CHAPTER 5 STRATIFICATION AND MOBILITY

A) CONCEPTS- EQUALITY, INEQUALITY, HIERARCHY, EXCLUSION, POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION

How do sociologists construct gender in their analysis on

social inequality?

Sociologists construct gender in their analysis on social

inequality through several theories and concepts:

1. Social Constructionism: This theory proposes that

everything people “know” or see as “reality” is
partially, if not entirely, socially situated1. Gender is
seen as a social identity that needs to be contextualized.
Individuals internalize social expectations for gender
norms and behave accordingly1.
2. Gender Performativity: This concept, created by
feminist philosopher Judith Butler, describes how
individuals participate in social constructions of
gender1. It suggests that there is no inherent truth to
gender; it is constructed by social expectations and
gender performance1.
3. Functionalist Perspective: This perspective suggests
that gender roles exist to maximize social efficiency2. It
sees society as a complex system whose parts work
together to promote solidarity and stability2. This theory
suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient
way to create a division of labor2.
4. Intersectionality: This concept suggests that various
biological, social, and cultural categories– including
gender, race, class, and ethnicity — interact and
contribute towards systematic social inequality2.

These theories and concepts help sociologists understand the

complexities of gender and its impact on social inequality.
How are Hierarchy and Exclusion the major impediments in
the transformation of societies? Discuss.

Hierarchy and exclusion are major impediments in the

transformation of societies. Here’s how:

Hierarchy: A class system is hierarchical, with the capitalists

and the rich occupying the top position and the workers and
the poor at the bottom1. Power, authority, and control of
resources are organized hierarchically1. The higher an
individual’s position in the hierarchy, the greater their power
and control of resources1. This differentiation can lead to
unequal opportunities and rewards1. Modern democratic
societies strive for equality of opportunity and reject status-
based hierarchy1.

Exclusion: Social exclusion is systematic and a result of

structural hierarchical features of society1. It is practiced
regardless of the wishes of those who are excluded1. For
example, upper caste Hindu communities have often denied
entry into temples for lower castes and especially Dalits1. After
decades of such treatment, Dalits may build their own temples
or convert to another religion1. This does not mean that social
exclusion is not being practiced1.

These impediments can be linked to various aspects of society:

 Social: Lack of community support, social norms, and

group conformity can hinder transformation2.
 Cultural: Tradition, culture, customs, religion can act
as barriers to change2.
 Economic: Lack of property rights, corruption, fiscal
infrastructure can impede progress2.
 Political: Ideology, values can also be obstacles to
societal transformation2.

For societal transformation to occur, measures need to be taken

to overcome these impediments.
What is the difference between natural and social inequality?
Give examples from caste and class dimensions.

Natural inequality is defined as inequality for which society

is not responsible under previous actions and policies1. It refers
to differences in physical conditions such as a person’s
physical appearance1. For example, natural things that are not
evenly distributed, such as minerals, and wildlife1. This
implies that natural inequality is a consequence of how the
world was formed rather than human actions1.

On the other hand, social inequality involves a situation in

which the distribution of resources within society is uneven1.
It’s the fact that some individuals have access to social goods
in a given community as compared to others due to their
power, religion, family ties, and reputation1. For example,
women are not given the same opportunities as males, such as
becoming national leaders and holding high offices in
government or business1. Another example is the treatment of
people based on race1.

In terms of caste and class dimensions, social inequality is

quite evident. For instance, in India, caste groups like Jaats,
Maratha, Patel’s are demanding reservations but this demand
is opposed by caste groups already claiming the benefits of
reservations2. Such clash of interest due to perceived
inequality tends to produce violent conflicts between opposing
caste groups2.

In terms of class, a class system is hierarchical, with the

capitalists and the rich occupying the top position and the
workers and the poor at the bottom3. Power, authority, and
control of resources are organized hierarchically3. The higher
an individual’s position in the hierarchy, the greater their
power and control of resources3. This differentiation can lead
to unequal opportunities and rewards3.
Discuss the relationship between poverty and social exclusion.

The relationship between poverty and social exclusion is

reciprocal1. Poverty can be seen as a result of social exclusion,
or exclusion can be viewed as a vulnerability factor leading to
poverty1. In other words, social exclusion deprives people of
choices and opportunities to escape from poverty and denies
them a voice to claim their rights2. This often leads to a cycle
where poverty causes exclusion from participation, which in
turn leads to further poverty3.

For example, individuals who are socially excluded often have

limited access to resources and opportunities, which can lead
to poverty1. On the other hand, individuals living in poverty
may be more vulnerable to social exclusion due to factors such
as stigma and discrimination1.

Therefore, addressing both poverty and social exclusion is

crucial for promoting social equality and justice1.
Can we equate 'poverty' with 'poor living'? Elaborate your
answer.

While ‘poverty’ and ‘poor living’ are related, they are not
exactly the same.

Poverty is a state of deprivation, lacking the usual or socially

acceptable amount of money or material possessions1. It is
often associated with a lack of basic human needs such as
food, water, and shelter2. Poverty can be measured in terms of
the number of people living below this line (with the incidence
of poverty expressed as the head count ratio (HCR) or the
poverty ratio - number of poor to the total population
expressed as percentage)1.

On the other hand, poor living refers to a state where an

individual lacks sufficient money to live at a standard
considered comfortable or normal in a society3. It’s more about
the quality of life and less about survival. For instance, a
person might have enough to meet their basic needs but still
may not have access to certain comforts or luxuries that are
considered normal in their society3.

In essence, while all people living in poverty experience poor

living conditions, not all people living poorly are necessarily in
poverty. The distinction lies in the degree of deprivation.
Distinguish between people being socially excluded and
people excluding themselves socially societies

Social exclusion and self-exclusion are two different concepts:

Social Exclusion: This refers to the process where certain

individuals or groups are systematically blocked from rights,
opportunities, and resources that are normally available to
members of society1. This can be due to factors such as laws,
education, etc2. For example, a person might be excluded from
social activities due to their race, religion, or socioeconomic
status1.

Self-Exclusion: On the other hand, self-exclusion is when

individuals choose to isolate themselves from social
interactions2. This could be due to personal preferences,
mental health issues, or other personal circumstances 2. For
instance, a person might choose to isolate themselves to get
some alone time2.

In essence, social exclusion is typically involuntary and

imposed by others or societal structures, while self-exclusion
is a personal choice2.
What is affirmative action? Substantiate theoretical positions on
affirmative actions with examples.

Affirmative action is a policy or program providing advantages for

people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been
discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian
society through preferential access to education, employment,
healthcare, social welfare, etc12. It is based on the principle of redress;
that undeserved inequalities call for rectification3.

Theoretical positions on affirmative action can be substantiated as

follows:

1. Equality and Justice: Affirmative action is seen as a tool to

promote equality and justice. It aims to correct past injustices
and create a more equal society through various methods, such
as quotas, targeted advertising, and specific training4.
2. Proactive Approach: Affirmative action differs from equal
opportunity in being proactive. Equal opportunity is a passive
policy that seeks to ensure that discrimination will not be
tolerated once it is detected. In contrast, with affirmative
action, organizations use established practices not only to
subvert but also to avert discrimination5.
3. Addressing Systematic Inequalities: Advocates of affirmative
action argue that given the existing inequalities and stereotypes
in our society, such policies are necessary to create
opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups6.

Examples of affirmative action include:

 Quota Systems: Some countries use a quota system,

whereby a certain percentage of government jobs,
political positions, and school vacancies must be
reserved for members of a certain group; an example of
this is the reservation system in India7.
 College Admissions: Many colleges reserve a certain
percentage of placements for marginalized and
disadvantaged groups4.
 Targeted Promotions: Many corporations look at their
employee profiles and see that there is an
overrepresentation of advantaged social groups within
their managerial group. As a result, they may only open
up internal promotions for people from disadvantaged
social groups, such as women or racial minorities4.
 Outreach Campaigns: Outreach campaigns, targeted
recruitment, employee and management development,
and employee support programs are examples of
affirmative action in employment8.
B) THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION- STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALIST THEORY, MARXIST THEORY,
WEBERIAN THEORY.
Compare and contrast the contributions of Marx and Weber on
social stratification in capitalist society.
Karl Marx and Max Weber, two prominent sociologists, have made
significant contributions to the understanding of social stratification in
capitalist society. While both scholars have analyzed the topic, they have
approached it from different perspectives.

Marx’s analysis of social stratification is rooted in his theory of historical

materialism. According to Marx, social stratification is primarily determined
by the economic structure of society, which he refers to as the “base.” The
base includes the means of production and the relations of production. Marx
argues that the capitalist mode of production creates a class-based society
characterized by two main classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of
production) and the proletariat (workers who do not own the means of
production). The bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat by extracting surplus
value from their labor. Marx’s focus on class struggle and economic
inequality highlights the exploitative nature of capitalism1.

Weber, on the other hand, presents a more nuanced analysis of social

stratification. He emphasizes that social stratification is not solely
determined by economic factors but also by other dimensions such as
status and power. Weber identifies three distinct dimensions of social
stratification: class, status, and party. Class refers to an individual’s
economic position based on their market situation. Status relates to an
individual’s social honor or prestige, which can be influenced by
factors such as occupation or education. Party refers to an individual’s
political power or influence2. Unlike Marx, Weber recognizes that
individuals can occupy different positions within each dimension of
stratification.

While Marx focuses primarily on economic inequality and

class struggle, Weber’s analysis incorporates multiple
dimensions of stratification. Weber acknowledges that
economic factors play a significant role in shaping social
inequality but also recognizes the importance of status and
power dynamics2. Both scholars provide valuable insights into
understanding social stratification in capitalist society, but
their approaches differ in terms of emphasis and scope.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Marx and Weber’s contributions to social stratification in
capitalist society. For a more comprehensive understanding, I
recommend referring to scholarly sources for an in-depth
analysis13245.
Evaluate if social stratification is functional for society.

Social stratification refers to the division of society into

different hierarchical layers based on various factors such as
wealth, occupation, and social status. The functionalist
perspective, developed by sociologists such as Emile
Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, argues that social stratification
is functional for society. According to this perspective, social
stratification serves several important functions:

1. Social Order: Social stratification provides a framework for

maintaining social order and stability. By dividing individuals
into different social positions, it establishes a clear structure
and hierarchy within society. This structure helps to regulate
behavior and maintain social cohesion.
2. Motivation and Incentives: Social stratification creates a
system of rewards and incentives that motivate individuals to
work hard and contribute to society. The promise of upward
mobility encourages individuals to strive for success and
achieve their full potential.
3. Specialization and Efficiency: Social stratification allows for
the division of labor and specialization. Different social
positions require different skills and expertise, leading to
increased efficiency in the production of goods and services.
This specialization contributes to economic growth and
development.
4. Social Mobility: While social stratification can be seen as a
source of inequality, it also provides opportunities for social
mobility. Individuals can move up or down the social ladder
based on their abilities, achievements, and efforts. This
mobility allows for the allocation of resources to those who are
most capable of utilizing them effectively.
5. Social Integration: Social stratification facilitates social
integration by providing individuals with a sense of identity
and belonging. It creates social groups and communities based
on shared interests, values, and aspirations. These groups
contribute to the overall cohesion of society.

However, it is important to note that the functionalist

perspective has been criticized for overlooking the negative
consequences of social stratification, such as inequality and
social injustice . Other sociological perspectives, such as
conflict theory and symbolic interactionism, offer alternative
explanations and critiques of social stratification.

In conclusion, the functionalist perspective argues that social

stratification is functional for society as it provides structure,
motivation, specialization, mobility, and integration. However,
it is essential to consider multiple perspectives when
evaluating the impact of social stratification on society .
What is Weberian critique of Marxist notion of social
stratification?
Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, offered a critique of the Marxist notion of
social stratification. While Marx focused primarily on economic factors and class
struggle, Weber argued that social stratification is more complex and cannot be
solely explained by economic determinism12345.

Weber criticized Marx’s view that social stratification is solely determined by the
economic structure of society. According to Weber, social stratification is influenced
by multiple dimensions, including class, status, and party2. While Marx emphasized
the role of economic factors and class conflict in shaping social inequality, Weber
recognized the importance of other factors such as social status and political power.

Weber’s critique can be summarized as follows:

1. Multidimensionality: Weber argued that social stratification is not solely

determined by economic factors but also by other dimensions such as status
and power2. He believed that individuals can occupy different positions
within each dimension of stratification, leading to a more nuanced
understanding of social inequality.
2. Status: Unlike Marx, who focused primarily on economic class, Weber
emphasized the significance of social status in shaping social stratification 3.
Status refers to an individual’s social honor or prestige, which can be
influenced by factors such as occupation or education. According to Weber,
status can have a significant impact on an individual’s life chances and
opportunities.
3. Power: Weber also highlighted the role of political power in shaping social
stratification4. Power refers to an individual’s ability to influence others and
make decisions that affect society. According to Weber, those who possess
political power can use it to maintain or challenge existing social
hierarchies.
4. Methodological Individualism: Weber emphasized the importance of
understanding social stratification from the perspective of individual
actors5. He believed that individuals’ actions and choices play a crucial role
in shaping social inequality. This approach contrasts with Marx’s focus on
structural forces and class conflict.

Weber’s critique of the Marxist notion of social stratification provides a more

comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in social inequality. By
considering multiple dimensions such as class, status, and power, Weber’s analysis
offers valuable insights into the dynamics of stratification in capitalist societies.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of Weber’s critique of the
Marxist notion of social stratification. For a more comprehensive understanding, I
recommend referring to scholarly sources for an in-depth analysis12345.
Elucidate the basic premises of Davis' structural-functional
theory of social stratification. How far is it relevant in
understanding contemporary Indian society?

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore’s structural-functional theory of social

stratification, also known as the Davis-Moore thesis, argues that social
stratification is functional for society. According to this theory, social
inequality is necessary to ensure that the most important positions in society
are filled by the most qualified individuals. The theory posits that social
stratification represents the inherently unequal value of different work 12345.

The basic premises of the Davis-Moore thesis are:

1. Inevitability: Social stratification is inevitable and necessary for

society to function effectively. Different positions in society require
different levels of skill and training, and individuals must be
motivated to fill these positions.
2. Meritocracy: Social stratification is based on meritocracy, meaning
that individuals are rewarded based on their abilities and
achievements. The most important positions in society require the
most qualified individuals, and these individuals should be rewarded
accordingly.
3. Functionalism: Social stratification is functional for society as it
ensures that the most important positions are filled by the most
qualified individuals. This system of rewards and incentives
motivates individuals to work hard and contribute to society.
4. Social Mobility: Social stratification allows for social mobility,
meaning that individuals can move up or down the social ladder
based on their abilities and achievements. This mobility ensures that
the most qualified individuals occupy the most important positions in
society.

The relevance of the Davis-Moore thesis in understanding

contemporary Indian society is a matter of debate among
sociologists. While some scholars argue that the theory
provides valuable insights into the dynamics of social
inequality in India, others criticize it for overlooking the
negative consequences of social stratification such as
inequality and social injustice. It is essential to consider
multiple perspectives when evaluating the impact of social
stratification on contemporary Indian society.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Davis’ structural-functional theory of social stratification. For
a more comprehensive understanding, I recommend referring
to scholarly sources for an in-depth analysis12345.
Differentiate between Marxian and Weberian theories of
Social Stratification?

Karl Marx and Max Weber, two prominent sociologists, have

made significant contributions to the understanding of social
stratification. While both scholars have analyzed the topic,
they have approached it from different perspectives12345.

Marx’s theory of social stratification is rooted in his theory of

historical materialism. According to Marx, social stratification
is primarily determined by the economic structure of society,
which he refers to as the “base.” The base includes the means
of production and the relations of production. Marx argues that
the capitalist mode of production creates a class-based society
characterized by two main classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of
the means of production) and the proletariat (workers who do
not own the means of production). The bourgeoisie exploits
the proletariat by extracting surplus value from their labor.
Marx’s focus on class struggle and economic inequality
highlights the exploitative nature of capitalism14.

Weber, on the other hand, presents a more nuanced analysis of

social stratification. He emphasizes that social stratification is
not solely determined by economic factors but also by other
dimensions such as status and power. Weber identifies three
distinct dimensions of social stratification: class, status, and
party. Class refers to an individual’s economic position based
on their market situation. Status relates to an individual’s
social honor or prestige, which can be influenced by factors
such as occupation or education. Party refers to an individual’s
political power or influence3. Unlike Marx, Weber recognizes
that individuals can occupy different positions within each
dimension of stratification.

In summary, Marx’s theory focuses primarily on economic

inequality and class struggle, while Weber’s analysis
incorporates multiple dimensions of stratification such as class,
status, and power12345. Both scholars provide valuable insights
into understanding social stratification, but their approaches
differ in terms of emphasis and scope.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Marxian and Weberian theories of social stratification. For a
more comprehensive understanding, I recommend referring to
scholarly sources for an in-depth analysis12345.
Critically examine the functionalist tradition in Sociology.

The functionalist perspective, also known as functionalism, is

a sociological paradigm that emerged in the early 20th century.
It views society as a complex system composed of
interconnected structures and social patterns that work together
to maintain social order and stability12345.

According to functionalism, social institutions such as the

economy, education, family, religion, and media perform
essential functions in society. These institutions contribute to
the overall functioning and well-being of society by fulfilling
specific needs and roles13. For example, the economy provides
goods and services, education imparts knowledge and skills,
the family nurtures and socializes individuals, religion offers
moral guidance, and the media disseminates information.

The main ideas of the functionalist perspective are:

1. Social Structure: Functionalists argue that society has a

social structure that exists independently of individuals.
This structure consists of norms, values, roles, and
institutions that shape individual behavior and
interactions1.
2. Interconnectedness: Functionalists emphasize the
interconnectedness of social structures and institutions.
They view society as analogous to a biological
organism, where different parts (institutions) work
together to maintain the overall functioning of the
system12.
3. Functional Requirements: Functionalism posits that
social institutions meet specific functional requirements
necessary for society’s survival and stability. Each
institution performs specific functions that contribute to
the overall well-being of society13.
4. Social Order: Functionalists argue that social order is
essential for society’s proper functioning. They believe
that social institutions help maintain social cohesion by
regulating individual behavior through norms, values,
and roles1.
5. Consensus: Functionalism assumes that societies are
characterized by a general consensus on basic values
and norms. It suggests that individuals share common
understandings and expectations about appropriate
behavior1.

Critics of functionalism argue that it tends to overlook social

conflict, power dynamics, and inequalities within society.
They contend that functionalism portrays society as
harmonious and stable while neglecting issues related to social
change, inequality, and social injustice13. Other sociological
perspectives such as conflict theory and symbolic
interactionism offer alternative explanations and critiques of
functionalism.

In conclusion, the functionalist tradition in sociology provides

valuable insights into how social institutions contribute to the
overall functioning and stability of society. While it has been
criticized for its focus on consensus and stability at the
expense of conflict and inequality, functionalism remains an
influential perspective in understanding various aspects of
social life12345.
"According to Max Weber, 'class' and 'status' are two different
dimensions of power." Discuss.

Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, identified three distinct

dimensions of social stratification: class, status, and party.
While class refers to an individual’s economic position based
on their market situation, status relates to an individual’s social
honor or prestige, which can be influenced by factors such as
occupation or education. Party refers to an individual’s
political power or influence1234.

Weber argued that class and status are two different

dimensions of power. While class is primarily determined by
economic factors such as income and wealth, status is based on
non-economic factors such as education, occupation, and
lifestyle12. According to Weber, individuals can occupy
different positions within each dimension of stratification. For
example, an individual may have a high economic position
(class) but low social prestige (status), or vice versa12.

Weber’s analysis highlights the complexity of social

stratification and the multiple dimensions of power that shape
it. By recognizing the importance of both economic and non-
economic factors in shaping social inequality, Weber’s
approach offers a more nuanced understanding of social
stratification than Marx’s focus on class struggle and economic
inequality.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Max Weber’s views on class and status as dimensions of
power. For a more comprehensive understanding, I
recommend referring to scholarly sources for an in-depth
analysis1234.
For Marx, class divisions are outcomes of 'exploitation'.
Discuss.

According to Marx, class divisions are indeed outcomes of

‘exploitation’. Marx’s analysis of social stratification is rooted
in his theory of historical materialism. He argues that social
stratification is primarily determined by the economic structure
of society, which he refers to as the “base.” The capitalist
mode of production creates a class-based society characterized
by two main classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of
production) and the proletariat (workers who do not own the
means of production). The bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat
by extracting surplus value from their labor1234.

Marx’s concept of exploitation is based on the idea that

workers are not fully compensated for the value they create
through their labor. The capitalist compensates the worker
enough to reproduce their labor power (the commodity), but
the worker’s labor power produces additional value, known as
surplus value, which is appropriated by the capitalist1. This
surplus value is a result of the exploitation of workers’ labor.
The capitalist system forces people into one of two classes: the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. The bourgeoisie, as owners of the means of production, control and
exploit the labor power of the proletariat. The proletariat, on the other hand, must sell
their labor power to survive and are subjected to exploitation by the bourgeoisie1.

Marx’s focus on class struggle and economic inequality highlights the exploitative
nature of capitalism. He argues that class divisions are not natural or inevitable but
are a result of the capitalist mode of production. Marx believed that these class
divisions would eventually lead to a proletarian revolution, where the working class
would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a classless society2.

It is important to note that Marx’s analysis has been subject to various interpretations
and critiques over time. While some scholars argue that his analysis provides
valuable insights into social inequality and exploitation, others have raised concerns
about its determinism and feasibility1234.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Marx’s perspective on class divisions as outcomes of
‘exploitation’. For a more comprehensive understanding, I
recommend referring to scholarly sources for an in-depth
analysis1234.
Critically examine Max Weber’s theory of Social
Stratification.
Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, developed a multidimensional approach to
social stratification that reflects the interplay among wealth, prestige, and power.
Weber’s theory goes beyond the economic determinism of Karl Marx’s class theory,
as it incorporates three distinct dimensions of stratification: class, status, and
party1234.

Weber’s theory of social stratification is based on the following key concepts:

1. Class: Weber defined class as a group of people who share a similar

economic situation in the market. He believed that class was determined by
the ownership or non-ownership of property and the ability to control
labor12.
2. Status: Status refers to an individual’s social honor or prestige, which can
be influenced by factors such as occupation or education. According to
Weber, status can have a significant impact on an individual’s life chances
and opportunities12.
3. Party: Party refers to an individual’s political power or influence.
According to Weber, those who possess political power can use it to
maintain or challenge existing social hierarchies12.

Weber argued that these three dimensions of stratification are interrelated and that
individuals can occupy different positions within each dimension. For example, an
individual may have a high economic position (class) but low social prestige (status),
or vice versa12.

Critics of Weber’s theory argue that it tends to overlook the role of structural factors
such as race, gender, and ethnicity in shaping social inequality. They contend that
Weber’s focus on individual agency and choice neglects the impact of larger social
structures on individuals’ life chances13. Other sociological perspectives such as
conflict theory and symbolic interactionism offer alternative explanations and
critiques of Weber’s theory.

In conclusion, Max Weber’s theory of social stratification

provides valuable insights into the complexities of social
inequality. By recognizing the importance of multiple
dimensions such as class, status, and party, Weber’s approach
offers a more nuanced understanding of social stratification
than Marx’s focus on class struggle and economic inequality.
However, it is essential to consider multiple perspectives when
evaluating the impact of social stratification on society1234.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Max Weber’s theory of Social Stratification. For a more
comprehensive understanding, I recommend referring to
scholarly sources for an in-depth analysis1234.
Davis and Moore made it clear that social stratification is a
functional necessity and also an unconscious device. Discuss.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, in their classic article

“Some Principles of Stratification,” argued that unequal social
and economic rewards were an unconsciously evolved device
by which societies ensured that talented individuals were
supplied with the motivation to undertake training that would
guarantee the proper fulfillment of important social roles1.
They posited that social stratification represents the inherently
unequal value of different work2. According to their
functionalist perspective, social inequalities are functional for
society because they provide an incentive for the most talented
individuals to occupy jobs that are essential to the orderly
maintenance of a society3.

Davis and Moore’s theory suggests that social stratification is a

functional necessity as it ensures that important social roles are filled by the most
qualified individuals. By rewarding more important work with higher levels of
income, prestige, and power, societies motivate individuals to work harder and
longer2. The theory argues that without such rewards, individuals might not be
willing to undertake risky or demanding tasks. For example, firefighters play a
crucial role in society by rushing into burning buildings, and their job is considered
more important than a grocery store cashier’s job. Higher pay, better benefits, and
increased respect serve as incentives for individuals to pursue these essential roles2.

However, it is important to note that Davis and Moore’s theory has been subject to
various criticisms. Critics argue that the theory overlooks the negative consequences
of social stratification, such as inequality and social injustice2. They contend that the
theory fails to account for structural factors such as race, gender, and ethnicity that
can influence an individual’s access to opportunities and resources. Other
sociological perspectives offer alternative explanations and critiques of social
stratification.

In conclusion, Davis and Moore’s theory suggests that social

stratification is a functional necessity and an unconscious
device by which societies ensure that talented individuals are
motivated to fulfill important social roles. While their theory
provides insights into the role of rewards and incentives in
maintaining social order, it is essential to consider multiple
perspectives when evaluating the impact of social stratification
on society2413.

Please note that this response provides a brief overview of

Davis and Moore’s perspective on social stratification as a
functional necessity and an unconscious device. For a more
comprehensive understanding, I recommend referring to
scholarly sources for an in-depth analysis2413.
C) DIMENSIONS- SOCIAL STRATIFICATION OF CLASS, STATUS
GROUPS, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND RACE.
Social stratification is claimed to contribute to the maintenance
of social order and stability in society. Critically assess.

Social stratification is indeed often seen as contributing to the

maintenance of social order and stability in society. The
structural-functionalist perspective, for instance, posits that
social stratification contributes to the maintenance of social
order and stability1. This perspective suggests that social order
and stability depend upon a value consensus within society1.

However, it’s important to critically assess this perspective.

While stratification might contribute to stability by creating
clear roles and expectations, it can also lead to social
inequality. In societies with closed stratification systems, such
inequalities are institutionalized and rigid1. An individual born
into a particular economic and social stratum or caste remains
in this stratum until they die1. This can lead to resentment and
social unrest, potentially destabilizing society.

Moreover, while modern industrial societies tend to have open

or class stratification systems that allow for social mobility,
not all members of the population have the opportunity to
fulfill their potential1. This can lead to a sense of injustice and
dissatisfaction among those who feel they are unable to
improve their situation due to systemic barriers.

In conclusion, while social stratification can contribute to

social order and stability by providing a clear hierarchy and set
of expectations, it can also lead to social inequality and
dissatisfaction. Therefore, it’s crucial for societies to strive for
a balance that allows for social mobility and equal
opportunities while maintaining social order.
Modernisation presupposes class society however, caste,
ethnicity and race are still predominant. Explain

Explore

Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific

knowledge is introduced in society with the ultimate purpose
of achieving a better and more satisfactory life1. It involves the
rise of modern society, characterised by economic production
that is industrial and capitalist, with social class as the main
form of social division2. However, despite the process of
modernisation, caste, ethnicity, and race continue to play a
significant role in many societies.

The caste system in India, for instance, is a form of social

stratification that is based on hereditary and endogamous
social groups3. Despite modernisation and the introduction of
democratic principles, the caste system continues to influence
social interactions and economic opportunities4.

Similarly, ethnicity and race are still predominant in many

societies. In the United States, for example, race is seen as a
signal of rank in what some have termed an "American caste
system"56. Despite advances in civil rights and equality, racial
disparities persist in areas such as education, employment, and
criminal justice.

Thus, while modernisation presupposes a class society based

on economic roles and achievements, it does not necessarily
eliminate other forms of social stratification such as caste,
ethnicity, and race. These forms of identity can intersect with
class, creating complex patterns of advantage and
disadvantage. Therefore, it’s crucial for societies undergoing
modernisation to also address these persistent forms of social
inequality.
Why is gender a dimension of social stratification? How does
gender intersect other dimensions of inequality based on caste,
class, race and ethnicity?

Gender is a dimension of social stratification because it often

determines a person’s social status, roles, and expectations in
society12. Throughout most of recorded history and around the
globe, men have generally had more physical and social power
and status than women1. This has led to gender inequalities in
many areas of life, including education, work, and politics1.

Intersectionality is a term used to explain how various forms of

discrimination, such as those based on gender, caste, class,
race, and ethnicity, do not work independently but interact to
produce particular forms of social oppression3. For instance, in
India, the intersection of gender and caste can result in further
marginalization of certain groups of women4. A woman
belonging to a lower caste may face discrimination not only
because of her gender but also because of her caste4.

Similarly, the intersection of gender and class can also lead to

unique forms of discrimination. Women from lower economic
classes may face barriers in accessing education and
employment opportunities1. This can limit their social mobility
and perpetuate class inequalities.

Race and ethnicity also intersect with gender in significant

ways. For example, minority women often face multiple layers
of discrimination based on their gender and racial or ethnic
identity5. This can result in lower wages, limited job
opportunities, and other forms of social and economic
disadvantage.

In conclusion, gender is a crucial dimension of social

stratification because it shapes individuals’ experiences and
opportunities in profound ways. However, it does not exist in
isolation. It intersects with other dimensions of inequality such
as caste, class, race, and ethnicity to create complex patterns of
advantage and disadvantage.
Examine gender, ethnicity and race as major dimensions of
social stratification.

Gender, ethnicity, and race are indeed major dimensions of

social stratification. Let’s examine each one:

1. Gender: Gender is a significant dimension of social

stratification because it often determines a person’s
social status, roles, and expectations in society.
Throughout most of recorded history and around the
globe, men have generally had more physical and social
power and status than women. This has led to gender
inequalities in many areas of life, including education,
work, and politics.
2. Ethnicity: Ethnicity refers to shared cultural practices,
perspectives, and distinctions that set apart one group of
people from another. Ethnic stratification refers to the
unequal distribution of wealth, power, and prestige
among different ethnic groups. It can lead to ethnic
discrimination and conflicts.
3. Race: Race is a social construct that categorizes humans
into large and distinct populations or groups by
anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical,
historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation.
Racial stratification can lead to disparities in areas such
as education, employment, housing, health care, and
criminal justice.

These dimensions intersect in complex ways to create unique

experiences of advantage and disadvantage. For example, a
woman of color may face discrimination not only because of
her gender but also because of her race. Similarly, an
individual from a minority ethnic group may face barriers not
only because of their ethnicity but also because of their class
status. This intersectionality results in complex patterns of
social inequality.
What do you understand by gender? How does it shape 'male
identity'?

Explore

Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a

given culture associates with a person’s biological sex1. It is
related to but distinctly different from sex; it is rooted in
culture, not biology2. The American Psychological Association
defines gender as "the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a
given culture associates with a person’s biological sex"2.

In terms of how gender shapes ‘male identity’, it’s important

to note that gender identity shapes how we think about others
and ourselves and also influences our behaviors3. The world
has historically prescribed the male gender as default, a
construct that is reinforced through language4. As humans, our
collective identity is understood as masculine – we use ‘man’
to describe our species and ‘mankind’ as a way to unify us4.

Moreover, specific notions of masculinity may encourage boys

and men to smoke, take sexual and other health risks, misuse
alcohol and not seek help or health care2. Therefore, gender
plays a significant role in shaping ‘male identity’ by
influencing behaviors, expectations, and societal roles
associated with being male.
Present a sociological review on the 'new middle-class'.

The ‘new middle class’ is a sociological concept that has been

the subject of much discussion and analysis. It refers to a
segment of society that has emerged as a result of market
expansion and is marked by factors such as income,
educational levels, purchasing power, and consumer lifestyle1.

One perspective on the ‘new middle class’ comes from

renowned sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander of Yale University.
He suggests that this class is unique in its capacity to consume
global iconic objects2. This new concept of class is
characterized not by its participation in the production process
but by its capacity to consume2. Global iconic objects that give
a status to its owner like Apple iPads and Samsung Galaxy sets
provide a sense of inclusion to its holders2.

Another perspective comes from an article in The Sociological

Review, which explores the underlying meaning of being
middle class3. The author suggests that maintaining a middle-
class identity is a continuous project, marked by a sense of
precarity3. This fractured identity means that no one feels
secure with their middle-class identity3.

In conclusion, the ‘new middle class’ is a complex and

mutable concept. It’s characterized by its capacity to consume,
its continuous project of maintaining a performative middle-
class identity, and its fractured sense of self. These
characteristics make it one of the most intriguing problems and
engaging dialogues in social sciences3.
Differentiate between 'Life-chances 'and' Life-style 'with
suitable examples

‘Life-chances’ and ‘Life-style’ are two sociological concepts

that describe different aspects of our social existence.

1. Life-chances: This term was propounded by famous

sociologist Max Weber1. It refers to the opportunities
and resources that one gets to improve the prevailing
condition of one’s life1. These opportunities refer to
one’s ability to access resources both visible and
intangible goods like food, shelter, clothes, education,
and health services1. For example, if a person is born
into a wealthy family, their life chances are typically
greater than someone born into a middle-class family 1.
They might have more access to quality education,
better healthcare, and more career opportunities1.
2. Life-style: Lifestyle defines our way of living1. In the
sociological term, lifestyle connects our habits with
several social dimensions1. It includes our attitudes,
interests, practices, principles, and even the physical
objects we use1. For example, a person who values
fitness might have a lifestyle that includes regular
exercise, a healthy diet, and participation in sports
activities1.

In essence, while ‘life-chances’ refer to the opportunities

available to us based on our social status, ‘life-style’ refers to
the way we live our lives based on our values, interests, and
principles.
Analyse the gender bias in the present society with examples.

Gender bias refers to the unequal treatment and perceptions of

individuals based on their gender1. It often manifests as bias
against women, such as workplace bias, and stems from a
society’s biases about gender roles1. Here are some examples
of gender bias in present society:

1. The Gender Pay Gap: Women often earn less than

men for equivalent work, even when controlling for
variables such as experience, education, and
performance1. This discrepancy in earnings is a clear
example of gender bias1.
2. Lack of Paternity Leave: Many societies still hold onto
traditional gender roles, seeing child-rearing as
primarily a woman’s role while men are typically
expected to provide financially1. This leads to an
absence or lack of paternity leave policies1.
3. Job Adverts with Gendered Language: Job
advertisements often use language that is subtly
gendered, which can discourage applicants of a certain
gender from applying1.
4. Gender Stereotypes: Girls and women are often
expected to stay at home and help with housework and
childcare, dress modestly, and not stay out late at night2.
These stereotypes can limit their freedom and
opportunities2.
5. Gender Bias in Education: There’s an assumption that
boys are better at math, while girls excel in language-
based skills1. Such predetermination can lead to unfair
treatment and can limit the academic and career
possibilities for individuals based on their gender1.

These examples illustrate how gender bias can permeate

various aspects of society, from the workplace to education to
societal expectations. It’s crucial for societies to recognize and
address these biases to promote equality and fairness.
SOCIAL MOBILITY- OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS, TYPES OF
MOBILITY, SOURCES AND CAUSES OF MOBILITY.
Social mobility- open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes of
mobility with sociological theories
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals or groups within the
hierarchical structure of society12. It’s a dynamic process that involves moving up or
down the social status scale12.
There are two main types of stratification systems that influence social mobility:
open and closed systems13.
1. Open Systems: In open systems, individuals are assigned to different
positions in the social structure based on their merit or achievement 13.
These systems encourage mobility and are characterized by occupational
diversity, a flexible hierarchy, differentiated social structure, and rapidity of
change13. An example of an open system is the United States, where social
mobility is possible4.
2. Closed Systems: In closed systems, individuals are assigned their place in
the social structure based on ascriptive criteria like age, birth, sex13. These
systems discourage any attempt to change or promote mobility and are
often associated with rigid caste systems13.
There are several types of social mobility:
1. Absolute Mobility: This refers to social mobility that is quantifiable in
absolute terms for an entire group of people5.
2. Horizontal Mobility: This involves moving from one position in the
occupational structure to another without necessarily losing or gaining a
new class status5.
3. Intergenerational Mobility: This refers to mobility from one generation
to the next5.
The sources and causes of social mobility can be diverse and include factors such as
demographic changes, abilities of parents and children, faulty distribution of
individuals in social positions, and changes in the environment6. Other factors
include revolutions, migration, colonial expansion, and access to social capital7.
Sociological theories provide different perspectives on social mobility. For instance,
the structural-functionalist perspective posits that social stratification contributes to
the maintenance of social order and stability8. The conflict theory perspective, on
the other hand, views social mobility as a mechanism that can lead to conflict and
change in society9. Lastly, symbolic interactionism focuses on how individuals use
status symbols to position themselves within the social hierarchy9.
Explain the growing salience of ethnicity in the contemporary world with
illustrations.
The growing salience of ethnicity in the contemporary world can be attributed to
various factors such as globalization, migration, and the rise of identity politics1.
Ethnicity refers to the social classification of people based on shared cultural,
linguistic, and historical experiences1. In recent years, ethnicity has gained
prominence as a significant social and political force, shaping the lives of individuals
and communities across the globe1.
Sociological thinkers have provided valuable insights into the reasons behind the
increasing importance of ethnicity in today’s world. Here are some theories:
1. Emile Durkheim: Social Solidarity and Ethnicity - Durkheim
emphasized the importance of social solidarity in maintaining social order
and cohesion1. According to Durkheim, societies are held together by
shared values, beliefs, and practices that create a collective conscience 1.
Ethnicity can be seen as a source of social solidarity, as it provides
individuals with a sense of belonging and identity1. In the contemporary
world, the growing salience of ethnicity can be attributed to the need for
social solidarity in the face of rapid social change, globalization, and
increasing cultural diversity1.
2. Max Weber: Ethnicity as a Basis for Social Stratification - Weber
argued that social stratification is based on three dimensions: class, status,
and power1. Ethnicity can be a significant factor in determining an
individual’s position within this stratification system1. In the contemporary
world, ethnicity has become increasingly important as a basis for social
stratification due to factors such as migration and the rise of identity
politics1.
3. Pierre Bourdieu: Ethnicity and Cultural Capital - Bourdieu
introduced the concept of cultural capital to explain how individuals and
groups use cultural resources to gain social advantages1. Ethnicity can be a
significant source of cultural capital, as it provides individuals with access to
unique cultural resources and networks1.
In conclusion, in the contemporary world, the growing salience of ethnicity can be
attributed to the increasing importance of cultural capital in determining social and
economic success. Ethnic groups can use their cultural capital to gain recognition,
resources, and political power, contributing to the growing prominence of ethnicity
in contemporary society1.
How are open and closed systems of stratification undergoing transformation in the
emergence of new hierarchical social order in societies?
Open and closed systems of stratification are undergoing transformation in the
emergence of new hierarchical social order in societies. Here’s how:
1. Open Systems: In open systems, individuals are assigned to different
positions in the social structure based on their merit or achievement 1.
These systems encourage mobility and are characterized by occupational
diversity, a flexible hierarchy, differentiated social structure, and rapidity of
change1. However, with the emergence of new hierarchical social orders,
the nature of these open systems is changing. For instance, the rise of the
digital economy has created new forms of stratification based on access to
technology and digital skills1. This has led to a reconfiguration of open
systems, with new forms of inequality emerging within these supposedly
meritocratic structures1.
2. Closed Systems: In closed systems, individuals are assigned their place in
the social structure based on ascriptive criteria like age, birth, sex1. These
systems discourage any attempt to change or promote mobility and are
often associated with rigid caste systems1. However, these closed systems
are also undergoing transformation. For instance, legal reforms and social
movements have challenged traditional caste hierarchies in many societies1.
Moreover, globalization and migration have introduced new forms of
diversity and complexity into these closed systems1.
In conclusion, both open and closed systems of stratification are undergoing
significant transformations in response to broader social changes. These
transformations reflect the dynamic nature of social stratification and highlight the
need for ongoing sociological analysis.
. Is social mobility possible in closed systems of stratification? Illustrate from
research work
In closed systems of stratification, social mobility is generally limited because
individuals’ social positions are largely determined by their ascribed status, such as
their race, gender, or family background1. These systems discourage any efforts to
alter this arrangement or promote social mobility, and any such attempts are
systematically suppressed2.
However, it’s important to note that while social mobility in closed systems is
limited, it’s not entirely impossible. Changes in societal attitudes, legal reforms, and
social movements can challenge traditional hierarchies and create opportunities for
mobility3. For instance, in India, a traditionally closed system due to the caste
system, there have been instances of social mobility due to factors like education,
economic liberalization, and affirmative action policies3.
In conclusion, while social mobility in closed systems is generally limited due to the
rigid nature of these systems, it’s not entirely impossible. Changes in societal
attitudes and structures can create opportunities for mobility even within these
systems.
"Vertical mobility brings structural change even in a closed social system."
Comment.

Yes, vertical mobility can indeed bring about structural

changes even in a closed social system1. A closed system of
stratification is one where individuals are assigned their place
in the social structure based on ascriptive criteria like age,
birth, sex23. In such a system, norms discourage any attempt to
change or promote mobility23.

However, vertical mobility refers to the movement of

individuals or groups up or down the social hierarchy4. This
movement can occur due to changes in any of the factors that
influence social status1. Even in a closed system, changes in
societal attitudes, legal reforms, and social movements can
challenge traditional hierarchies and create opportunities for
mobility2.

For instance, pre-modern India was a largely closed system

due to the caste system5. However, factors like education,
economic liberalization, and affirmative action policies have
brought about some degree of vertical mobility2.

In conclusion, while closed systems are characterized by their

rigidity and resistance to change, vertical mobility can bring
about structural changes in such systems. These changes
reflect the dynamic nature of social stratification and highlight
the potential for transformation even within closed systems.
"No society can either be absolutely open or absolutely closed." Comment
Indeed, no society can be open or absolutely closed. This is because social
stratification and mobility are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including
economic conditions, political systems, cultural norms, and individual actions.
An open system of stratification is one where individuals are assigned to different
positions in the social structure based on their merit or achievement. These
systems encourage mobility and are characterized by occupational diversity, a
flexible hierarchy, differentiated social structure, and rapidity of change. However,
even in the most open societies, factors such as race, gender, and family background
can still influence an individual’s opportunities and life chances.
On the other hand, a closed system of stratification is one where individuals are
assigned their place in the social structure based on ascriptive criteria like age, birth,
sex. These systems discourage any attempt to change or promote mobility.
However, even in the most closed societies, changes in societal attitudes, legal
reforms, and social movements can challenge traditional hierarchies and create
opportunities for mobility.
In conclusion, while societies can be characterized as being more open or more
closed, no society is entirely one or the other. Social stratification and mobility are
dynamic processes that reflect the ongoing interplay of structural forces and
individual actions.
Explain the concept of social mobility. Describe with suitable
illustrations how education and social mobility are related to
each other.

Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals,

families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or
stratification12. It is a change in social status relative to one’s
current social location within a given society2. This movement
occurs between layers or tiers in an open system of social
stratification2. The shift can either be higher, lower, inter-
generational, or intra-generational3.

Education is often seen as a key determinant of social mobility

within a person’s lifetime and across generations4. By
acquiring human capital through education, individuals can
increase their earning potential and access better-paying jobs,
which can lead to upward social mobility5. However, the
relationship between education and social mobility is complex
and can be influenced by a variety of factors, including
socioeconomic status, race, and gender5.

For instance, consider two individuals from different

socioeconomic backgrounds. One individual comes from a
low-income family and attends a poorly funded public school.
The other individual comes from a high-income family and
attends a well-funded private school. The individual from the
high-income family is likely to have access to more
educational resources, such as tutoring and extracurricular
activities, which can enhance their educational outcomes and
increase their chances of attending college. This can lead to
better job opportunities and higher earnings in adulthood,
resulting in upward social mobility4.

On the other hand, the individual from the low-income family

may face barriers to educational achievement due to factors
such as limited resources at home and at school. This can limit
their opportunities for higher education and result in lower
earnings in adulthood, reducing their chances of upward social
mobility4.

In conclusion, while education can facilitate social mobility by

providing individuals with the skills and credentials needed to
access better economic opportunities, it’s also shaped by
broader social structures that can limit the extent of this
mobility.