against corruption, and later Arvind
Kejriwal’s AamAadmi Party. But when the latter failed to deliver on its anti-
corruption agenda, many of them withdrew support to this party.
• What is much more likely is that, as in developed countries, with time, they will
enter different political parties and begin to influence political agendas as well as
electoral outcomes, much more decisively. decisive influence this class will have in
moulding public opinion on many national issues.
GENDER –form of stratification

Gender stratification refers to unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege
between men and women. In short, Gender affect the opportunities and constraints we face
throughout our lives.
The unequal distribution is illustrated by unequal figures regarding employment,

participation in politics, education ,land ownership, household works and so on.Till
1970s, Gender Stratification was not a theme of analysis. Goldthorpe argued that
women should not be included separately in a class analysis as they take the class of their
father first and of their husband later on.
But with emergence of Feminism, analysis of inequalities inside the family (domestic unpaid
labor, domestic violence, marital rape) and labor market (sex segregation of labor market,
gender pay gap, glass ceiling, sexual harassment of women at workplace) got started.Before
Feminism, these things were seen as personal matters between husband-wife. Gradually, it
became clear that the domestic and public spheres were closely related to each other.
Basically Class based stratification system could not reflect the social division of labor and
the attendant inequalities within households. e.g. women spend more hours on housework
than men, have less access to household goods, have less money for leisure, have less
decision-making power,
Basically, early theorists struggled to make sense of the intersections between gender and
social class. For example, an early author dealing with the intersection of class and sex was
Shulamith Firestone who argued that all women are in one class and all men are in
another. According to Firestone, Inequalities between women and men are produced by
their position regarding reproduction – pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, child care.
Christine Delphy attach importance to material factors in causing women’s oppression.

regarded household as a factory system of its own type which consists of two classes
involved in sexual relations of production and sexual DOL. Men are the owners of
household and control decisions involved, but unlike employer, he does not purchase
labour power by the hour or week and give her payment in kind (new coat or holiday). In
focusing only on the economic dimension, Delphy neglects cultural, sexual, and ideological
aspects of gender inequality.
Male-female differnces: Many people think there is something ‘natural’ about gender
distinctions because biology does make one sex different from the other. Males are 10
percent taller, 20 percent heavier, 30 percent stronger(in their upper bodies). Women on the
other hand have higher life expectancy (80). In adolescence, males do bit better in
mathematics, females show stronger verbal skills, a difference that reflects both biology and
socialization. However, this does not point to superiority of any one of them.These assumed
social inequality when women were denied the vote because many people assumed that
women did not have enough intelligence or interest in politics. Such attitudes had nothing
to do with biology and reflected cultural patterns of that time and space.
Basically, there are cultural differences/socially created differences between men and
women.
Ann Oakley and Margaret Mead argue other cultures have different ideas of masculinity
and femininity and gender roles are socially constructed.
Margaret Mead believed that if gender is based on biological differences between men
and women, people everywhere should define’ feminine’ and ‘masculine’ in the same
way; if gender is cultural, these conceptions should vary.
Mead studied three societies in New Guinea.
• Among the Arapesh, both sexes were involved in child rearing, were cooperative and
sensitive to each other. They were what we define feminine.
• Among the Mundugumor, both sexes described as Masculine. Both were involved in
headhunting, cannibalism, both were aggressive and war-like; traits that we call
masculine.
• Among Tchambuli, gender roles reverse standards. Men adorned themselves,
wearing curls and make up, sat around looking beautiful while women were
dominant, rational and hardworking.
• She proved gender roles vary across cultures.
It shows our ideas of masculinity and femininity are ethnocentric- that is, we cannot see
beyond our own culture and take our rules as the right and only ones. We can therefore
conclude that there are no natural male and female differences.
Ann Oakley: sexual DOL is not universal or natural, nor do men always perform certain
tasks and women others. Instead of being sexual, it is more cultural.
• Australian aborigines of Tasmania: women responsible for seal hunting, fishing and
catching mammals.
• Mbuti Pygmies, both men and women share responsibility for the care of children.
• In China, countries of former USSR, Cuba and Israel women form important part of
armed forces.
• In India, women work on building sites
SYLVIA WALBY- Theorizing Patriarchy.
Unlike earlier feminists who focused on single cause of patriarchy, Walby looks into
patriarchy as a complex phenomenon made up of 6 intersecting structures. When
patriarchy loosens its grip in one area, it only tightens in other arenas.
1.Paid work(Men continue to domiante in best paid jobs; glass floor ceiling)
2.Family household(doemstic life)(direct exploitation of women's unpaid labor. Now,

easier divorce means women are not as trapped as they were.
3.Cultural institutions (the notion of Pativrata or obedient woman, sexually pure,

male child preferecnce, man- the breadwinner, identity adoption bias –to be succesful
in the male dominated work world, she has to adopt masculine style of behavior)
4.Sexuality(in 19th century, women's exuality was subject to strict control within
monogamous marriage, In 20th century better contraceptions and greater ease of divorce
increased women's sexual freedom. However, walby argues that the sexual double standard
is still alive . Males condemn young women are active sexually as 'slags' . On other hand,
males with many sexual conquests are admired for their supposed virility.
5.violence towards women (State has become now more willing to take action against
worst offenders. Nevertheless, action against violent husbands is still infrequent and
women continue to be subject to it)
6. The state (State policies no longer confine women to the pvt sphere of home, but the
state is is still patriarchal,capitalist and racist coz little attempt is made to improve
women's position in public sphere and equal opportnities legislation is rarely enforced).
Other than these changes in patriarchy, she talks about change in the overall structure of
Patriarchy.
Shift from Private Patriarchy to Public Patriarchy: Pvt patriarchy me we have

Individual patriarch who oppress women and prevent them from entering Public sphere of
job. Shift away from Pvt patri due to first wave feminism. Campaign was in the background
of expanding capitalist economy and women demanded jobs other than voting rights. On
other hand, male trade unionists continued to exlude women from employement so that
they could not compete for men's jobs. COmpromise hua result me. PUBLIC PATRIARCHY
made appearance where women got access to public sphere, got jobs but those were lower
paid and had lower status than men.
Women are no longer exploited by individual men but instead collectively by men in general
through their subordination in public arena. Walby argues,' women are no longer restricted
to the domestic hearth, but have whole society in which to roam and be exploited'.
Gender Stratification can be seen in the world of : work, education,

politics, household.
WORK Sex segregation of labor market: at two levels: Horizontal and Vertical.
Horizontal: Greater the prestige and power associated with a job, more likely it is to be held
by a man. Some jobs are seen as masculine and some as feminine.
Women Men
Jobs with highest concentration of women: Jobs with highest concentration of men:
child care worker, vocational nurse, school police officers, engineers, physicians,
teacher, Dental assistant, receptionist surgeons, lawyers, corporate managers
(information clerk), speech-language
pathologist, airhostess, secretary or
administrative assistant (pink collar).
Vertical: Some positions within the same job are likely to be held by man than woman.
Higher we go up the ladder, fewer women we find (Glass ceiling).
Gender pay gap: Gender based income disparity due to:
• Type of work women do(largely clerical and service jobs). In effect, jobs and gender
interact.
• Family responsibilities: women prefer flexible hours to avoid role strain/role
conflict since she has second shift at home and she may also have biological
compulsions.
• Biological compulsions: Pregnancy and child rearing keep many young women out
of the labor force. When they return to the labor force, they have less job seniority
than their male counterparts.
• Discriminaton against women (covert one): women on their way up the ladder may
run into glass ceiling.
For all these reasons, women earn less than men in all major occupational categories.
EDUCATION
• STEM field represent men more than women.

• Higher education have men more than women.
• School: women drop out more than men.
• sexual harassment of women at workplace.
POLITICS:
• Kate millet: Sexual politics

• Amartya Sen: Missing women
• Panchayat: Sarpanchpati
• Global Gender Gap Index 2021(WEF): India’s rank 140/156. espite a string of state
elections, the share of women ministers has declined sharply from 23 to 9 per cent.
Further, Indian women’s labour force participation has plummeted in the last
decade to a mere 21 per cent.
PATRIARCHAL STATE: India has no law against Marital rape, difference in legal age
for marriage between boys and girls implies the lawmaker’s belief that it is appropriate for
boys to get married late so that they are financially independent by the time of marriage,
issues of marital property, succession.
Patriarchal bargain is defined as a tactic in which a woman chooses to

uphold patriarchal norms, accepting gender roles that disadvantage women overall but
maximizing her own power, safety and options. It has been used to explain why women in
patriarchal societies get married, wear veils, and conform to societal norms about sexual
behavior.
Sociologist Lisa Wade states that patriarchal bargain is "an individual strategy designed to
manipulate the system to one’s best advantage, but one that leaves the system itself
intact."Women choose to conform to the patriarchal system because they feel that the
benefits that they receive by conforming exceed the benefits that would come from
challenging or changing the system.[
Many examples of patriarchal bargain appear in the media and pop-culture in the 21st
century. In the age of reality television and using digital platforms to boost a career,
celebrities are subject to use the patriarchal bargain. The act of women using
their sexuality in order to achieve success and a career is the prominent illustration of the
patriarchal bargain.
HIERARCHY WITHIN GENDER
RAEWYN CONNELL: some people become male and female role models. Role models display
some characteristics and actions which come to be seen as desirable. This creates gender
hierarchy.
Hegemonic Masculinity : most socially

valued and idealised form of masculinity. It
dominates over other masculinities and
femininities. Media, education, ideology,
sports and music are the channels through
which hegemony is established. It is
associated with heterosexuality, marriage,
authority, paid work, strength and physical
toughness. Examples are Arnold
Schwarzenegger, 50 cents, Donald trump.
Only few men can live up to it. A large

number of men, however, still gain advantage
from its dominant position in the patriarchal
order. Connell refers to this as the
patriarchal dividend, and people who benefit from embody COMPLICIT MASCULINITY.
SUBORDINATED MASCULINITIES: HOMOSEXUAL MASCULIITY is seen as opposite of the

real man and does not have ideal type features of real man. Ranked at bottom.
Then comes EMPHASIZED FEMININITIES- complements hegemonic masculinity and

accommodates the interests of men, by compliance, nurturance and empathy. Marilyn
Monroe and such images are highly prevalent in the media campaigns.
Subordinated femininities : they reject emphasized femininities , resist convention, and

are not given voice. E.g. Feminists, lesbians, spinsters, midwives, witches, prostitutes and
manual workers. Experience of these RESISTANT FEMININITIES hidden from history.
RACE & ETHNICITY ( To be covered later)

• Institutional
• Structural
• Cultural Racism
• Racism without race
sociologists speak of environmental racism to describe the reality that minorities are often
forced to live in unhealthy neighborhoods—perhaps next to landfills and hazardous waste
dumps. And when a new landfill is proposed, it’s much more likely to be located next to a
poor or minority neighborhood than a wealthier majority neighborhood.
(d) Social Mobility-open and closed systems, types of

mobility, sources and causes of mobility
SOROKIN: Stratification refers to the division of individuals and groups in society into
hierarchically ordered layers. Dipankar Gupta, on the other hand, argues Hierarchy is only
one kind of stratification where the strata are arranged vertically. The other form of
stratification is Difference. It is not just quantifiable ranked order that we talk about;
very often ranking is imposed on differences (which are usually incapable of being
ranked). STRATIFICATION Consists of both hierarchy and differences. Some are open
stratification systems, while some are closed ones.
In open systems, there is an objective criterion on the basis of which hierarchy is

legitimized. E.g. Class as an open stratification has wealth as an objective criteria which is
quantifiable. Hence Class based Hierarchy is quantifiable. But not all class based
hierarchies belong to open system. In feudal societies class boundaries were firm and
mobility across them often invited severe reprisals. As far as quantification of hierarchy is
concerned, Wealth, income, status, and even power can be ranked in terms of being more
or less.
On the other hand, there also exists stratification based on differences; the differences
which cannot be hierarchized/ranked objectively. E.g. Language, religion, gender, nation,
and race. Sadly, they usually tend to get hierarchized in popular consciousness. This is
where dimensions of political power and prejudice takes over. E.g. men deemed
superior to women, certain linguistic groups and racial groups are held to be less civilized
than others. Blacks are seen as inferior because in a racist society the white population
controls power and use color as an ideological weapon of subjugation. Similarly, logically,
castes like baniya or kshatriya are separate and equal, but in a caste society the Brahmin
population who control power decides which caste will be superior to which other.
Basically, in real world it is impossible to think of differences without surreptitiously
bringing in hierarchy. Hence Utopian society-a society without hierarchy seems implausible
because differences automatically carry traces of hierarchy.
Open systems of Closed systems of

Stratification : Stratification:
• Hierarchy is central • Differences dominate.

• Systems in which Hierarchy is • Those systems in which Differences
quantifiable and legitimized on based on race, caste, estate, gender
meritocratic grounds. are hierarchized without objective
• Merit allows mobility. criterion.
• hierarchy is fixed, and mobility is
strongly discouraged.
• In open system, mobility is • In closed system, mobility is not an
accepted feature of hierarchy, accepted part of hierarchy since
individuals can move up or down or hierarchy is forced on to differences
horizontally within system. E.g. from between castes, races or religions by
clerk to manager, a manager to ED political power which can’t be
and so on. resisted/ countered by an individual
mobility.
• It is group mobility that happens
here. Sanskritization is not the
upward mobility achieved by
an individual rather it is a collective
phenomenon where the whole caste
get higher status .
• However, it doesn’t mean individual
mobility is absent here. According to
Dumont, Hinduism allows for
individual mobility provided one
becomes sanyasi.
• In open system, upward mobility • When a group rises in ranks within a
does not mean that somebody else closed system, it must necessarily
would be displaced or must lose displace the superior position of
status. some other group. E.g. When a
Harijan claims to belong to a
Brahmin caste, Brahmins undergo
status diminution. Murray Milner
said Status hierarchies are zero
sum.
• Such movements take place with • In such cases, ideological wars have
relative ease because the movement to be waged by the social groups in
is at the level of individual who is not their bid for upward mobility. E.g.
marked by difference but positioned Gender creates only differences, but
according to quantifiable attribute. if it is hierarchized by patriarchal
structures, ideological war in the
name of feminism is the only
solution. Similarly, Caste creates
difference only, but if it is
hierarchized by brahmanical
structures, ideological war in the
name of anti-brahminic movement
has to be legitimized
• Draws sustenance from quantitative • Draws sustenance from Qualitative
hierarchies. differences.
D. Gupta: Marx was champion of differences and Weber of hierarchy in study of class,
status and party. Bourg is diff from proletariat because the contradictions are
irreconciliable and can’t be placed on a graded hierarchical scale. How come? At first sight
it seems they are classes so they can be hierarchized but remember one is owner of means
of production and hence a class, second is owner of labor, and hence another class. They
can’t be hierarchized. They are completely different that way.
Similarities between both open and closed

Open and closed systems are not always discrete categories and may intertwine. In every
open system, there is a point beyond which mobility is made extremely difficult. E.g. Glass
study of 1952, Goldthorpe study of Affluent workers (1963) –You will find these caste
studies in the next page. Similarly closed systems have also witnessed tremendous
dynamism. Dominating forces of modernization and industrialization brought not only
machines, but changed relations between people. E.g. Village economy opened up to forces
of Globalization, and people migrated to urban areas by getting free from economic bondage
to rural oligarchs, and Andre Beteille’s Sripuram study.
SOCIAL MOBILITY
Changes in social position with regard to variations in occupations, prestige, income,
wealth, power and social class are referred to as Social mobility. Social mobility is a good
indicator of lifechances for the individual.
On mobility Sorokin was the first sociologist who wrote a book “Social and Cultural
Mobility”. He was of the opinion that there is no society which is closed (Caste System in
India) and no society which is completely open (Class System). He further contended that
no two societies are exactly same in the amount of movement allowed or discouraged.
Further the speed of movement or change may differ from one period of time to another.
The rate of change depends upon the level of modernization of a given society.
Factors affecting social mobility (Sources of Social mobility)

The rate of mobility in modern societies is determined by structural factors i.e. those factors
which determine social mobility of group or individual due to structural changes, for
example, economic boom or depression; and Second individual factors includes individual
skills and traits that determined which people get the positions.
1. Motivation: Each individual has a desire not only to have a better way of living but
also wants to improve upon his social stand. In open system it is possible to achieve
any status. This openness motivates people to work hard and improve upon the
skills so that one can attain higher social status. Without such motivation and
efforts on the part of the individual social mobility is impossible.
2. Education: Education facilitates upward mobility, whereas lack of education can
lead to downward mobility. To become a doctor one has to have education in science
subjects. Similarly, to appear in a competitive examination of I.A.S., one has to be at
least graduate. It is only after acquiring minimum formal education that individual
can aspire to occupy higher positions. It is through education that in modern India
the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not only able to change
their traditional occupation but have also started occupying jobs of higher prestige.
In the modern industrial society in which statuses can be achieved, education is
basic requirement.
3. Skills and Training: Each society makes provision to impart skill and training to
the younger generation. To acquire skill and training one has to spend a lot of time
as well as money. Why these persons spend money and time? The reason being that
society gives incentives to such persons. When they complete their training, they are
entitled to high positions, which are far better than those positions which they might
have taken without such training. Society not only assigns higher social status but
also gives higher economic rewards and other privileges to those persons who have
these training. Keeping in view these incentives people undergo these training with a
hope to move up in the social ladder. In other words, skills and training facilitate in
improvement of the position, this leading to social mobility.
4. Migration People migrate from one place to another either due to pull or push
factors. A particular place may not have opportunities and facilities to improve
upon. Hence, people are forced to migrate to other places to earn their livelihood. At
new places, where they migrate, may have different openings and opportunities.
These persons avail of these opportunities and improve upon their social position.
We can take the example of people belonging to the Scheduled Castes of Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar, who migrate to the States of Punjab and Haryana to earn their
livelihood. Here they become farm labourers. Similar is the situation with regard to
Asians who migrate to various European countries and the United State of America.
5. Industrialization: Industrial Revolution ushered in a new social system in which
people are given status according to their ability and training. No importance was
given to their caste, race, religion and ethnicity. Industrialization, resulted in mass
production at cheaper rate. This forced the artisans out of their work. In search of
jobs they migrated to industrial towns. They acquired new vocational training and
got jobs in industries. With experience and training they moved up in the social
ladder. In the industrial society, the statuses are achieved, whereas in the
traditional society like India, the statuses are ascribed according to birth. Hence
industrialization facilitates greater social mobility.
6. Urbanization: Urban settlements offer lots of work and educational facilities to
people keeping aside their ascribed status .
7. Legislation: Enactment of new laws also facilitate social mobility. Legislations like
right to education to all, property rights to women resulting in social mobility. When
Zamindari Abolition Act was passed, most of the tenant cultivators became owner
cultivators which indicate improvement in their status .Reservation with regard to
admission in professional colleges, job reservation and promotions have a large
number of individuals from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to improve
upon their status.
8. Development: facilitates or hinders social mobility. The less developed and
traditional societies continue with old system of stratification and
with accretive statuses.
9. Modernization facilitates social mobility: With the improvement in technology,
people engaged in occupations of low prestige like scavengers discard their
traditional occupations and take up occupations which are not dirty and have no
polluting effects. In this way, they change their position upward. Notion of purity
and pollution rejected (ritual hierarchy) and acceptance of secular lifestyle (secular
hierarchy). With coming of Industrial capitalism, the link between caste and
occupation broken, and Jajmani system withered away. Similarly, the level of
development of a country also facilitates or hinders social mobility. The less
developed and traditional societies continue with old system of stratification and
with accretive statuses. The nations which do not have avenues for social mobility
also suffer from stagnation and lack of development (Refer Global Social Mobility
Index). Whereas the developed and modern societies paved the way for greater
opportunities and competition, it is only in the developed countries that there is a
greater possibility of achieved statuses. In other words, modernization facilitates
social mobility.
Anthony Giddens: When the rate of social mobillity is high, class solidarity and cohesion
will be low
TYPES OF SOCIAL MOBILITY

Horizontal Mobility
According to Sorokin, “Horizontal mobility refers to territorial, religious, political party,

family, occupational and other horizontal shifting without any noticeable change in vertical
position.”
• Interreligious Mobility
• Interstate mobility
• Interoccupational Mobility (occupation of same prestige, wealth): Certain
occupations like Doctor, Engineer, and Professor may enjoy the same status but
when an engineer changes his occupation from engineer to teaching engineering, he
has horizontally moved from one occupational category to another. But no change
has taken place in the system of social stratification.
VERTICAL MOBILITY
There are two types of

vertical social mobility:
ascending and descending
or social climbing and social
sinking (Sorokin)
• There has scarcely

been any society whose strata
were absolutely closed or in
which vertical mobility, in its
three forms: economic,
political and occupational,
was not present. e.g. a person
belonging to a lower caste and
occupying a lower position after winning elections becomes a Minister and occupies
a higher position. He may not be able to change his caste but with his economic and
political power he may move upward. For example, Yadavs in India stand as a
testimony to this fact. Under the traditional Indian system, if a lady of higher
Brahmin caste married a man of Shudra caste, not only the man and woman were
out casted but their children were declared as ‘chandals.’
• Proletarianization (Refer Raymond Aron in Marx’s notes)
• Embourgeouisment (Refer Clark Kerr in Marx’s notes)
• There has never existed a society in which vertical social mobility has been
absolutely free and the transition from one special stratum to another has had no
resistance (Refer Case studies in Social mobility mentioned below)
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CAN BE COMBINED AS WELL: If someone working in a
company in one city gets to a higher position in a branch of the firm located in another
town, this is an example of both horizontal and vertical.
INTERGENERATIONAL vs INTRAGENERATIONAL (lipset & Bendix)
• Intergenerational: mobility between generations.

• Intrageneraitonal: mobility within a person’s lifetime
RELATIVE vs ABSOLUTE MOBILITY
• Absolute: When population or individual moves up or down in an absolute fashion.

E.g. 2010- Income (30000), 2021-Income (300000). Absolute upward mobility.
• Relative: When individual move up or down compared relatively E.g. You achieved
absolute upward in comparison to your own position 10 years back, but your friend
has made more than double relatively.
STRUCTURAL vs INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY
• Structural mobility :Structural mobility refers to mobility that is brought about by

structural changes and not because of individual attempts. For example, with
invention of computers, people went from blue collar to white collar jobs,
Demonetization, Pandemic. An influx of immigrants may also alter class alignments
-especially if the new arrivals are disproportionately highly skilled or unskilled.
• Individual mobility :Individual mobility is a micro view of social mobility. Individual
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, level of education, skills,
determination, occupation, place of residence and health determine individual
mobility. Opportunity for individual mobility can be restricted by several factors. For
example women, certain ethnic groups or disabled person, opportunities for upward
mobility are limited.
Long Range vs Short Range
• Long Range Social mobility: movement from bottom strata to the top. E.g.
Lower working class to upper middle class.
• Short Range social mobility: movement between strata that are close together . E.g.
from lower working class to upper working class.
SPONSORED vs CONTESTED (RH TURNER)
Case Studies on Social mobility

To evaluate degree of openness of modern societies of west diff mobility studies are
conducted by sociologists and sm sociologists take into consideration occupational prestige
and others take into consideration income from occupation.
GLASS
• First study on mobility,

• Survey in 1949 on 4000 males to study mobility among them.
• They were asked their class origin, their first job and their present job- to see if any
mobility existed.
• Glass found that Britain was pretty closed with little mobility mostly from manual
occupations into a semi manual buffer zone.
GOLDTHORPE –AFFLUENT WORKERS 1963
• Manual workers of assembly line had earned highw ages for jobs.
• Their increasing affluence made newsheadlines ‘We are middle class now’.
• But Goldthorpe claimed they were highly paid, but were not really middle class in
attitude, values, morals, behavior because they had no bank accounts, no political
knowledge, no job security, paid weekly instead of monthly.
• Only 2/80 were accepted as middle class by other middle class groups. Others
had become new middle class- who had their private home and wealth but did
not possess middle class outlook, norms, etiquettes, and attitude.
• Hence everybody had absolute moblity, but only 2 had relatively upward.
Lockwood- BLACK COATED WORKER
• While some groups appeared to be showing signs of upwards mobility, others were
moving down the class system. It was Black coated workers.
• 1958, Clerical workers used to wear Black coat and saw themselves as middle class
and apart of management( not part of workers). Clerical work was seen as high
status job.
• They had never unionized because they considered themselves part of management
only.
• But when educational qualifications became important, and management trainees
were introduced, clerk had become less important.
• They saw downward mobility as their pay and working conditions were not
protected.
Goldthorpe noticed that black-coated workers experienced downward
mobility,poverty,marginalisation, & affluent workers experienced upward mobility. So
mobility took place in both the directions explaining british society as open society.
OXFORD STUDY :Goldthorpe and Lockwood 1972
10000 males researched using Hope Goldthorpe Scale in England and Wales to test social
mobiility .
Findings
• Goldthorpe found High Absolute Mobility(total number going upwards) with growth
of service sector,better pay and lifechances. Now Working class had better chance of
moving upwards.
• Relative Mobility remain unchanged: those born higher up the social scale had
better chances of achieving higher class positions.
• The odds were still weighed more in favor of those from higher classes and so
equality of opportunity had not been achieved.
• Britain is highly closed
SCOTTISH MOBILITY STUDY by PAYNE: Payne had accused Goldthorpe of offering an
exceptionally gloomy picture of Britain. The Scottish Mobility Study by Payne placed more
emphasis on mobility between occupations rather than between classes. This investigation
resulted in even higher estimates of absolute mobility rates.. According to Payne, British
society is less, ‘closed’ and static than Goldthorpe believes.
Lipset and Bendix analyzed data from 9 industrialized societies-Bitain, France, Germany,
Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Italy and USA to see mobility of men from blue collar to white
collar work. They found no evidence to suggest US more open than European societies.Total
mobility across BCWC line was 30 % in US, and other societies had a range of 28-31.
Hence, all Industrialized societies experienced similar changes in their occupational
structure which led to upward mobility.
IHDS Survey on Social Mobility: In the Indian case, several studies have shown that
intergenerational mobility is weaker for individuals from disadvantaged groups such as
backward castes and tribes (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (SC, ST, and OBC, respectively)), from religious minorities, and for individuals
based in rural areas.
Dalits or Scheduled Castes

(SCs) and especially Adivasis or
Scheduled Tribes (STs) are the
most disadvantaged social
groups in India. Combined with
their high rates of poverty, very
low rates of social mobility
LEVELUP IAS, Shop No 6, 3rd

Ph: +91-
prevail among these social groups.
For instance, we find that among forward castes, 7.1% of labourers’ sons become
professionals, and 43.1% of labourers’ sons remain labourers (Refer Figure). In contrast,
among Other Backward Classes (OBCs), 5.1% of labourers’ sons become professionals,
while 52.6% of labourers’ sons remained labourers. Among SCs, however, only 3.3% of
labourers’ sons become professionals, while a staggering 68.4% of labourers’ sons remained
labourers2. Similarly, among STs, only 2.5% of labourers’ sons become professionals, while
67.5% of labourers’ sons remain labourers. Significant barriers to social and occupational
mobility still persist in India’s most disadvantaged social groups in spite of long-standing
affirmative action programmes and intense political mobilisation of these groups since
independence.
Theories on Social mobility:

• Functionalist theory Peter Saunders- claimed that UK is a meritocratic society and
the inequality that we see is the result of differences in effort and intelligence. Class
destinationss reflect individual merit much more than class background.
• Neo-Marxst theory Social mobility is a myth- class society is reproduces and we
stay in either the Bourgeousie or proletariat.
• Rational Action theory (Weberian) Goldthorpe argues that people are rational
actors who calculate the relative costs and benefits of social mobility. Rates of
absolute and relative mobility can be explained by this. E.g. a working class family
may see the achievement of a service sector job for their children as success
whereas a middle class family will view it as failure.
MOBILITY IN CASTE
Generally caste in India and open mobile class structures of America are presented as two
contrasting systems of stratification. Though caste is prime example of closed form of
ascriptive based stratification, it is not as if no mobility had ever taken place in Indian
history, but whenever it happened it faced opposition from powerful castes.
MN Srinivas: Varna model of caste presents ritual hierarchy as permanent and static
feature of Indian society, but the Jati model of caste varies locally.
The important channels of social mobility that we find in Indian society are
a) Sanskritisation: whenever a caste achieved secular power, it tried to legitimize its

status by acquiring traditional symbols of high castes by adopting their customs,
rituals, sought services of Brahmins, visited pilgrimage centres, acquired knowledge
of sacred texts, adopted vegetarianism. E.g. Koch caste of Bengal procured symbolic
respectability. Whenever a caste achieved secular power, it tried to legitimize its
status by acquiring traditional symbols of high castes by adopting their customs,
rituals, sought services of Brahmins, visited pilgrimage centres, acquired knowledge
of sacred texts, adopted vegetarianism. Reddy from Andhra, Nayyar from Kerala and
Marathas, Yadavas seized political power and claimed kshatriya status. These are
examples of Kshatriyaization and upward mobility. Originally Marathas were
shudras, who proclaimed themselves as kshatriya. Similarly Kunbis, Kammas,
Reddis, and Jats were Shudra peasants who proclaimed themselves as Vaishya or
Kshatriya through Vaishyaization or Kshatriyaization.
b) Desanskritization/de-ritualization – DN Mazumdar: observed that higher castes
imitating practices of lower castes and dropping several rituals. Rajasthan study by
Shyam Lal argues original Brahmins, Thakur, Rajputs, Punjabi Khatris, Sunars,
Sindhis all of them converted to Dalit castes. 1930 Self respect movement refused
the role of Brahmin priest in their marriage ceremonies and rejected Sanskritization
process. The process of De-sanskritisation is very much in fashion nowadays in
contemporary India due to its advantages. For instance, increasing trends have been
experienced where people from different social groups have projected themselves as
Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes as recognized by the
Indian Government to accrue the related benefits likewise the Gujjars in Rajasthan
and the Jats of North Western parts of India developed agitations to claim the status
to include their groups in the list of Backward classes by the Indian Government.
c) Census : also a source of mobility. In one census, caste claimed to by Vaishya, in
the next census they laid claims to Brahmins or Kshatriya. They emulated the
lifestyle of respective castes to legitimize their proclamation.
d) Westernization Changes brought about in Indian culture as a result of 150 years of
British rule. Changes like technological institutional, ideological and hence had a
bearing upon caste mobility also.
• Land became a salebale commodity: low caste who could afford land got upward
mobility, and upper caste who lost their rights to land suffered downward mobility.
• Meritocracy: School, college, army, bureaucracy, business enterprise provided
ample opportunities and sources of mobility. E.g. Noniyas of Western UP and Kolis
of Surat coast benefitted from new employment opportunities resulting from railway
and canal construction. The Telis all over Odisha became wealthy on account of
larger market and trade for oil.
• Legal system: Before Britishers, the traditional law punishment varied according to
the caste of the person committing the offence, while the British laws treated
everyone equally. Caste disabilities removal act and abolition of slavery were great
leap forward towards upliftment of lower castes. Also adoption of positive
discrimination has improved beneficial for lower rung. Principle of Universal adult
franchise, adoption of Panchayati raj have altered distribution of power
• Liberal reformers like rammohan roy, saraswati, KC sen and vivekanada got the
evil practices like sati,child marriage, human sacrifice abolished. They did this by
infusing elements of rationality and modernity into hindu religion.Ambedkar and
Gandhi helped in abolition of untouchability.
(e) Conversion to other religions like Islam, Christianity or to Buddhism, Jainism or other
heterodox sects
(f) Secularization: Traditionally, education as monopoly of Brahmins and twice born

castes. with increasing emphasis on rationality and moern education, the notion of purity
and pollution weakened and today it Is common to see ppl of different castes work together
in factories and even dine together in restaurants.
(g) Migration & urbanization: After Industrialization, place of residence and food habits are
influenced more by individual’s workplace and occupation than by his or her caste or
religion. Also, a person who might be a Brahmin by caste may work in a shoe factory.
(h) Renouncing the world and taking to the life of mendicant, i.e., becoming a Sanyasi or a
Preacher.
In Conclusion, no Society is absolutely open, no Society is absolutely losed. It is a

matter of Degree, not of Kind.
Thank You !

Social Stratification and Mobility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Stratification and Mobility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.

STRATIFICATION AND MOBILITY

Similarly, in the classic novel Animal Farm, George Orwell

Both the classic books

Social Stratification is the

Why should we study

• Life chances: refer to opportunities, advantages or disadvantages people may have

(b)THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

• Argue that stratification or inequality in society is based on meritocracy. Stratifying

Overall, stratification is both inevitable and functional for society.

DAVIS AND MOORE

Which positions are important? Importance can be measured in two ways;

In 1953, Malvin came up with

• How can we measure the

• According to Davis & Moore the major function of unequal reward is to

• There is no objective way to measure functional importance of positions. Whether

• Weber noted that owning

Weber formed an Ideal Type of Class:

• The propertied upper class:

• Class forms only one basis of power/ collective action.

• They socialize with one another

Probability to exercise one’s will even against the resistance of others.

Class versus Status Group

Relationship between Wealth, prestige, and

Weber stated that wealth, prestige, and power

Sociologists often use the term Socioeconomic

Marxist Theory Weberian Theory

Anthony Giddens: Globalization as a complex multidimensional process involving

a)Concepts- Equality, Inequality, Hierarchy, Exclusion,

ROUSSEAU in book ‘Discourse on Inequality’

• natural or physical inequality referring to

Unlike biologically created inequality, socially

In real situations, pure hierarchy or equality does not

• Concept of natural inequality is artificially

BR Ambedkar: the fundamental principle of the caste system is graded inequality. It

The process of graded inequality involves:

• fixity of occupations according to hierarchy;

P.H.Collins describe Intersectionality as particular forms of intersecting oppressions, for

DISCRETE CASTES and Muddled Hierarchies( Based on article written by Dipankar

Types of Social exclusion :

• Exclusion from adequate income : BPL, EWS, INFORMAL (poverty), women

F. Parkin: Social closure is a “process of subordination whereby one group monopolizes

Murphy: We socially close our professions. Since it is socially acceptable to exclude an

POVERTY & DEPRIVATION

There are two types of poverty identified:

Absolute Poverty – Absolute poverty refers to the inability of a person or a household to

Relative Deprivation/Poverty – Poverty according to this concept is to be measured

The poverty and deprivation have various socio-economic consequences:

Solution to fight deprivation, exclusion, poverty

(c) Dimensions- Social Stratification of Class, Status Groups,

• Objective method: measure and analyses hard facts

Weber: defined class in terms of market situation/life chance.

Eric Olin Wright: believed that Bourgeoisie and

• Capitalists: business owners who employ many workers

Franc Parkin: defined class on the basis of strategy

Closure is ubiquitous, being found in

USURPATIONARY SOCIAL CLOSURE:

Anthony Giddens- major classes in advanced capitalist society

• upper class- based on ownership of mop

G. Schmoller: Classes are occupational groups created by DOL and maintained by

NEW MIDDLE CLASS

Features of New Middle class: