Category: Social Stratification

The social structure and the way of life of society have extraordinary impact on the working of business exercises. Every general public has its very own way of life which comprises of the traditions, values, demeanours, convictions, propensities, dialects and different types of cooperation between the individuals from the general public. Any business firm which goes for entering any advertise for its items and administrations must create total comprehension of financial rationality of the society. In the time of globalization, no business can endure and develop without social congruity and without understanding the effect of statistic changes in the nation or in a locale.

SOCIO-CULTURAL ELEMENTS IN INDIA

1. Social Institutions

Social foundations allude to set-ups like family, school and so forth which are basic to keep up the precise course of action of social structure. There are five sorts of social establishments, to be specific, 1. Family, 2. Economics, 3. Religion, 4. Education, 5. State.

There are additionally various auxiliary establishments which are gotten from every one of these essential establishments.

The auxiliary foundations got from family are marriage, separate, monogamy, and so on. The auxiliary establishments of financial matters are property, exchanging, credit banking, and so on. The auxiliary establishments of religion are church, sanctuary, and so forth. The optional foundations of training are school, school, college, and so forth. The optional foundations of state are intrigue gatherings, party framework, majority rule government and so on.

All establishments face the issue of consistently altering themselves to the evolving society. Changes in the social condition may achieve changes in every social establishment. For instance,

Swelling may impact marriage, demise, wrongdoing and training. Inflation may have radical impacts upon political foundations

2. Social Systems

The idea of social framework is firmly identified with the idea of social structure which is the methods through which a social framework capacity. The fundamental components of social framework are: 1. Belief (information), 2. Sentiment, 3. End, Goal or Objective, 4. Norms, 5. Status, 6. Power, 7. Facility.

3. Social Values and Attitudes

Changing social qualities are starting to scrutinize the fundamentals of the deep-rooted social organizations and frameworks. Traditions, customs and shows are not inflexible any longer. Perspectives towards power, obligation and designation, frames of mind towards business as a calling, sees towards accomplishments also, work, are overall experiencing quick change

4. Social Responsibility of The Government

Developing dimensions of accomplishment and yearning must be spanned through a constant and persistent social exertion, keeping in view the social welfare and social requirements. This is the place the job of the government comes in. The administration needs to ensure that the social advancement isn’t impaired by the oppression of the dominant part; generally, social pressures will influence business ominously.

5. Social Responsibility of Business

Social duty of business alludes to the commitment of the business undertakings to settle on arrangements and game plans in the social intrigue and for social great. Social duties of business must be considered with specific reference to obligations towards investors, representatives, buyers, the legislature, and open on the loose. The businessperson ought to advance urban conveniences and help make better living conditions just as help in making individuals decent, improve the organization of metropolitan and modern issues. More than that, specialists to be set up socially attractive ways of life for themselves, evade ostentations, inefficient use in weddings, celebrations, and gatherings. The social obligations of business in India likewise expect representatives to give a reasonable arrangement to clients as far as cost and quality, guarantee accessibility of items, and keep away from unjustifiable exchange rehearses. They ought not delude the purchaser and network by untruthful commercials Their duty towards workers is likewise characterized circumspectly to advance co-employable soul, give reasonable wages and advancement and seek after a dynamic work strategy. Essentially, their duty towards the state has been expounded as for instalment of duties furthermore, against purchasing political help and tainting community workers.

Effect OF Social CHANGES ON BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Financial condition varies from nation to nation and furthermore from spot to put inside the same nation or district. It might likewise change fundamentally after some time. A total comprehension of the statistic highlights of a market are exceptionally fundamental for structuring the suitable business systems. Numerous worldwide organizations have entered India amid the most recent couple of years thinking about the sheer size of populace in these nations.

Size of Population

The fundamental issue that is looked by the majority of the creating nations of the world including India is their developing high populace, prompting high weight on the land and farming sector. A nation where the populace development rate is high, kids establish a huge area of populace bringing about more interest for child items. The expansion in the measure of populace with centre and high salary gathering has brought about expanded interest for shopper products, both sturdy and non-tough, as on account of India where interest for vehicles, marked instant pieces of clothing, electronic items, home machines, and so on has expanded complex. A business firm which peruses the statistic changes precisely and screens them ceaselessly will discover openings thumping at its doorsteps. The span of the populace is a significant determinant of interest for some items. Poor nations with little populace are commonly not appealing for business. As against that, the progressed nations, especially those with huge populace, are commonly appealing markets. Due to the enormous capability of these business sectors, the challenge is likewise very solid. At the point when the populace is enormous, regardless of whether the nation is poor, there could be a sizeable market notwithstanding for those merchandise and ventures which are respected extravagances in these nations. For instance, if only five percent of the Indian populace is wealthy, unquestionably the number is bigger than the all-out populace of huge numbers of the high salary economies.

Development of Young Population

High populace development rate likewise suggests a gigantic increment in the work supply and its expense. Shoddy work and a developing business sector have urged numerous multinationals to put resources into creating nations. Numerous organizations in the created nations have migrated their generation offices, completely or incompletely, in the creating nations to diminish the work costs. India has over half of its populace beneath the age of 25 and over 65% underneath the period of 35. It is normal that, in 2020, the normal age of an Indian will be 29 years, contrasted with 37 for China and 48 for Japan.

Low Birth Rate and Rise in Nuclear Families

Administration of India has taken a few activities in past to check the populace blast in India. The aftereffect of these activities is the decreased birth rate in urban families. The informed guardians accept in having not multiple children. The smaller number of kin, expanding number of family units what’s more, the two guardians working offer capacity to children more than ever. The present-day guardians have cash for their children however no time and because of this children present have increasingly independence and affecting force in the family buy choices than in the previous occasions. The falling birth rate and rising life span will altogether change the age appropriation inside the populace. The extent of matured in the all-out populace will go up. The adjustments in the age dispersion have a ton of suggestions for business. A few pharmaceutical organizations are paying a ton of thoughtfulness regarding the potential necessities of the matured populace. The expanding extent of the matured would have suggestions for the legislatures. It might expand the welfare weight of the government. Additionally, if there is an enormous increment in the number of inhabitants in youngsters, at that point organizations will concentrate more on the creation of items which are fundamentals for youthful populace, for instance, design, beautifiers, readymade pieces of clothing and so forth. In the cutting-edge time of 21st century, individuals like to live in family units as necessities and prerequisites of relatives are expanded and changed and furthermore because of low birth rate.

Urbanization

India constant to have an overwhelmingly country populace however the extent of individuals living in urban zones has dynamically expanded since 1951. The expansion in urbanization of populace in India has prompted development of ghettos with unhygienic living conditions and different issues too as increment in the interest in items and administrations.

SOME SOCIAL ISSUES IN INDIA

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism alludes to a faith in an exacting adherence to explicit arrangement of religious regulations commonly in response against what are current blasphemies of secularism. Fundamentalism is found in all religions from Christian to Islam to Hinduism.

Religion in India

India is the place where there are numerous religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The Constitution of India pronounces the country to be a mainstream republic that must maintain the right of natives to unreservedly adore and engender any religion or confidence. It likewise pronounces the privilege to opportunity of religion as an essential right.

Caste System and Violence

The Indian rank framework portrays the arrangement of social stratification and social limitations wherein social classes are characterized by a huge number of endogamous inherited gatherings, frequently named jātis or ranks. There are four fundamental stratas – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras, Dalits contain the fifth strata. This can prompt isolation of the Indian Society regarding numerous standings yet less Indians

Terrorism

Terrorism can be characterized as ―the determined utilization of unlawful savagery or danger of unlawful viciousness to instil dread; proposed to force or to scare governments or social orders in the quest for objectives that are commonly political, religious, or ideological.‖ Within this definition, there are three key components— savagery, dread, and terrorizing—and every component produces fear in its unfortunate casualties.

A few Causes of Terrorism

1. Key
2. Individual or mental
3. Sociological
4. Religious

Therefore, each business association must represent the advantage of the general public and to keep up harmony between the economy and the biological systems by proficiently utilizing rare assets of the general public for the monetary improvement and furthermore comprehend the socio and social elements for better fate of their business. In a current business, social powers as a rule impact the welfare of a business worry over the long haul. The idea of merchandise and ventures sought after relies on the adjustments in propensities and traditions of individuals in the general public. With ascend in populace the interest in family unit just as different merchandise particularly bundled nourishment has expanded in the ongoing past. The activities of the business are extraordinarily impacted by the progressions happened in social condition now and again.

When it comes to the growth and progress on an economy there are numerous aspects that play their part. This can be seen in the fall of many economies where they neglected a single aspect that was seen to be minute. Even so, the civilizations that are created over the years and the fall of many of them have made it clear how complex these situations can get. The following document is looking over one such aspect of the social and economic structure of a country. The paper will be an evaluation of social stratification within the country of Uzbekistan. Social stratification from both the past and the present will be taken into consideration so as to learn the various changes and impacts the phenomenon has on the growth of a nation. The paper will look towards historical documents that have documented the various vital events that took place in the history of Uzbekistan. Granted, they are related to the notion of social stratification either directly or indirectly.

Introduction to Social Stratification

The phenomenon of social Stratification refers to a ranking system. Social stratification both make various social classifications and decides the value of those categories as a part of a hierarchy. The groups within the hierarchy by nature will have more power and greater status when compared with groups from the lower end of the hierarchy. Social Stratification is seen to be a trait of society and not just a reflection of the differences that individuals have within society. The phenomenon also applies to all generations regardless of the current time period. Research states that; “Since the earliest-known writings on the nature of human societies. There has been a recognition that social stratification is a central part of all human organization. In his Politics, in 350 BCE, Aristotle wrote of the natural grading of free people and slaves. More recently, during the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu wrote of the feudal system of social stratification and its inequities. By the mid-1800s, the classic sociological theorists such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber began more systematic analyses of the system of social stratification using concepts that remain with us to this day” (Kerbo, 2017).

Views of Historical Social Theorist

The concept of social stratification might seem to be liner and simple, however, classical sociological theorists do not agree on much except the definition of social stratification. In fact, there are multiple legacies concerning to social stratification theories. These legacies are built upon the works of Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Among the three, it was Karl Marx who made the most effort to have a more comprehensive theory of social stratification. With the help of Engels in 1848, Max was able to craft one of the most famous documents on the subject of social stratification titled “The Communist Manifesto.” In the book both Max and Engels have the following views on the subject; “The history of all hitherto prevailing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian. Lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word. Oppressor and oppressed. Stood in constant opposition to one another. Carried on an uninterrupted. Now hidden. Now open fight. A fight that each time ended. Either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large. Or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Kerbo, 2017).

As the text states, the gist of things always come down to the struggle that the social classes face the society they exist in. Whether three or more, the existence of classes is a testament to the level of struggle that people have to face in accordance to their living standards and net income. Furthermore, this leads the social classes to develop conflicting values in regard to life and what should be the priority in it. Where a class that has it major struggles about to financial aspects of life, people from that class will have a desire to chase after means to attain more of it. Whereas people that have an abundance of monetary/material things might have a more concern to attain worldly pleasures that their society has to offer. The mental outlook is heavily influenced by the individual’s social status as it decides the level of education they will receive. Furthermore, this also becomes the deciding factor for what kind of company they will have as well as what morals will be presented to them in their childhood. With the help of class evaluation, the individual can be fully analyzed and the same can be said about the overall civilization they belong to.

Class Classifications and Their Meaning

The concept of categories within classes came from combining dimensions of the work of Marx and Weber. Many would argue that the best results in doing so were obtained by Erik O. Wright. According to Marx, the class must be defined in relation to society’s productive system. Marx believed this to be a better option over choosing to divide classes based on status as proposed by functionalist philosophers. Following the idea proposed by Marx, he developed a four-class module. This model showcased the practicality of the theories proposed by Marx and Weber. Regarding to the basic concepts suggested by Max Weber; “The basic argument of the present article is that Weber cultivates a theory of the social through the course of his analysis of ‘Class, Status, and Party’… Weber discusses the connection between class and status in two places in Economy and Society: in a section entitled ‘Status Groups and Classes’ and in the ‘The Distribution of Power within the Political Community.’ The relation between these two pieces is unclear, but what we know is that the latter of these sections was written first, sometime between 1910 and 1914.2 This segment on ‘Class, Status, Party’ is Weber’s most complete statement on the subject and is to be found in Part Two of Economy and Society, which is entitled ‘The Economy and the Arena of Normative and De Facto Powers’. Meanwhile, the first of these sections, ‘Status Groups and Classes’, was written much later, sometime between 1918 and 1920, and is published, strangely enough, in Part One of Economy and Society, which has the title ‘Conceptual Exposition’” (Gane, 2005).

The concept of both class and status, while at times used interchangeably, are not the same according to Max Weber. While Weber states that he is aware of the effects that the two phenomena have their place among the development of a society and its economy it remains unclear as to how that happens. It can be argued that due to the variant nature of the world and all the social structures at play it is a difficult task to come up with a conclusive answer. An answer that cannot be subjected to ridicule or be shrouded in bias.

The Four-class Model

The four-class model leads to the concept of the Capitalists, the Managers, the Workers, and the Bourgeoisie. According to Wright, Capitalists were the individuals who had ownership over the means of productions like factories, banks, and other such establishments. Managers the people that have control over the labour of others and they sell their labor to capitalists. Workers are people who only have their labor to sell and bourgeoisie are individuals that have a limited means of production but almost no workers.

Social Stratification of Uzbekistan: Past and Present

At the end of the 20th century, social scientists had developed numerous methodological and terminological apparatuses that would allow them to accurately characterize various processes concerning stratification. However, at the time Uzbekistan was not among those countries that had access to such tools. At best, such methodologies were at their initial stages within Uzbekistan. Several factors were deemed responsible for this delay which included terms of humanitarian development. Humanitarian development encompassed historical and social sciences. Furthermore, there were a host of complex issues that Uzbekistan had to face during the modern transit period. Moreover, with the market environment developing dominance and the global economic space introduced led to people realizing the importance of studying transformation processes in the social structure (Sengupta, & Rakhimov, 2015).

There are parts of this document that is looking to address the financial changes and income levels of Uzbekistan. These changes were governed by various aspects of stratification during the transit period of the country. Thus, for evaluating the required statistics accurately the following paper will look towards studies conducted in the past that noted the changes in the revenue potential of the population of Uzbekistan. The revenue potential of the population will allow the study to be highly objective and accurate in its reflection of the changes found in the social structure. For the following section of the paper, all of the changes that occurred or were underway during the post-Soviet period will be focused on. According to research on the topic; “Despite the complication of the definition of an indicator or set of indicators that would be the most appropriate to the actual financial position of the individual layers, groups and income potential can serve as the basis for the relative separation of the groups based on the poor-middle income-the rich. Following this logic, they can be represented as social groups located at the yield sign in a hierarchical axis of the standard of living and consumption” (Sengupta, & Rakhimov, 2015).

Modern Stratification Processes and their Roots

The transformation that was experienced at the beginning of the 21st century to the social structure of Uzbekistan was heavily influenced by processes that were associated with the transitional phase of development. The second most beige contributor was stated to be the national economy of the country at the time. According to the definition, transition economy is stated to be an economy that is experiencing a relatively long period of disintegration of the old economic system. This also includes the formation of the new economic order and any elements that might be connected to that new order induced. This has the implications that the experienced transient phase of Uzbekistan was not something unique but a recurring phenomenon. When looking at all the available data on the subject it can be deduced that stratification change is caused due to the natural historic procedure. The following assumption is supported by the common definitions that are accepted by an economist about the transitional stage of development.

When looking to other instances of the phenomenon, studies show that “the first detailed American study in social stratification appeared in 1929 with Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown, followed later by Middletown in Transition. This first work was to found a long tradition of stratification studies of small community living in the United States. But the general conflict standpoint of this study was only much later a part of this tradition. The Lynds’ emphasis was on power and economic disparities, and the overpowering image of equality of opportunity in US society was exposed as a myth. With the end of the Great Depression, their view of American society was placed on the shelf and all but forgotten for three decades. Of the social stratification research stimulated by the Great Depression, Lloyd Warner’s work had the most significant impact, at least for the next 20 to 30 years. Like the Lynds’ research, Warner’s many volume Yankee City study was centered on social stratification in small communities. Using various methods of study, from survey research to detailed participant observation, these works sought to examine the extent of inequality and social mobility, as well as the meaning of social stratification for the people involved. But the Warner School differed from the Lynd tradition in three ways. Most important, the Warner School came to define social stratification in terms of status. As Warner and Lunt wrote, ‘By class is meant two or more orders of individuals who are supposed to be and are accordingly classified by the members of the community, in superior and inferior places’’ (Kerbo, 2006).

There is some economist that tend to classify the stages of social development by considering manufacturing as the foundation for evaluating stages of an economic system. Economists are divided in regard to the agrarian society, as there the main key factor is ‘land and farming’. Industrial, post-industrial are other such elements that also contribute to the same end. Studies have stated that; “One crucial element that is less taken into account in both the scientific and political debates is given by the fundamental historical transformations in the older population which are susceptible of modifying the dynamics of social reproduction and the patterns of poverty. As an illustration, in 1979, in the canton of Geneva and Central Valais, 66.6% of the retired population (65–94) had a low level of education; in 2011 only 18.6% of the population remained with such a low human capital. Furthermore, when the Swiss welfare state was established, divorce was almost non-existent. Its rise and with it the increase of lone parenthood created a growing concern for female poverty both in Switzerland and more globally in the Western world, but the debate remained centred on professionally active adults, not on the older population. In contrast, there has been much evidence identifying widows as being particularly prone to poverty in old-age and they have been an issue on the political and scientific agenda in Switzerland in the 1990s” (Gabriel, 2015).

Compared to other nations such as Europe, western and central USSR, a jump from a stage of social development to another one can be seen as a natural course of development for the people of Uzbekistan.

Social Structure and Standard of living of Uzbekistan in 1990

A well-known fact about the Soviet Union is that at the time they were forming triads concerning to social division. These triads served as a base for the polarization of society. However, the division was taken as nothing more than a sham. This is because that was not a representation of the living standards or material wealth of the general population. This was true for Uzbekistan and the Soviet Union as a whole. The country was divided into three-layer in terms of its population and its standard of living/income. These three layers were seen to be rich, average and poor. There are many objective and subjective reasons that are affiliated with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Due to that, the representative of the triads was sidelined when social change and prosperity came. This was in part due to the fact that the economic situation had deteriorated. According to the historical accounts of the time;

“Nationalism in contemporary Russia both has its roots in the distant past and has emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union. The Russian Federation emerged in 1991 as a multiethnic state unified on lines other than the ideological basis of Marxism-Leninism that typified the Soviet period. Seeking a new basis for unification and a return to stability after the tumultuous 1990s, the Russian state eventually turned to an increasingly close relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Church had formed an important part of Russian national mythology dating far into the past and had more recently cultivated a practice of government collaboration to survive through the Communist era. With the Russian Orthodox Church, Presidents Yeltsin and Putin found a willing partner in the development of a new Russian national identity rooted in perceived longstanding traditions” (Potts, 2016).

Furthermore, the long history that the Soviet Union shared with the Orthodox Church came into play there. According to studies on the subject; “The thousand-year history of Orthodoxy in Russia is a complex one, the close relationship between religion and state policy practice with deep roots. Until the Russian Revolution, the state carefully cultivated a connection between Orthodoxy and Russian identity so strong that it has persisted in some form through the dramatic changes of the past century. The focus of this paper is on the present-day cooption of Orthodoxy by political forces in the creation of Russian national identity; with brief coverage of the prior history of this relationship, the modern situation will become far clearer. Prince Vladimir of Kiev adopted a very specific form of Christianity in AD 988, one which held to dual Byzantine ideas of government hierarchy and church-state relations. In government, Orthodox theology held that the structure of Earthly governance should mirror heaven, one authoritative figure on top of a wholly centralized system. During the late medieval era, this took the form of the consolidation of power under the Muscovite princes who eventually took the title ‘tsar’ a russification of Roman ‘Caesa’” (Potts, 2016).

These changes to the social network of the Soviet Union could be felt by the general population in all aspects of life. Data gathered at the time suggested that Uzbekistan was at an acceptable level of utilizing durable goods for its citizens. Even so, it was noted that the national statistics were quite different and were the true reflection of the prosperity of Uzbekistan. It was discussed in studies that Uzbekistan was comparable to the individual Republics of USSR. Keeping in mind that the progress of USSR was noted to be rather slow.

Stratification in Sustainable Development

A reality of the time was that the government had power over the financial situation of citizens. The government strictly regulated the financial condition of the citizens. In regard to trade and marketing, the sources were altered. When looking at the documents of the Statistical Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan it becomes clear that there was a gradual shift from a “planned” to a “market relations” in regard to the economic system. According to experts on the account;

“The transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, which had become the ultimate aspiration by the end of the 1980s, has not been as fast and as easy as many initially expected. Moreover, almost a quarter of an era later, many of the postulates of this transition, based on the so-called Washington Consensus, are not necessarily considered to be the only right ones anymore. Markets cannot be built overnight, free trade doesn’t always create jobs, private initiatives do not necessarily guarantee better quality and accessibility, and the openness of immature financial systems can make national economies extremely vulnerable to external shocks. In analyzing the experience of reforms in Uzbekistan, it is important to consider the many factors that determined the choice of development strategy and instruments of its implementation (which are not static, but change and are adjusted at each stage of the reforms). Additionally, an analysis must look beyond the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market one, to consider the systematic and gradual transformation of the economy, society, institutions, and spatial development, all within a coherent development strategy” (Eshonov, 2017).

As one would consider, the change was not so much in terms of economy but rather a social change. It has been noted that by 2005, the republic was not optimal to the structure of income. The population’s total share of income wages was seen to be less than 40%, whereas countries that had more developed economies that number was seen to cross the 75% mark. In rural areas, the share was seen to be a number even lower being under 20%. At the same time, it was noted that the revenue that was accruing within the families, including pension and benefits, was quite high. For comparison, the rate was around 20%, where pensions amounted to 13% of that value. About other states, there is an excessively high value of sales that leads to income that reaches around the 35% mark of the total household income. According to documents on the matter, the main issue is that;

“In Uzbekistan, farmers do not own the land, instead it is leased from the government. Decision-making regarding land allocation and water use is heavily influenced by government directive. For example, 60–70% of agricultural land must be allocated to the two main state crops: cotton and wheat. Farmers are responsible for ensuring quotas on state crops are met; therefore, they must make decisions around the timing of planting according to field location within the irrigation system. In flood and furrow irrigated systems, such as those in Uzbekistan, unpredictable weather patterns increase farmers’ risk depending on where they are located within the irrigation system. Assessing the risk level is complex as it depends not only on the location within the irrigation system but also on-farm specialization, levels of market risks, temperature fluctuations, soil parameters (e.g. texture, fertility) and other weather uncertainties. Consideration of these multiple aspects requires the use of a spatial crop and water allocation model. Many spatial bio-economic models exist which analyze the impacts of climate change on agricultural production worldwide” (Bobojonov, et al, & Lamers, 2016).

References

1. Bobojonov, I., Berg, E., Franz-Vasdeki, J., Martius, C., & Lamers, J. P. (2016). Income and irrigation water use efficiency under climate change: An application of spatial stochastic crop and water allocation model to Western Uzbekistan. Climate Risk Management, 13, 19-30.
2. Eshonov, B. (2017). Transition or transformation? Social and gender aspects of rural Developm ent as an integral part of the reform strategy in Uzbekistan. International Agricultural Journal, (1).
3. Gabriel, R., Oris, M., Studer, M., & Baeriswyl, M. (2015). The persistence of social stratification? A life course perspective on poverty in old-age in Switzerland. Revue suisse de sociologie, 41(3), 465-487.
4. Gane, N. (2005). Max Weber as Social Theorist: ‘Class, Status, Party’. European Journal of Social Theory, 8(2), 211-226.
5. Kerbo, H. (2006). World Poverty: The Roots of Global Inequality and the Modern World System. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
6. Kerbo, H. R., & Coleman, J. W. (2006). Social problems.
7. Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413-434.
8. Potts, R. D. (2016). The Triad of Nationality Revisited: The Orthodox Church and the State in Post-Soviet Russia.
9. Rakhmatullaev, S. (2015). Socio-Economic Stratification of Uzbekistan’s Population: Past and Present // South and Central Asia. Insights and Commentaries. New Delhi.

Introduction

According to Raymond W. Murry (1946), ‘’social stratification is a horizontal division of society into ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ social units.’’ Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into groups based on socioeconomic factors like wealth, income, race, education, ethnicity, gender, occupation and social status.

Social Stratification in Nepal

Nepal is officially the federal democratic republic country located in South Asia and is also one of our neighbouring country. Hinduism is the dominant religion in Nepal and Nepali is the official language. The Nepalese caste system was the traditional system of social stratification of Nepal. The Nepalese caste system broadly borrows the classical Hindu model consisting of four broad social classes mainly the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The caste system defines social classes by a number of hierarchical endogamous groups often termed jaat. This custom was traditionally only prevalent in the Hindu -Aryan societies of the Khas, Madhesi, and Newars. If high caste boy marry low class girl his caste level would decrease and society treats him low.

However, since the unification of Nepal in the 18th century, Nepal’s various non –Hindu native nationalities and tribes, formerly called “Matwalis’’ (alcohol-drinkers) and now termed as Adivasi (indigenous/nationalities), have been united within the caste hierarchy the pyramid to varying grades of success. Despite the forceful combination by the state into the pan-Hindu social structure, the traditionally non-Hindu groups and societies do not necessarily follow the customs and practices nkof the caste system.

The caste system is still unbroken today but the rules are not as rigid as they were in the past. In 1962, a law was passed mainly to stop the discrimination against different castes and to treat all cast equally. Education is provided free and open to all castes. The caste system comprises of structural class in which lower caste/ethnicities are socio-economically not equivalent like those of higher castes/ethnicities. Recent research has also shown that when it comes to Nepali, people’s impression of social change, “Poverty, Human Resource and Region’’ explain more of the variation than ‘caste, ethnicity or religious belonging.’ Therefore people’s insight of their own social condition has more to do with objective social class, than with association with caste. People are classified based on their wealth by society and people mostly focus on how to earn wealth and to get richer.

After take-over of the Nepali monarchy following the federal republic, ethnicity and caste have taken interior step. The native people (Adivasi Janajati) who make up a third of the country having been guaranteed rights that have not been fulfilled. There is an observable reaction to this among certain Khas Brahmin and Chhetri groups, seeking to prevent group-based rights from becoming an important factor in the country that earlier had a political system associated with group discrimination. Certain outside experts have suggested that seeking a balance in the approach requires addressing both detailed native historical injustices while creating a common citizenship for all the citizens regardless of identity, which remains a particularly challenging issue for Nepal.

In Nepal, gender inequality is another stratification which creates disparities and inequalities between men and women. Nepal is a patriarchal society and on almost every measure, women are worse off than men. The Nepalese believes that men are always superior over women. Women and girls in Nepal are deprived by traditional practices like the dowry system, early marriage, son –preference, stigmatization of widows, isolating women (purdah), family violence, polygamy, and the segregation of women and girls during menstruation (Chhaupadi). In recent years, there have been changes to improve the situation faced by women and girls.

In Nepal a high-caste, educated women may have lower opportunities to work outside the home than a rural woman for whom working outside the home may be more accepted. Girls have the responsibility of helping their mothers with housework while men and boys are generally not expected as they are seen as the future family breadwinner while daughters leave home to line with their in-laws. They thinks daughter is meant for other and son is to look after his parents.

Almost half of the population gets married between the age of 14 to 19 years and dowry is a major driver of child marriage as well as a cause of violence against girls and women. Marriage plays a deciding role in all women’s life choices and social-economic position. As women get older, their gender roles change especially if they become the mother -in law who is more able to make decisions and likely to have more freedoms than her daughter-in –law. Prior to crisis widows were harassed and blamed for their husbands deaths, they are seen as burden on her family – particularly in rural areas. Although there has been improvement in women’s overall status including increases in the literacy rate and opportunities for them to work. Recently many things have changed as of caste system and gender inequality. Women are given their voice of right. But the discrimination that exist before is not totally abolished but diminishing slowly.

Social stratification in Bhutan

In the Bhutanese society social stratification in past has been defined as both patriarchal and matriarchal and the member with the highest respect served as the family’s head. Bhutan has been designated as feudalistic and characterized by the absence of strong social stratification. In pre-modern eras, there were three broad classes mainly the monastic community, the leadership of which was the nobility, lay civil servants who ran the government structure; and farmers, the largest class, living in self-sufficient society. In the more militaristic pre-modern era, Bhutan also had an underclass of criminals of war and their offspring, who were generally treated as serfs or slaves.

In contemporary spells, the society is structured with joint family entities, and a class division existed based on occupation and, in time, social status. With the introduction of foreign practice in recent countries and increasing job flexibility outside the village, joint family practice is diminishing. A system of titles, depending on age, degree of familiarity, and social or official status, indicates ranks and relationship among members of society. With the position different people have different respect and recognition.

When it comes to social status based on ranking and authority in the country is indicated by the ornamental details and colour of the dress and quality of the clothes used. The scarf worn by both men and women symbolize the status one holds. Yellow scarf is worn by His Majesty and Je Khenpo, orange by Prime Minister, red my lamas and monks, green by Drangpon and white by lay men like us.

Social status is based on family’s economic position. Except among the Hindu Lhotshampa in southern Bhutan some of communities still follows caste system. Although Bhutanese were endogamous by tradition, modern practices encouraged ethnic combination in late twentieth century. Right of inheritance traditionally exist, although in some central areas the eldest daughter was the legal successor. In contemporary Bhutan, however inheritance came to be more equally distributed among all children of a family. Except the royal, Lotshampa and a few other noble families have surname whereas other do not have.

When comes to ethnicity in Bhutan there are numerous ethnic groups in Bhutan, and no one group constitutes as majority of Bhutanese population. The Bhutanese are of four main ethnic groups, which are Ngalop, Sharchop, Lhotshampa and Bhutanese tribal and aboriginal peoples living in villages scattered throughout Bhutan. In the past elders restricted to marry different ethnics and they did not like each other because different people used to talk different language. And were self-sufficient in their own community. But with the change of period of time and peoples thinking, all citizen started socializing with one another and recently have started to get married with one another.

And to talk about caste system, like in Nepal, Lhotshampa in southern Bhutan practice the caste system. Lhotshampa does not allows low caste people to enter their house and don’t drink water too if they happen to touch it. If children happened to marry low caste (Kami, Rasaily, Darjee and Dami) they will be considered death and are not allowed to live in that particular community. To marry own caste is very important that if not many discrimination arises. Few decades before gender inequality existed in caste system of Hinduism. Girls were treated very lowly and not given any opportunity rather than being a house wife. Boys were the supreme leader of the house to make the decision. But today, this system is fading and everyone is given equal opportunity in the community. And in near future I think it will not exist because society give more focus to wealth rather than caste. Caste system is not a pieces of cake which we can change overnight. So it will take time to change to have equality in the society in regards of caste.

Lastly, caste and gender inequality is not a big problem this days. Bhutanese focus on the wealth that one can earn in the society. Mainly focuses on economic status where wealth is distributed among society. There is no such division as ‘haves and haves not’ in Bhutanese society and wealth is divided equally and everyone has the opportunities to get richer. Once one get richer he will be recognized in the society. There is no restriction in the society that will held one back from earning wealth.

Social stratification is a defining feature of modern society, encompassing a hierarchical structure that categorizes individuals based on various socio-economic factors such as income, education, occupation, and race. This stratification manifests in a complex tapestry in the United States, reflecting the nation’s diverse population and history.

With the American Dream proclaiming the potential for upward mobility, the reality often paints a different picture, as barriers like systemic inequality, discrimination, and lack of access to resources impede progress for many. The impact of social stratification extends beyond the personal and permeates cultural, political, and institutional domains.

This essay will explore the dynamics of social stratification in the United States, examining its origins, present-day manifestations, and potential future implications. In understanding these intricacies, we may recognize the fundamental role that stratification plays in shaping the lives and opportunities of individuals, as well as the broader societal fabric.

Acknowledging the possibilities for change and the deeply ingrained challenges, we may forge a path toward a more equitable and cohesive society.

Categories of Stratification

Social stratification in the United States can be understood through various interconnected categories, each playing a critical role in defining an individual’s place within the societal hierarchy.

1. Economic Status: Economic status is perhaps the most apparent form of stratification. It involves the division of society into different levels based on income, wealth, and occupation. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened, leading to a distinct division between the upper, middle, and lower classes.
2. Educational Attainment: Education plays a pivotal role in social mobility, but disparities in educational opportunities often create barriers. Factors such as the quality of schools, access to higher education, and educational funding vary significantly across socio-economic groups, reinforcing existing inequalities.
3. Racial and Ethnic Differences: Racial and ethnic backgrounds continue to influence social standing in the U.S. Historically marginalized groups often face systemic discrimination and unequal opportunities, resulting in disparities in income, education, and employment.
4. Gender: Gender stratification highlights the differential access to resources and opportunities between men and women. Despite significant strides in gender equality, wage disparities, career advancement, and representation in leadership roles persist.
5. Age: Age-related stratification can lead to different treatments and opportunities based on an individual’s age. This may manifest in the form of ageism, where both young and old individuals face stereotyping and discrimination.
6. Geographical Location: The region where an individual resides can also affect social standing. Urban and rural divides and regional economic differences can lead to unequal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other essential services.
7. Social Networks and Capital: Social connections and community involvement play a subtle but significant role in stratification. Individuals with more extensive social networks often have access to better opportunities and resources.

These categories of stratification interact and overlap, creating a multifaceted and complex system that shapes individual lives and societal structures. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for recognizing the full scope of social stratification in the United States and how it perpetuates inequality and affects the daily lives of its citizens.

Components

The components of social stratification serve as the building blocks that create and sustain the hierarchical structure within society. These components interrelate and function together, reflecting the complexity of the system. In the United States, the key components include:

1. Class System: Unlike rigid caste systems in other societies, the U.S. features a more fluid class system. Although movement between classes is theoretically possible, significant barriers often hinder true mobility. The class system divides individuals into different socio-economic strata based on income, education, occupation, and wealth.
2. Status Groups: Status groups refer to communities with similar prestige or social honor. This can be influenced by profession, education, family background, or cultural heritage. Status groups often interact with class structures, leading to further societal differentiation.
3. Power and Authority: Power and authority are critical to social stratification. Those with higher socioeconomic status often have greater influence over decision-making in political, economic, and social spheres. This influence can further entrench inequality, as those with power typically shape policies and practices to maintain their advantage.
4. Institutions and Policies: Government institutions and policies play a vital role in mitigating or exacerbating social stratification. Laws regarding taxation, education, healthcare, and labor rights can either foster equality or widen gaps between different strata.
5. Culture and Ideology: A society’s cultural beliefs and ideologies can reinforce stratification. For instance, the notion of the “American Dream” and meritocracy may justify inequalities by emphasizing individual effort over systemic barriers. This can lead to a lack of empathy for those in lower strata and hinder efforts for reform.
6. Technology and Automation: The rise of technology and automation profoundly impacts social stratification. Technology can create new disparities and alter existing social hierarchies by changing the job market and favoring those with specific skills.
7. Globalization: In an interconnected world, globalization affects stratification by influencing economic conditions, labor markets, and cultural exchange. It can create opportunities and challenges that reflect and reshape domestic stratification patterns.
8. Social Mobility: Social mobility, or the ability to move between different socio-economic strata, is both a component and a reflection of stratification. Factors that enhance or restrict mobility, such as education, discrimination, and economic policies, can significantly impact stratification dynamics.

In conclusion, the components of social stratification in the United States are multifaceted and deeply interconnected. They contribute to a complex system that shapes individual lives, societal relationships, and social fabric. Understanding these components is vital for grappling with inequality’s persistent and pervasive nature in contemporary American society.

Forms

Social stratification manifests in various forms, each reflecting a particular aspect of the hierarchical division within society. In the context of the United States, these forms include:

• Economic Stratification: This form divides individuals and groups based on economic factors such as wealth, income, and occupation. The widening income gap and wealth distribution disparities indicate economic stratification with profound implications for access to resources and quality of life.
• Racial and Ethnic Stratification: Historical and systemic biases against racial and ethnic minorities result in distinct disparities across various societal domains. This stratification is evident in unequal access to education, healthcare, employment opportunities, and justice.
• Gender Stratification: Gender stratification highlights the inequalities between men and women. Despite progress in gender equality, this form persists through wage gaps, unequal representation in leadership roles, and differing access to opportunities based on gender.
• Educational Stratification: Educational opportunities and outcomes are significantly influenced by socio-economic factors, leading to a form of stratification where those with access to better education enjoy enhanced prospects in life. This can perpetuate cycles of poverty and privilege.
• Health Stratification: Health outcomes and access to healthcare often vary greatly across different social groups. Income, education, race, and location contribute to healthcare availability and overall well-being disparities.
• Occupational Stratification: Occupations often carry differing levels of prestige, income, and social standing, leading to a division within society. Career opportunities and advancements may also be influenced by factors such as race, gender, and class.
• Age Stratification: Different age groups may face unique challenges and benefits, leading to stratification based on age. This includes ageism, where societal norms and prejudices favor or discriminate against individuals based on age.

These forms of social stratification are often intertwined, reflecting a complex and multifaceted system. They collectively shape the lived experiences of individuals and communities, influencing opportunities, relationships, and social cohesion. By recognizing and understanding these various forms, we can better appreciate the depth and breadth of social stratification in the United States and work towards addressing the underlying issues perpetuating inequality.

Conclusion

The class system in the United States is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon intricately woven into the fabric of society. Its various categories, components, and forms shape individuals’ opportunities, experiences, and relationships nationwide. While it presents a significant challenge to the ideals of equality and opportunity, understanding its dynamics is a critical step toward addressing the underlying issues. Efforts towards a more equitable society must acknowledge the interplay of factors that create and sustain stratification, fostering collaboration and innovation to break down the barriers that divide and hinder true social progress.

Introduction

The society has always been about classes where chances of survival are basically a function of where one falls in the hierarchy of classification as a result of socio-economic status and which means, access to power, resources and services is mostly based on where or what class and group one belongs to. Generally, the upper classes have the most access to all these services on account of wealth and income, while the lower classes may get few or none, which puts them at a disadvantage.

These hierarchical inequality is referred to as social stratification, and this study is basically aimed at examining social stratification and the discrimination of groups as a result of the following elements of social classification – social classes, gender, age ethnicity and sexuality. The conflict theory of Karl Marx supplemented by Max Webber’s functionalist ideology will be drawn on as pertinent references for a decisive justice to the subject.

Definition

Social stratification is referred to as a system by which a society ranks categories of people in hierarchy. It is quite clear that certain groups have more rank, power and wealth than other groups. Such disparities are what contributed to stratification of society. Social stratification is based on four key principles:

1. Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences.
2. Social stratification persists over generations.
3. Social stratification is universal (it happens everywhere) but variable (it takes different forms across different societies).
4. Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well – inequality is rooted in a society’s philosophy. (Kimberly Moffitt, Social stratification, Definitions, Theories, Example, 2015)

Stratification as a driver and tool for social order

Some early researchers justified the necessity and function of social stratification for the overall maintenance of social order and below is an excerpt from the Davies and Moore theory, a theory that I personally faulted for failing to adequately acknowledge the natural theory of equality and the fundamental human rights.

The Davis and Moore Theory

The Davis and Moore theory clearly and simply outlined the functional view of social stratification as necessary to meet the needs of complex social systems. In other words, from a perspective that considers society as something like an organism, the theory argued that this organism has needs that must be met if it is to remain healthy. Among these needs is for the most important positions or jobs in the society to be staffed by the most qualified and competent people. – Social stratification is considered a mechanism that ensures that the need is met. The following seven points provide a basic summary of the theory (Tumin 1953):

1. Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others, and require special skills to fill them.
2. Only a limited number of people in any society have the talents that can be trained into the skills appropriate to these positions.
3. The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind or another are made by those undergoing the training.
4. In order to induce the talented people to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their future positions must carry an inducement value in the form of a differential-that is, privileged and disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards the society has to offer.
5. These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and prerequisites attached to, or built into, the positions, and can be classified into those things that contribute to (a) sustenance and comfort, (b) humour and diversion, and (c) self-respect and ego expansion.
6. This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has as a consequence the differentiation of the prestige and esteem various strata acquire. It may be said to constitute, along with the rights and prerequisites, institutionalized social inequality: that is, stratification.
7. Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods and the amounts of prestige and esteem they receive is both positively functional and inevitable in any society.

The Davis and Moore stratification theory appears at face value to be a basic, straightforward and accurate explanation of inequality and social stratification in modern, if not all, societies. In a way, it is a model of the labour market that analyzes labour supply and demand as it applies to labour incentives. In short, when the supply of skilled labour is small in relation to the amount of labour needed, the employer (in the context of Davis and Moore, society) will be required to pay more for this work. The interpretation of that labour market model by Davis and Moore is faulty. And over the years a number of social scientists have identified many reasoning and omission issues in this theory. The Davis and Moore theory need not be dismissed on every level, but in several respects it needs to be amended.

The Elements of social stratification

There is some sort of stratification in all societies, some more severe than others. Societies have some organizational type which leads to different classes. Sociologists research the particular ways of stratifying a given society and what it means to belong to the different classes of a society.

– Social Class

The social class is related to income, wealth and social status, cultural capital and social capital. Social class is a form of social stratification that has either negative or positive impact on the lives of people. It refers to a specific group of people’s income, level of education, occupation, and reputation – sex, age, race and abilities are all interconnected factors (McDowell et al., 2013). It’s believed that acquisition of knowledge and prestige via employment plays an important role in defining an individual’s lifestyle and subsequently their life chances. It should be remembered that most of Karl Marx’s work was focused on westernized capitalist societies, and this is largely because his idea of conflict theory resides in an economic domain or context (Lenski, 2008). Marx differentiated the class of people – the lower, middle or upper classes. In ‘ Communist Party Manifesto ‘ Marx refers to lower class communities as the proletariat and the upper class as the bourgeoisie.

The proletariat in Marxism, like farmers and low-skilled factory workers, is the working class of society – they do not own any means of production, a class of people who do manual labor that does not require specific skills. The bourgeoisie on the other hand are the capitalist class, the wealthy who own most of the means of production, so they hire and exploit the working class to increase their wealth (Mohandesi, 2013). It is not only attention-grabbing but very disheartening, to say the most appropriate, that the class where one is found in relation to the abovementioned groups affects their chances in life and consequently their social class.

According to Max Weber, the social class and the chances of a person’s life are interdependent (Davidson, 2009). Considering the aforementioned, it’s safe to conclude that the higher a person is placed in the social hierarchy (class) the better his or her life will be; the opposite is the case for those in a poor position in the hierarchy. The people caught in the web of the poor position in the hierarchy has consistently been striving and hoping for more from life but all the efforts towards improving their quality of life has constantly been suppressed by the oppressors who would do just about anything to keep the gap as wide as possible leaving the poor where they are in the hierarchy – and to think all of these segregation is just for class and prestige at the expense of the oppressed is very annoying.

Racism, sexism and a divided working class are all strategies employed by the capitalist as a divided working class is used by the capitalist as a tool or tools of oppression – a divided house can’t stand to struggle effectively against the select few who own and control the wealth and resources of society. The labor movement and all progressive forces are fighting back against every act of injustice and bigotry and supporting the struggles of all oppressed groups in an effort to take away the wealth and means of production from the capitalist and create a society of prosperity and equality for all and sundry.

– Gender stratification

Gender stratification applies to the social class, where males usually have higher statuses than females. The phrase ‘gender inequality’ and ‘gender stratification’ are often used as one and the same. The study of gender stratification has various approaches. Some research in this area focuses on differences between the circumstances in men’s and women’s lives. The most important aspects of inequality and the degree at which inequalities are created and sustained (i.e., person, couple, family, community or societal level) as a focal point, has been a topical subject for debate within the academic space. Many researchers compare men and women in families, others in communities, and (West and Zimmerman 1987) make a compelling case that gender and, by extension, gender inequality are generated in everyday interactions However, (Blau, et al. 2006) points out that recognizing structural influence in organizational environments and their experiences with gender are important for a systematic understanding of gender stratification.

Gender stratification occurs when gender differences give men greater privilege and power over women, transgender, and gender-non-conforming people.

More recently, intersectionality is taken into account in the feminist perspective on gender stratification, a sociological feminist theory first articulated by the feminist-socialist Kimberlé Crenshaw. Intersectionality implies that different categories of nature, society, and culture interact and relate to the systemic social inequality, including gender, race, class, and ethnicity. More to the point, various forms of oppression, like racism or sexism, do not work independently of each other; rather, these forms of oppression are closely linked, creating a system of oppression representing the ‘intersection’ of various forms of discrimination. Therefore, in the context of this theory, women’s inequality and marginalisation is influenced not just by gender but also by other factors such as race and class. Discrimination against women is evident in various areas of society, be it political, legal, economic or personal. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the issue is pretty much as bad as men versus women. Today societies are home to a variety of different classes, ethnicities, genders, and nationalities, and some groups of women that enjoy higher status and greater power compared to select groups of men, depending on factors such as what racial and ethnic groups they are affiliated with.

There’s also the issue of occupational segregation, where men fill certain positions more, be it by preference, duty or exclusion. The challenge of isolating the role of discrimination in social segregation has made this problem more complex to understand.

A study published in Sociology in 2012, ‘The Dimensions of Occupational Gender Segregation in Industrial Countries,’ aims at addressing this issue. The investigators, Lakehead University’s Jennifer Jarman and University of Cambridge’s Robert M. Blackburn and Girts Racko, analyze the relationship between gender inequality and gender-based discrimination of jobs by class – gender. The researchers analyze the interplay of differences in pay, social stratification and occupational segregation in relation to gender stratification in 30 industrial countries.

Below is the summary of the result of their findings:

1. However, “although men are consistently advantaged in pay, the study finds that the male advantage does not follow national differences in segregation, suggesting that inequality is not the driving factor of segregation.” In the countries studied, occupational segregation by gender was real and substantial: Men tend to be concentrated in what have come to be perceived as “male” occupations and women in “female” ones.
2. In contrast, Japan, despite being thought of as one of the most egalitarian countries in social problems and income in the world, is the most unequal country among industrial nations in terms of gender and income.” Women tend to outperform men in the general desirability of occupations, as measured by the Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale (CAMSIS).

– Age stratification

For many parts of life, age is a major component of entry and exit-school, starting a family, retirement, etc. Age-shifting social status can contribute to ageing. Discrimination by a person’s age can have profound impacts on how a society functions— including behavioral expectations, resource distribution, and even policies and legislation. Age stratification refers to the hierarchical classification of individuals into age groups within a society. Age stratification might also be defined as an age-linked system of inequalities. For example, in western societies, both old and young are viewed and regarded as fairly not up to it and excluded from much social life. Age stratification based on the status ascribed is a major source of discrimination and thus can contribute to ageism – a social inequality resulting from age stratification. This is a sociological trend involving the study of the aging population. Population age stratification has major implications, affecting things like workplace trends, social norms, family structures, government policies, and even health outcomes. People of different ages differ in their access to the rewards, power and privileges of society as a result of social processes anchored in age stratification.

Access to Training and Education

Through the 19th and 20th centuries, a variety of professions were ‘professionalized,’ gaining regulatory bodies and requiring specific higher educational qualifications. Given that women’s access to higher education was often limited, women’s participation in these professionalizing occupations was effectively restricted.

For example, until 1868, women were completely forbidden access to Cambridge University, and were burdened with a variety of restrictions until 1987 when the university adopted a policy of equal opportunity. Over the same period, numerous other institutions in the United States and Western Europe began to open their doors to women, but access to higher education remains a significant barrier to women’s full participation in the workforce and where access to higher education is officially available, access by women to the complete range of job choices may be restricted.

For centuries, Americans and immigrants alike have sought to pursue their life in accordance with the idea of the “American Dream.” So much so that they have fought to protect this image of obtaining a large, extravagant home, fully furnished with a family of a married couple with children, and pets. Nearly all anti-capitalistic memos are shooed away while the individuals that are able to achieve the American Dream are celebrated and idolized. While the pursuit of the American Dream is the very core of the consumer’s perspective of capitalism, media is the tool that connects both the consumer and the producer in the model of capitalism we follow today (Kaijar, 2019; Hermon & Chomsky, 1988). Those who are able to achieve large homes signify to the average American the large accumulation of wealth the homeowner has. The house itself, along with the neighborhood homeowners reside in, are also used as indicators by social scientists and researchers alike to predict their income, occupation, and political party affiliation.

But what does the size, detailing, and the overall “look” of the home have to do with anything? How are these seemingly superficial aspects of one’s home considered social markers of wealth and status? And what does political party have to do with all of that? Many of these questions are long sought to be answered by social scientists, as Americans within our capitalist society pursue their lives hoping that one day they will achieve the American dream, one that includes wealth, status, and power.

According to an essay titled Class, Status, Party, written by one of the most fundamental sociological theorists Max Weber, the above-mentioned domains of society are interlinked within each distinct aspect (p. 180-195). The notion of the interrelated nature between social class (wealth), social status (prestige), and political affiliation (power) is classified as the Weberian social stratification theory by recent scholars. Through this conceptual framework of the Weberian social stratification theory, I hope to demonstrate how intertwined each of these three components of class, status, and power resides within modern-day American capitalist society and how media is able to push the memo of the American dream. In my examination of the Weberian social stratification theory in American society, I will analyze a film and briefly analyze some popular social phenomena within media, which are some forms of modern-day popular culture. For further clarification, “wealth” will be used interchangeably with “economic power,” “social order,” or “social class”; “prestige” with “social status,” “honor,” “status order,” or “status groups”; and finally, “power” with “political party,” “political order,” or “political affiliation.” This is done to prevent repetition word order.

For instance, Weber argues that “‘classes,’ ‘status groups,’ and ‘parties’ are phenomena of the distribution of power within a community” (p. 181). Weber further contends that power can take a variety of forms. Where a man’s power can be shown through his social order as status, in his economic order through class, and finally in his political order through party. Each of these components is distinct ideal types, as a result, which means that these three components are not mutually exclusive.

Economic power (wealth) and social honor (prestige) are clearly two differentiated components of social stratification, for example, but both can overlap if an individual belonged to a “prestige status group” by financial means. Black cards, a modern-day example of the intersection of membership of a “prestige status group” via accumulated wealth show the interrelated nature between the two distinct ideal types. The black cards are a form of “monetary luxury” in the sense that one must either be invited by those black card credit card companies (which is selected based on an individual’s financial history) or pay high prices to have a membership to the prestigious black card. According to a 2019 article by Karen Doyle regarding the top 10 black cards “you [probably] didn’t know about,” the “Luxury Card: Master Card Black Card” requires an annual fee of $495 in order to obtain a Luxury Card in your hands. The benefits include perks that allure the elite status groups, such as VIP lounge access, 1.5x cash back, and for the Luxury Card, “access to a Luxury Card concierge who will make travel reservations and assist with personal requests” (Doyle, 2019).

Weber also distinguishes the difference between parties, and the two other distinct ideal types of class and prestige in the 10th section of his Class, Status, Party essay. Within this section, Weber describes parties as one of the ways in which power exists for status groups due to the need for social honor, societalization, and communal action. Also as a result of high levels of solidarity within these groups, the actions by parties which are planned to meet specific goals may or may not have a personal belief or political cause; but ultimately it does not matter, as the specific goals may be one of which aligns with the party’s identity. In order for these political parties to endure and sustain themselves for a long period of time, capital, rational thought on an organizational level, and legal order are all maintained. Claiming dominion among spheres of political influence requires the individualization of party members, as within the “frontier of politics,” a macro level of solidarity for the party’s interest must be present along with the ability to relate to individual voters (p. 195).

The Trump presidency is a present-day example of how economic forces integrate with power. While Donald Trump had no prior political experience during his run for presidency in the 2016 general U.S. election, he had received votes from Americans across the nation due to the class struggle coming from capitalism. The timing of the class struggle, along with the embodiment of the American dream Trump had possessed from his personal business ventures, as well as the symbolic support from the Republican party led to the winning of his presidential candidacy. As a result of his presidency, he put forth promised conservative values such as anti-immigration policies.

“To what extent do you agree with the view that class rather than race/ethnicity or gender provides the best explanation for the system of social stratification in the modern Caribbean. “

Social stratification is a phrase well known by the world and in retrospect the entire Caribbean region. We may not know the exact definition of this phrase but we know the context in which it is utilized as its presence continues to form the basis of what we know as ‘life’ in our Modern Caribbean. According to Openstax (2016) “Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.” Mustapha N. states as a result of social inequality becoming patterned and institutionalized, it forms part of the social structure and therefore social stratification is said to exist.(2013, p215). Within the present Caribbean education is seen as the main equalizer in society for social mobility. The moot also poses the view of whether class, race/ethnicity or gender would do more justice in understanding the contemporary Caribbean. To frivolously understand the meaning in context I will define the terminology utilized. Giddens N. (2013) describes class “a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead. Ownership of wealth, together with the occupation are the chief bases of class differences.” Mustapha goes on to state that “A race is a human group that is believed to be distinct in some way from other humans, based on real or imagined physical differences. Racial classifications are rooted in the idea of a biological. Classification of humans according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. The social construction of race is dependent upon the social meanings that have been accorded by people to particular physical traits. Ethnicity, while sometimes related to race, refers to the social and cultural traits that are shared by a human group. Gender refers to the social, cultural, emotional and psychological construction of masculinity and femininity.” This essay will serve the purpose to validate my view that social stratification in our modern Caribbean is best explained using class as a forefront. To corroborate my stance I will outline the various factors that further substantiate the view in I have taken (2013).

Caribbean social structure

In order to identify which concept of either race/ethnicity, gender or class can be used to identify social stratification within the Caribbean it is salient to first interpret the social structure of our modern Caribbean. Sociological thinkers have identified three theoretical perspectives to describe the Caribbean. They include the plantation society, the plural society and creole society explained by George Beckford (1972), M. G Smith and Edward Kamau Brathwaite respectively. The plantation model is seen as being predominantly socioeconomic whilst the creole and plural society is sociocultural. “George Beckford (1972) saw the plantation system as a total economic institution, where ‘the internal and external dimensions of the plantation system dominate the countries’ economic, social and political structure and their relation with the rest of the world.’” “In his model, Smith explains that a common system of basic institutions is shared in homogeneous societies. However, in plural societies, there are alternative and exclusive institutions that exist and, as a result, the basic institutions are not shared. Smith does not see such plural societies as being stratified by class, but there may be internal classification among the various races.” “In the Caribbean, the mixture of languages, religious rituals, musical expressions, cuisine and people, represent the Creolization of Caribbean culture and society. Creolization involves both acculturation and inculturation”. It is clear that from the definitions every theory provides a definition for our contemporary Caribbean as each aspect are interlaid and contributes to the modern Caribbean. There is an undeniable presence of economics playing a role within society. The Cambridge dictionary describes socio-economic as relating to the differences between groups of people due to their financial situations. This generally relates back to an individual’s class within society and how they are perceived. The Caribbean has emerged out of plantation society.

Reddock. The economy of Jamaica experienced a dramatic upturn in the post-World War II period. The m system of the post-emancipation plantation society. It created a modern enclave and mainly urban3 sector within the traditional plantation economy and forged the growth of new social classes and a modified stratification system. The growth of a manufacturing sector, accompanied by an expansion of the service and public sectors created the basis for a more diverse and fragmented class structure and opened up opportunities for social mobility within the urban enclave. The dualistic nature of this modernization meant, however, that the changes were primarily concentrated in the urban enclave although some effects were also manifested in the rural sector.

As in the case ofthe manual classes, sharp income differentials have arisen within this stratum. Increasingly, status within this stratum is based on income-earning capacity rather than on middle-class acculturation. This stratum has therefore fragmented into a high prestige and high-income professional class and a lower income and lower prestige white-collar class.

The clear advantage in stratifying the urban population in terms of the occupational categories outlined earlier is that occupational strata reflect both differences in material affluence as well as non-material status distinctions such as that between manual and non-manual labor.

Hierarchies and power, conflict theory

The study of social stratification has focused on three conceptually distinct but intended areas of social relationships. These include economic relationships, status hierarchies and power. These areas are all determined by what class an individual holds within society. Reddock et al determined that a central thesis of this study is that Jamaica the material or economic role relationships are the principal determinants of both status and power and in the case of urban Jamaica social stratification is best measured in terms of occupational strata. A number of factors have been responsible for the basis of the social structure of the Caribbean changing from being predominantly ‘closed’ to becoming ‘open’. Most of the factors responsible for these changes coincide with self-governance and making social mobility accessible to everyone. These factors include political independence, the transformation of the economy, and the availability of education. Reddock Marxist and non-Marxistscholars alike (Stone 1973) sought to challenge this showing that class was alive and well in this region even if it was mediated by culture and ethnicity.

Social mobility, class distinctions, functionalist theory

Mcleod states that Social stratification implies social inequality; if some groups have access to more resources than others, the distribution of those resources is inherently unequal.(1999). Mustapha states that according to Popenoe, 2000 modern society is stratified by a relatively open class system with the ability to be prosperous in society through upward mobility even when an individual is borne into a relatively lower-class society. Social mobility can be defined as the movement of individuals or groups from one position to the next within a socially stratified society. The Caribbean social structure was shaped by its history especially colonialism and post-colonialism. During colonialism ascribed factors such as race and sex contributed to significantly to ones life chances of society. Now within contemporary society, it depends on your socioeconomic status (achieved status) that individuals would attain by furthering their education and also a ‘high class’ occupation. Many critics argue that education has been the main equalizer in society and as a result has accounted for social mobility across race and ethnic boundary lines. The rise of the local intelligentsia comprising members of both Africans and Indians in countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana is testimony to the rapid spread of education to all in these territories. Most of the factors responsible for these changes coincide with self-governance and making social mobility accessible to everyone. These factors include political independence, the transformation of the economy, and the availability of education.Self-governance resulted in policies and measures being adopted to ensure that the majority of the population was presented with opportunities to experience social mobility and by extension enjoy a higher standard of living than they were experiencing. As discussed in the functionalist model of society, education was seen as the main vehicle for the achievement of social mobility

Gender still an aspect to consider

However, despite the advances that women have made in education and in achieving social mobility, the patterns of employment reflect gender inequality. Women in the middle class tend to dominate the lower-status (teaching) and lower-paid jobs, and within the teaching professions, the better-paid positions of authority and decision-making remain in the domain of males. Furthermore, although there have been increases in the number of employed women, especially in the lower strata, their jobs (as maids, babysitters, fast-food attendants, sales clerks, and typists) tend to reflect an extension of the role in the home – that of nurturer and food provider. Therefore, although the ‘glass ceiling’ may reflect some superficial cracks, it seems to be quite intact in terms of maintaining a legacy of patriarchy. It is evident, therefore, that although there have been some advances towards achieving gender equality, there is a long road to travel before the gender-based stratification system is corrected

According to Parry (2000), the recent trend in gender enrolment and achievement reflects a reversal of historical trends whereby females were largely absent at the higher levels of the school system. This change in gender enrolment reflects socio-economic changes in the Caribbean, in which greater educational opportunities have been made available to females, and also the debunking of the social and cultural myth that education was not desirable for females.At the tertiary level, Miller (1991) notes that gender enrolment of Jamaican students at the University of the West Indies has also shown increased female enrolment. However, closer examination shows that the enrolment is stratified between the faculties. Males are dominant in the science-oriented faculties and females are dominant in the faculties that offer subjects in the humanities. A similar trend is also seen at the St Augustine campus in Trinidad and Tobago

Feminization of the teaching profession

Gender changes have been taking place in the Caribbean where the traditional gender stratification system has been challenged, but the gender system is intact, in a modified form.

Occupation reflects academic achievement as opposed to ascribed factors.

References

1. OpenStax. (2016). Introduction to Sociology 2e. OpenStax CNX. May 18, 2016. Sections 9.1-9. Available at http://cnx.org/contents/AgQDEnLI@6.20:bi_ khgk9@4/Introduction-to-Social-Stratif
2. Mustapha, N. (2013). Sociology for Caribbean Students (2nd edition). Module 3, pp. 211-241. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Retrieved via UWIlinC.
3. Giddens, A. 2001. Class, stratification and inequality. In Sociology (4th ed.). Reprint, with the assistance of Karen Birdsall. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press. pp. 282–283. Supplementary reading https://2019.tle.courses.open.uwi.edu/pluginfile.php/27426/mod_resource/content/6/Unit6.pdf
4. SOCIOECONOMIC: meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/socioeconomic.
5. McLeod, J. D., & Nonnemaker, J. M. (1999, January 1). Social Stratification and Inequality. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-36223-1_16.
6. Barrow, C., & Reddock, R. (2001). Caribbean Sociology: Introductory Readings. Section 2, Chapter 12-17 Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Available via UWIlinC.

Social stratification and our dependence on class has separated and ostracized us from each other alongside Capitalism’s firm grip around the throat of our class driven societies, like in America and the UK. Class follows us everywhere we go in life, the fact is, we will probably never move up from the class bracket we were born into, doesn’t matter if you’re driven and determined, you may get promoted but chances are it will never be enough to take you up the ladder. It forces us all into a box. A box that many never escape, relegating many to the working class, sometimes unbeknownst to them. It is used to divide us and to suppress people to the bottom, making those at the top feel strong and superior. The same is done in closed systems of social stratification like in India, the main difference between these two systems being open systems gives the people false hope, that they can one day move class bracket, but in a closed system this is taken away. Once you’re born, you’re stuck in that bracket forever.

In open systems we continue living like this because no one’s willing to give up a little to make the world a more equal place, by continuing to live in a class driven society, we are ignoring the cries for help by those at the bottom, clawing onto the illusion of our own success and our want to move up the ladder. People yell at the government and protest about the troubles that directly affect them. Yet don’t bother standing up for each other, for injustices or for new ways to help those less fortunate. One example of this is in modern Ireland is that many would rather pay for private health insurance than pay extra taxes to support our public health system. As a people, we are selfish, most only pretending to care about the worries and difficulties of others. “Ordinary people are now convinced that there is no alternative to the morality of the acquisitive society”. (Marshall et al 1993) We’ve become materialistic, only caring about appearances and issues that directly affect us. Class has pushed this idea, created a cruel, barbaric and unjust world and by accepting it we have agreed that to survive we must live in a hierarchically driven discriminatory society, where those at the bottom are rejected and suppressed.

The United States is an example of a country with an open system of social stratification, capitalist through and through. Where people given hope by the American dream, yet it’s all a lie. Many don’t realize it; it just stays fantasy that gets them through their gruelling everyday lives. It’s what America is best known for, ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. But there’s a bitter truth, many don’t succeed, most are still suppressed, forgotten about and kept in their place. One of the best examples of this in America today is Flint Michigan’s water crisis.

It began in 2014, when the people of Flints source of water was switched from Lake Huron so a new pipeline could be built for the auto mobile company. Quickly problems began occurring, with dirty brown water flooding into people’s homes, but residents were assured it was safe. Soon after the town of Flint began experiencing mass illnesses, growths of rashes and hair loss, most frightening of all lead was being found in their blood. The Governor caught wind of this launched an investigation into the issue, yet reports were hidden and tampered with. When they discovered the water began to erode the parts being made in the factory their water supply was changed back, but the people supply was not, they were continually exposed and force to use contaminated water. (Moore 2019) From this reaction it’s clear that the government only cared about those on top and profit.

Flint is a majority black, poor and working-class area, who were unheard and unanswered by those above them, those who swore to protect them. Barak Obama as president, visited Flint in 2016 to witness the crisis, there was hope again, finally change seemed on the horizon, but once again their plight was ignored.

…. after he’d praised the volunteers who helped in the city’s water crisis, and before he argued the crisis shows the limits of private action — he started coughing. His next words were probably inevitable: ‘Can I get some water?’ After he took a (filtered) sip of the city’s infamous water, contaminated with lead since September 2015. (Nelson 2016)

The man they had all been waiting for, a president who had experienced their struggles first-hand, rose up in class rank and grabbed that American dream. A true success story for social stratification. But within that story lies the issue of social stratification, its hierarchical ways cause division, a create feelings of superiority in those on top and leads to the total abandonment and dismissal of those struggling and living within the working-class bracket.

India is the opposite the United States, it uses the Caste system or a closed system. People can’t move up and down the hierarchical class ladder, they’re stuck. “The caste system is a classification of people into four hierarchically ranked castes called varnas. They are classified according to occupation and determine access to wealth, power, and privilege.” (Siddique,2011) These different ranks have names, the ranking system begins with the Brahmans, then the Vaishyas, the Shudras and at the bottom are the untouchables.

The Indian Caste System is historically one of the main dimensions where people in India are socially differentiated through class, religion, region, tribe, gender, and language. Although this or other forms of differentiation exist in all human societies, it becomes a problem when one or more of these dimensions overlap each other and become the sole basis of systematic ranking and unequal access to valued resources like wealth, income, power and prestige (Sekhon, 2000)

Class holds people back, crushing them to the bottom. As Sekhon said social stratification groups people and forces them into ranks based on their social and economic differences. It leads to those at the bottom in the case of India, the untouchables being ostracized, rejected by their own countrymen just because they were born into a family that does ’unclean’ work. Its discriminatory, cruel and became known as India’s the hidden apartheid. The untouchables are mistreated by the police force, coerced to work in disgusting, demeaning conditions and are paid little for it. (Narula,1999) Its clear, while it’s a different type of system to America the injustices persist. It continues to perpetuate and back up the theory that social stratification is a corrupt unjust system.

The U.K’s experiences perpetuates the idea that the system of social stratification and class continue to effect the poor working class bracket negatively, one of the most recent, shocking displays of the effects was the Grenfell Tower fire, poor, working class people ignored for years. A building ‘refurbished’ with improper cladding, that was against regulation. The ignorance of those at the top and their rejections of the concerns of the residents of Grenfell led to 72 deaths, one of which was the death of a six-month-old child, who died in their mother’s arms as she tried to escape the flames. (Visual Journalism Team 2019)

Critics have accused the local authority of neglecting the tower because of indifference toward its low-income, immigrant residents – prompting a wider public debate about Britain’s yawning rich-poor divide and class prejudice among officials. (Shirbon 2019)

Those at the bottom getting hurt for the progression of those at the top, they’re not cared about or listened to, just forced to do the jobs and tasks that others refuse to. Left to burn in unsuitable housing after being ignored for years, it seems the system can only bring pain, there is power to be gained, and once you get a taste you want more and more, no matter what. Climb further and further up. That’s what social stratification does, it corrupts. Ireland today lives in the same unequal class driven society. Subjecting many in Ireland to the pain, torment and struggle that a class system brings upon those at the bottom of it.

Yet, unfortunately, we can’t live without it, we can’t all be completely equal as that would mean a communist world, which would never work. While places like Cuba display that a kind of communist regime that works well for them, they essentially live in a dictatorship, which as history in Russia and Germany leads to deception, duplicity and power grabbing.

So, what is the answer? We clearly need class, while it may seem as a ‘evil’ system, we find hope in countries like Sweden. Some label Sweden as a democratic socialist country.

“However, the country is, in fact, very pro-capitalism, but does it with redistribution through taxes. Personal income is taxed at a rate of 61.85 percent, plus a 7 percent social security tax rate for employees. On top of these taxes, Sweden also has a 25 percent consumption tax.” (Henschen 2018)

They should be what others strive for, social stratification, “the division of a society into a number of strata, hierarchically arranged groupings” (O’Mahony, 2019) where those at the bottom are assisted and paid enough for them to live a happy, fulfilling life. In Sweden while everyone is not equal, those at the bottom have hope, they’re not completely struggling. Everyone has the same access to healthcare, unemployment insurance and absence from work benefits to name a few (Henschen 2018). Social stratification is necessary for modern society to function, people must do the jobs at the bottom, it’s a fact of life. And in our modern lives we want to spend our extra money on material things. We’re not perfect, we never will be, we just need to do it differently, not be as greedy and power grabbing. Social stratification can and has gone wrong in societies today. Leading to anger, superiority and divisions. However, we rely on it. We just need to be more caring, compassionate and make some sacrifices so the people, at the very bottom stop having to.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a society has numerous layers that separate people into different classes based on their wealth, gender, race, religion and ethnicity. Social inequality has gradually become a problem in North America which enhance the issue of poverty and social stratification in multiple aspects. The conflict theory by Karl Marx revealed that social stratification is not inevitable through numerous aspects. One of the opposing concept of conflict theory is functionalism which emphasizes the need for social inequality to maintain social order. In my opinion, social stratification is an avoidable outcome from capitalist growth which agree with Karl Marx’s conflict theory. The following paragraphs will illustrate how social stratification is not inevitable through my own and conflict perspective and why the functionalist perspective of social inequality is impracticable.

Economic inequality has always been playing a significant role in the issue of social inequality.

Society is split into different social classes such as the owing class, the middle class, and the lower class which different class possess different wealth, power, and prestige. In North America, the majority of wealth is controlled by the richest 1%, and many others are still struggling to pay rent, purchase food, and trying to find a work at a minimum wage. It is surprising to see that most people believe that Canada is a middle-class country that only a few people are wealthy, a few are poor, and the rest are in the middle. However, the real distribution is far from expected. The wealthy keeps being wealthier and the poor keeps being poorer. This increasing trend will escalate social conflict between upper classes and lower classes. Functionalists believe that substantial inequality is functional to the society which can promote motivation and hard work, and they states that the most important jobs in the society needs to be filled with the most talented and capable people. If everyone is paid equal, then people will just choose the easiest job since it requires least effort. However, the distinction between whether a job is important is vague. Each specific job has each specialized function. For instance, firefighters and police officers play a tremendous role in the city to maintain social order and safety of each citizen, and teacher’s job is to educate the youth. One cannot clearly distinguish the importance between these jobs. Conflict theory states that due to lack of job opportunities, many talented people are forced to work at minimum wage, and it believed that given enough and equal opportunities and resources, those talented people can perform at a better level. It is a fact that only competition can make society improve, so that people will work harder in order to move into a upper class. Society nowadays has progressed to the state that people can easily move to a higher class with hard work and decent education background. Most decent job opportunity in North America nowadays acquire applicants with a high education degree, and they emphasizes more on applicants’ ability instead of their family background or social class. In other words, when applying for a job, each individual are in an equal starting point. If the government issues policies that helps decrease the unemployment rate and improve local economies and industries to increase job opportunities, more talented and skilled people will be discovered and they can improve their living from their hard work and abilities.

Gender inequality has been an issue in both Canada and the United States for centuries. Wage gap, gender-based violence, and discrimination are all typical issues of gender inequality. Although gender equality has been progressed significantly, study have shown that “women still make 74 cents to every dollar that a man earns and gender-based violence affects approximately half of all Canadian women, it begs the question of just how far we’ve come in terms of equality”(Global News). The number of women is scarce at top job position and overrepresented as minimum wage workers. “Men make up an overwhelming majority of top earners across the U.S. economy, even though women now represent almost half of the country’s workforce. Women comprise just 27 percent of the top 10 percent, and their share of higher-income groups runs even smaller. Among the top 1 percent, women make up slightly less than 17 percent of workers, while at the top 0.1 percent level, they make up only 11 percent”(Economic Inequality Across Gender Diversity). In my opinion, gender equality will eventually be reached . The concept of male dominance in the workforce and many other places has been too deep in society. For instance, when a couple has a child after marriage, it is more common for the female to raise the child at home and the male often work outside to make a living for the family. Such a situation has been changing as women starting to work outside and play a more significant role in the society. Conflict theory believes that many talented people are being neglected from high-paying job due to their gender, and gender discrimination is a common phenomenon in the workplace. However, there are numerous measures for a company to reach gender quality. According to an article on world economic forum written by Vyacheslav Polonski, there are five things can be done to alter gender inequality in the workplace such as “systematically gather data to establish common ground for a discussion of gender inequality in the workplace, change company culture to eliminate gender stereotypes associated with work-life balance programmes, modify the performance review process to prevent structural disadvantages for people who seize work-life balance opportunities, keep searching for potential recruits until gender balanced is reached, [and] make gender parity a strategic objective for the organization” (5 Things That Must Change to End Gender Inequality at Work by Vyacheslav Polonski). From above discussion, it is clear to see that gender inequality is not inevitable through everyone’s effort.

Racial inequality is similar to gender inequality in some way, but it is treated based on a person’s race. As mentioned before, conflict theory illustrates that people with talent and ability may be squeezed away from high paying job owing to their colour and culture. In the past centuries, African-American has a very low status in both Canada and United States, and there are numerous rules that limit their activities such as not allowing them to eat in certain restaurants and banned entrance to certain places. An Oscar-winning movie called Green Book illustrates the fact even the protagonist is considered to be in upper class, he still faced multiple discrimination along the way due to his black skin. But such situation has turned much better nowadays. African-American’s social status has been raised significantly owing to all the appeal and movements. As a result, many industries and fields can have talented black people working. Thus, social inequality is not necessary the main functioning element of society.

Fortunately, the society nowadays has worked hard trying to reach equality of each individual. There are numerous movements around the world concerning racial, gender, and economic issue, and more and more people are putting in effort to reach equality. Thus, it is clear to see that social stratification is not inevitable, and equality will be reached in someday in the future.

Introduction to Sociology and Education’s Role

Sociology is the study of human social relations, groups, and societies (Chambliss and Eglitis 2). Using the scientific method, to test and find theories in sociology can help sociologists have a better understanding of the world. There is sociological research everywhere; in medicine, government, education, and beyond. In society, education plays a major role. “Education is the transmission of society’s norms, values, and knowledge base through direct instruction”(Chambliss and Eglitis 327). It is an important part of different cultures, it helps define social classes, and it functions as an agent of socialization. In the U.S., mass education, “the extension of formal schooling to wide segments of the population” is the norm (Chambliss and Eglitis 327). Education helps prepare people for the norms and values needed in society but limits the individuality when it relates to ambition.

Agents of Socialization: The Impact of Education

Education is one of the main agents of socialization in society. Socialization is “the process by which people learn the culture of their society”(Chambliss and Eglitis 87). Other agents of socialization are family, peers, religion, work, media, internet, and social media. Typically, socialization is thought of as something that happens to young people, but socialization occurs throughout one’s lifetime. In socialization, there are groups that people interact with that shape how they are socialized and how they think of themselves. The first group is primary groups which are smaller groups that tend to have a more intimate relationship, such as one’s family. Then there are secondary groups that are larger groups that are not as personal as primary groups. For example, education. Then there are reference groups. Reference groups provide standards on which attitudes or behaviors are judged, such as the internet and media. Education is important in socialization because it teaches people the norms or accepted social behaviors and beliefs that govern behavior (Chambliss and Eglitis 9).

Conflict Theory and Educational Inequality

The conflict theory, founded by Karl Marx, seeks to explain the social organization and change in terms of the conflict that is built into social relationships (Chambliss and Eglitis 22). Karl Marx founded the conflict perspective with his discussions of class conflict. He said that there is a competition between social classes over wealth, power, and other resources in society. The two classes of people were the proletariat, or the working class, wage workers, and the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist, property-owning class. One class prospers at the expense of the other. The conflict perspective believes that when it comes to education, poor and working-class children don’t have the same opportunities to showcase their talents and abilities because they don’t have the same access to educational opportunities.

In the conflict perspective, they believe that “it [the education system] reproduces rather than reduces social stratification and, rather than ensuring that the best people train for and conscientiously perform the most socially important jobs, it ensures that the discovery of talent will be limited”(Chambliss and Eglitis 329). Social stratification is “the systematic ranking of different groups of people in a hierarchy of inequality”(Chambliss and Eglitis 171). They argue that the classes are not equal and that the lower class has unequal access to resources and their power is limited. Social stratification is still in place and is still an issue today because the people who are in powerful positions make their decisions based on what will positively impact them and their families (Chambliss and Eglitis 191-192). These decisions include the unequalness in schools and education through funding and access to resources. It ensures that the working and lower classes do not have the same opportunities to move up in society.

Hidden Curriculum and Class-Based Education

Conflict theorists argue that there is a “hidden curriculum” in the classroom that socializes students of the working class to accept their class (Chambliss and Eglitis 330). The hidden curriculum, defined by Phillip Jackson, is “the unspoken classroom socialization into the norms, values, and roles of a society that schools provide along with the ‘official’ curriculum”(Chambliss and Eglitis 95). The hidden curriculum can be seen between girls and boys and gender roles. Girls are usually pushed towards classes that are targeted more towards liberal arts, such as literature. Boys are typically pushed towards math and science subjects. Another example of a hidden curriculum is if a class has reading material that is not inclusive of a race. “…if an English class typically relies on reading material with White main characters, this may teach students of color that their cultures are not appreciated or that people of their ethnic group cannot be heroes”(Chambliss and Eglitis 96). The hidden curriculum can also be shown through different class status and races. For example, if a school has a majority of students that are in a middle and upper-class status, the school is going to have more funding which means they will have more advanced classes and technology. A school with lower-class students, will not have equal funding and will not have equal opportunities when it comes to more advanced classes and newer technology. Schools will teach the working-class and lower-class students to accept their class and they will be encouraged to have lower ambitions than students of higher class.

Segregation and Discrimination in Education

Most of the unfair funding and having schools that are funded more than others come from a long history of segregation and institutionalized discrimination. Institutionalized discrimination is “discrimination enshrined in law, public policy, or common practice; it is an unequal treatment that has become a part of the operation of such major social institutions as businesses, schools, hospitals, and the government”(Chambliss and Eglitis 234). In the U.S., many laws did not allow black families to purchase houses in certain neighborhoods. Though laws have since been passed so that this discrimination does not continue, it still does and the effects of these previous laws can still be seen, especially in schools. De facto segregation is “school segregation based largely on residential patterns”(Chambliss and Eglitis 338). Due to the effects of previous laws and segregation, unequal schooling is a result. One of the aspects of the unfairness in schools is access to advanced placement or AP classes that are provided. These are classes that help prepare students for college classes and give them a chance to earn college credit. For example, a ProPublica study found that in New York, “many of the state’s affluent school districts offer far more AP classes than do economically disadvantaged schools with high percentages of minority students”(Chambliss and Eglitis 330). They also found that “…racial and ethnic minorities are often enrolled in lower-income schools, suggesting that the effects of limited access to AP courses are experienced most acutely by Black and Hispanic students”(Chambliss and Eglitis 330). This shows that even though there is legislation that tries to prevent the continuation of segregation in education, it continues and fails students who are apart of the minority and it doesn’t allow them to have ambitious goals outside of their social class.

De facto segregation and school segregation not only affects public school, but it also affects higher education. School segregation is “the education of racial minorities in schools that are geographically, economically, and/or socially separated from those attended by the racial majority”(Chambliss and Eglitis 335). In the U.S., the amount of people finishing high school is the highest it’s ever been. The number of people graduating from college has also increased dramatically over the past few years, but so has the number of students dropping out. In 2016, the National Center for Education Statistics found that “…students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are enrolling at high rates: fully 85% of Asian American students, 68% of White students, 63% of Black students, and 62% of Hispanic students enrolled in college immediately after completing high school”(Chambliss and Eglitis 342). One downfall of such a high enrollment rate is that many students will leave college with debt, but no degree. There are many reasons why this is. One reason is that the costs of college are very high for lower-income students, even with financial aid, resulting in them dropping out before completing their degree. Another reason drop out rates are higher is the harder workload. Since so many students are moving onto the higher education level, many may be less prepared than others for the heavier workload. Because of the lack of preparedness, institutions may make those students take classes that don’t count toward their degree but still costs money. This causes more time spent working on their degree, and more money spent, causing the student to drop out. The third reason that drop-out rates are increasing is because of the tough balance between work and school. College is expensive and many students have to work their way through their schooling. If they are spending most of their time outside of the classroom working, they won’t have as much time to study or work on assignments. This could cause them failing their classes and more money being wasted, causing them to drop out. Many advocates for students believe that colleges can do more to help students succeed by providing coaching, scheduling that fits for the working student, and accelerated programs that speed up the time spent on getting a degree (Chambliss and Eglitis 344). Knowing and understanding the struggles of college students and the reasons for dropping out is a step in the direction of fixing this issue.

Challenges and Solutions in Higher Education

Education is an important aspect when it comes to a country’s urbanization. In newer countries, children end their education due to lack of role models, the need to work, and because in an Agrarian lifestyle, no degree is required. In Western countries, such as the United States, however, education is needed to succeed. In the 18th century industrial society in the U.S., the need for people to be literate increased. Literacy is “the ability to read and write at a basic level”(Chambliss and Eglitis 328). During the 19th century, free public education, or “a universal education system provided by the government and funded by tax revenues rather than student fees”(Chambliss and Eglitis 328), was established. Through mass public education, the U.S. became a credential society, or “a society in which access to desirable work and social status depends on the possession of a certificate or diploma certifying the completion of formal education”(Chambliss and Eglitis 328). To move up classes in society, one needs to have the proper education credentials, however, this is difficult for lower-income households because social stratification exists in society and is supported in the education system. In American lower-income households, children are already at a disadvantage. In a study about how many words children could say at age three, “children from impoverished environment used less than half the number of words already spoken by their more advantaged peers”(Chambliss and Eglitis 334). The researchers concluded that when children grow up in a household that has more than 500 books, it would equal to more than two years of education. They also found that having books in the home had a stronger effect on the child’s education than their parents’ education level, the country’s gross domestic product, the father’s occupation, and the political system of the country (Chambliss and Eglitis 334-335). Even though literacy is an important aspect of daily life in the U.S., there are still adults that struggle. The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, or the PIAAC, found that in America, about 17% of adults were at 13% or below Level 1 on the literacy test (Chambliss and Eglitis 335). When people have a strong literacy foundation, it sets them up for future success in school. There have been links to incompletion of high school to shaky literacy foundations (Chambliss and Eglitis 335). When children grow up in a society with social stratification, lower-income kids will have a harder time succeeding in education and then life.

Conclusion: The Need for Educational Reform

Education is a very important aspect when it comes to shaping people through socialization. It is also an important agent when it comes to shaping societies and cultures. Though education still has flaws and reproduces social stratification rather than reducing social stratification, it has come a long way and has made societies better. There are still many things that need fixing in education, such as overcoming de facto segregation. Schools should provide equal opportunities for everyone so that everyone has equal opportunities in society. When equal opportunities in schools are achieved and children aren’t stuck in their social class, enrollment rates in higher education will continue to increase and the dropout rate will decrease. Conducting social research on education is very important. When one learns the flaws and holes in education, things can be done and changes can be made to try to better it, which in return will better society.

Works Cited

1. Eglitis, Daina Stukuls, and William J. Chambliss. Discover Sociology: Core Concepts. 4th ed., SAGE Publishing, 2020.