Modern American Social Stratification

In sociology social stratification is the hierarchical or vertical division of society according to rank, caste, or class. Ancient, Indian caste, and feudal societies are a few of the stratification groups. In Ancient societies the Greeks and Romans differentiated the members of the society as free and unfree. The free were the members of families. The unfree were slaves to the head of the families of the free. The Indian Caste system has more than two categories. The system contains six groups: Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Kobayashi, Sudras, and Untouchables. The last example is the feudal society. The pattern of stratification is royalty - nobility - Ecclesiastes, lesser gentry, free tenants, villeins, cottars, and slaves.

My point in listing these examples is to display the level of inequality in ancient and modern societies because some social stratification continues to exist within the high, middle, and low class.

There are three main theories of social class. The theories are from Karl Marx, Max Weber, and the functionalist approach from Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. In the functionalist perspective stratification is not an important focus. Durkheim saw inequality as providing a function within society functionally more important roles should possess higher status and social reward. This theory does not see inequality as a cause of conflict. There are specific roles in society that must be performed if the system is to be maintained without varying rewards, many jobs would be filled. For Parsons social stratification serves to integrate and order society. In Max Weber’s perspective he rejected the idea that people had only their labor to sell, rather, they had in greater or lesser quantity skills that could be kept in high demand. Weber included two dimensions that explain people’s positions in society. The two dimensions are party and status. Party is access to political power, regardless of class, so your social ranking will not affect your access to power. Status is honor and prestige given to someone by others. Marxism is different from functionalism because class is the key concept. The cause of inequality is class exploitation.

I agree with the functionalist theory because inequality contributes to a society tremendously. I also support their thoughts that people with an important career should receive the proper amount of rewards for their services. If I were a doctor I would not want to be getting paid the same amount of money as a bus driver. If one job took more education and time the reward should be greater or else it would just be an attempt at creating equality. Although I agree with the functionalist opinions I disagree that inequality does not cause conflict. I think the completely opposite way. 

In the society I live in I recognize the different groups consisting of multiple cultures, sub cultures, characteristics, etc. In modern days we distinguish ourselves depending on appearances, financial situations, housing, etc. The upper, middle, and low classes are the three most identifiable classes. The upper class consists of celebrities and wealthy people. Keeping up with the Jonses is a full time job. What do I mean by this idiom? Well… you know how you see that new car in your neighbor’s driveway and it seems to look better than yours, so instantaneously you believe you need a new car. The car is an example of a status symbol. Based on the car you can infer a person’s social class.

That is all for this blog post on the topic of modern social stratification. Please comment with which theory you would choose on this topic. (: