The issue of the social stratification is a significant one because it implies that in the society, some groups and individuals are not equal. The present study aims to understand the notion of the social stratification and its principals through the review of Tumin’s work “Some Principle of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” Tumin’s study is a response to the assumption made by Davis and Moore that the several social positions are more important the others because they lead to more efficient functioning of the society.
The social stratification deals with the idea of a place but not an individual who occupies a particular position. Davis and Moore address two primary questions: why some fields are more attractive and distinguished than the others; and how the individuals acquire these occupations.
The necessity of stratification within the positions originates from the operating principles of these occupation fields. Some spaces require the specific knowledge or talents. For example, a doctor in a hospital is vital in comparison with the administrative or unskilled staff. Thus, these kinds of positions such as doctor or engineer are functionally important, and demand particular expertise and responsibilities from the individual and their duties have to be performed “with the diligence that their importance requires” (Tumin 185).
Society, on the other hand, provides the system of rewards associated with the specific occupations. As an illustration, the individuals who hold the doctor position have some “rights” and privileges such as respect and competitive salary. Since some positions have more significant assets then the others, the social stratification contributes to the creation of inequality. Moreover, the status of a job as functional depends on the deficiency of properly trained and talented personnel. Davis and Moore come to the conclusion that the functional necessity of social stratification is irresistible and leads to positive outcomes for the whole society.
Tumin’s assumption refuses the beneficial effects of the stratification on society. Tumin argues that consideration of some positions as more important than the others is unnecessary. From Tumin’s perspective, the previous example of a doctor is inadequate because the functioning of a hospital as a whole system depends on the administration and maintenance personnel as well. Without organized cleaning, lighting, electric and many other systems, patients are in the equal danger as without doctors.
Considering the issue of the talented individuals who represents the limited number of population, Tumin claims that the system of stratified society blocks the process of finding of many talented individuals. According to the author, the phenomenon can be traced in the societies where the new generation depends on the resources of “the parent generation” (Tumin 188). For example, if the education system is not public or merit based, the significant number of the population does not have a chance to reveal their talents.
The sacrifices for a training period and rewards guaranteed by the certain position to the qualified employees are regarded as irrelevant by Tumin. The author does not recognize a trainee period as a sacrifice, but emphasize the privileges which training and education provides for individuals who are in schools in comparison with their peers who have to work and do not have such an opportunity of self-development.
The prestige and privileges that the society ascribes to the specific jobs and individuals who occupy them derive from the inherently one-sided point of view prevailed in the society. Thus, many other positions that are wrongly considered as less attractive and not functional remain underestimated by the society and individuals as well. Tumin’s response to David and Moore’s assumption highlights the unbalance nature of the social stratification and its harmful outcomes for the society.
Work Cited
Tumin, Melvin M. “Some principles of stratification: A critical analysis.” American Sociological Review 18.4 (1953): 387-393.
The essay is a critical examination of an article written by Mark Thomas, titled “Economic Security for Middle Class Families”. Through the reading, two theories are compared; social conflict and functionalism.
This is done by comparing the characteristics of their approaches and how they will analyze the problems brought forth in the article. Lastly, one of the two theories is chosen based on how best in my view interprets the issues. It is then used to come up with possible resolutions to the issues raised.
The article provides some worrying statistics with regards to well being of middle-class American families. Most families 2 out of 3 experience unstable financial grounds. Others are in borderline or at risk of falling back to lower class. It is worth noting that the findings were backed by participants of a press conference that launched the report (Thomas, 2007).
Comparison of functionalism and social conflict theory
Functionalism theory is coined to the findings and arguments of Durkheim. This theory holds that a society is made up of interdependent sections which work in harmony to meet the needs of a given society. It mainly focuses on how people come together, join forces and a form a society.
The fundamental of the theory rests on how good or bad actions being taken are to the equilibrium. Additionally, it sees individuals as occupying fixed roles in the society, consensus is build on common values, there is need to disorganize and adjust in order to attain equilibrium and society is viewed as an entity that is bigger than the sum of its parts.
With regards to functionalism, the problem facing middle class American rests on the failure of the government and the relevant authorities to develop plans that meet the needs of a given society. When individuals are not given equal opportunity to access education, health and political positions then there is bound to be a serious problem (Thomas, 2007).
On the other hand, social conflict theory developed by Marx centers mainly on power, equality and exploitation. According to the theory groups or persons are subjected the conditions they are faced with by those in power since distribution of material as well as non-material resources are skewed.
The rich in the society oppress the poor due to the power the former holds. According to Thio, 2008 political culture and economics play a major role in explaining the imbalance in distribution of resources.
For this reason, conflict social theory if used to explain the problems being experienced by middle class families holds that those individuals in upper classes subject middle class families to work hard making huge profits that are channeled back to the rich.
This leaves the middle class at risk since policies are put in place to ensure that their lives remain the same or even become worse. Having in mind that majority of middle class families cannot afford to acquire material and non material resources, and then they are at risk of losing a grip on them due to the exploitations they are subjected to.
It is worth noting that although the two theories are distinct from one another, they share a common thing; that of seeing the society at a macro-level analysis. Structures such as education, wages, education, politics, culture among others and how they impact on the well being of individuals are tackled in both theories (Thio, 2008).
In my opinion, the social conflict theory seems to best explain the problem being faced by the middle class families. It is worth noting that the majority of individuals in this class are African American (Macionis, 2009).
This thus rests on the injustices the groups were subjected to in the past which seem to haunt them upto date. Although efforts have been made to provide them with equal opportunities in education, employment and health, they still suffer from exploitation in terms of salaries and wages.
Based on the selected theory, it is necessary to bridge the imbalance or inequality of distribution of resources. It is not only important to strengthen and make education, health services and debt reduction a priority but ensure that employment opportunities are equal and wages discrepancies are minimal.
This will provide the affected individual with an opportunity to thrive in such a class and even struggle to climb the ladder of social stratification (Thio, 2008).
In my opinion, I believe that the statistics presented here are objective, valid and factual. From the information presented by the author it is evident that middle class American families are experiencing economic, political and cultural instability.
My view rests on the fact that the presented information come from a primary research and was backed by reputable individuals who were present during the launch of the report.
Conclusion
From the review of the article by Mark Thomas, the problems being faced by middle class American families have been differently interpreted by functionalism and conflict social theory.
Both are distinct but share a common characteristic; that of being capable of analyzing society in a macro-level. Social conflict theory seems to be one theory that best interprets the problems. Based on this, there is need to come up with policies that will uplift individuals in middle class.
References
Macionis, J. (2009). Society: The Basics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Thomas, M. (2007). “Economic Security for Middle Class Families” Web.
Thio, A. (2008). Sociology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Pearson.
In the case of the United States, economic, gender and social stratification has changed over the centuries (Tischler, 2010). The significant changes in economic, gender and social stratification are brought about by changes in the political, economic, and social landscape of this nation. There is one major transition point that played a critical roles in the said transformation.
This is the transitions from an economy dependent on manual labor to an economy based on mechanization and other forms of technology that resulted in the industrialization of the nation. These transitions on the other hand were aided by the effective expansion and development of the education system in this country.
Before the United States became a geopolitical nation, it was a colony controlled by the British Empire. In that period of time before America was a sovereign state, the British introduced slave labor. Therefore, the social stratification during this period was simplified into farmers, plantation owners and slaves.
The farmers will be considered poor by today’s standards but they are better off if compared to the Negro slaves. The economy was based on agriculture. It was also a male dominated society. Women played minor roles in nation building and focused on domestic work.
The industrialization of the United States coincided with the emancipation of the Negro slaves. Beginning in the latter part of the 19th century the issue of race became a major bone of contention in different social spheres. Former Negro slaves were no longer forced to work under a slave master or a plantation owner. However, they were treated second-class citizens.
More importantly the former slaves did not own any property; have very little money; and mostly illiterate. The Southern states can be characterized by extreme poverty especially if one considers the plight of the former slaves. In the Northern states, the social, gender and economic stratification was affected by industrialization.
Farmers who used to work in the farms migrated to the cities. Industrialization created new social classes because the workers are paid on an hourly basis. They have no share of the profits and those who had the capital to establish factories raked in the majority of the income of the said enterprise.
Industrialization was not only limited to the Northern states, factories began to sprout all over America. Industrialization proved to be an efficient way to harness resources and it did not take long before the economic benefits trickled down to the masses. A new social class was created in the 20th century and these are:
Upper class;
Corporate class;
Middle and working class;
Those who are poor (Andersen & Taylor, 2011).
Technology enabled many to achieve greater economic success. Based on the new social order and economic power of individuals, many Americans were able to access higher education. As a result the feminist movement succeeded in promoting gender equality in the workplace and the homes (Kendall, 2011).
Conclusion
The transformation of the economic, gender and social stratification in this country was brought about by changes in the political, economic and social landscape. The highpoint was the transition from manual labor to industrialization as well as the rapid changes in technology that paved the way for new social classes in the 21st century.
It has to be pointed out that when America was still a colony of the British empire, the socio-economic stratification was simple. The upper class was comprised of plantation owners and the rest were farmers. The introduction of Negro slaves created another social class, nevertheless, the stratification was simple. But the advent of industrialization, coupled with significant changes in the economic and political spheres paved the way for greter social mobility.
References
Andersen, M., & Taylor, H. (2011). Sociology: The essentials. OH: Cengage Learning.
Kendall, D. (2011). Sociology in our times. OH: Cengage Learning.
Tischler, H. (2011). Introduction to sociology. OH: Cengage Learning.
Societies in the contemporary times face different social issues like class and gender stratification among others. Works of fiction seek to highlight some of these issues via different mediums. In the movie, Hunger Games, the director airs some of the prevalent issues in a futuristic fictitious nation called Panem. Even though the movie is fictitious, the issues of social stratification raised are prevalent in the contemporary society. In Australia, the issue of social stratification has been prevalent for a long time. Apparently, Australia is among the top five developed countries with the most social inequality in society. This paper will compare and contrast the social stratification in Panem and Australia with reference to different social theories.
Social class Panem and Australia
According to Mack (2002, p. 79), social class ‘is a society’s categorisation of people into socioeconomic strata, based on their occupation and income, wealth and social status, and derived power.’ Australia is allegedly one of the most egalitarian nations in the contemporary world, but this presumedclasslessness exists only in theory. According to Karl Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, societies should embrace egalitarianism, which promotes equality for all especially in property ownership. Mack (2002, p.106) reveals that Karl Marxonce said, “from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need’. Marx’s statement vouches for socialism, where wealth is distributed equally in society. This form of socialism has no place in Australia and Panem. In the two countries, capitalism defines the economic structures, and thus the haves and have-nots is a deeply entrenched phenomenon in the society.
In Australia, social stratification mainly occurs due to disparities in earnings (Henslin 2014). In the last decade of the 20th Century, the wages of those at the top of the economic hierarchy increased by four times as opposed to those at the bottom of the scale (McGregor 2001).
According to the Marx’s theory of alienation, people lack humanness the moment they start living in a stratified society. By 2001, the rate of unemployment in Australia stood at 7.2%, which accounts for close to 1 million jobless citizens (Graetz2002). Conventionally, the unemployed individuals will not have the monetary resources to fit in some social spheres. Therefore, this form of inequality creates classes as people are classified according to their financial well-being.In a functional capitalistic country, wealth and property ownership is a reserve of the few who have mastered the art of manoeuvring the system through hard work or corruption. Children belonging to the first class citizens stand a better chance of getting the fine things in life as opposed to kids born in poor families.
In Panem, the rift between the rich and the poor is outraging. Workers in some regions, which are known as Districts, do not get their rightfully earned wages. For instance, in District 12, which is the Katniss’ home place, individuals work extremely hard to produce coal for energy, but they rarely get their wages. Ironically, this district does not have a constant supply of energy, despite being the producer of coal. However, those in power reap the benefits of the capitalistic system that is imposed on the citizens of Panem (Fevre & Bancroft 2010).
Katniss lives in abject poverty, but the Mayor’s daughter lives in opulence. In District 12, people barely survive. Katniss’ family survives on hunting and gathering. On the contrary, the Capitol of Panem is characterised with sumptuousness. The country’s wealth and property ownership belongs to the elite class, which inhabits the Capitol. In Panem, children of the wealthy are assured of success once they enlist for the hunger games. On the contrary, children from the Districts like Katniss stand no chance of winning at the games because they are unprepared bot physically and psychologically.
Therefore, social class in Australia and Panem is a norm. In the two countries, income inequalities are evident. In Australia, the wealth belongs to those in power, merchants, and high-end income earners. The low class is struggling just like in Panem where Katniss barely survives on hunting and gathering. The hunger games in Pamen can be equated to the school system in Australia. Children from the wealthy families in Australia are assured of attending the best schools in the region, which improves their chances of success in life. Similarly, in Panem, children from opulent families are assured of success in the hunger games, which draws parallel to the Australian education system. The only difference in social class between the two countries is the intensity of the stratification. While in Panem, individuals from one District are not allowed to communicate with other people from different regions, in Australia individuals are not bound by the law from communicating with others (Hage 2006).
Gender stratification in Panem and Australia
Mack (2002, p.107) defines gender stratification as ‘the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege between the sexes’.In Australia, the issue of gender stratification goes back to the early 20th Century where women were discriminated against based on their gender (Connell 1987]. The functionalist theory underscores gender stratification by holding that gender inequalities exist to have efficient division of labour. In this case, specific genders are expected to carry out some tasks exclusively, thus excluding the other gender from performing the same tasks. For instance, before 1921, women did not have a parliamentary representative.
The first woman was elected to the Australian federal parliament in 1943. Unfortunately, even with such representation, women continued to suffer gender-based oppression and in the 1960s, women were required to relinquish their public service occupations once they married. Private companies also followed the same script. In addition, before 1965, women in the country could not enjoy their drinks in a public bar. Even though such gender-based oppressive tendencies reduced with the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, the execution of such tendencies evolved. In the contemporary Australian society, the pay gap is sickening with women earning between 17% and 28.3% less as compared to their male counterparts. In addition, women rarely get managerial positions and by 2010, only paltry 8.4 % of top boardroom directors were women.
In Panem, the issue of gender stratification comes out clearly in the way the protagonist is portrayed. The protagonist, Katniss, is a woman, but she is dissatisfied with her roles as a female. Therefore, she seeks to carry out masculine duties as a way of rebellion towards the gender stratification that is prevalent in Panem (Simmons 2012). Throughout the film, women are associated with weakness. Katniss is poor, which renders her weak for she lacks the means to push for equality.
In the Capitol, she is not referred by her name. People refer to her as “the girl on fire from District 12”. On the surface, this aspect may seem like praise; however, from another perspective it implies that she can only get a proper name after being married. Finally, women are rarely involved in the country’s leadership. The president is a male and women leadership is rarely depicted in the movie.
Gender stratification in Australia and Panem are similar because in both cases, women are discriminated against. In addition, just like the pre-1930s Australia where women were not allowed in leadership, women in Panem are not engaged in leadership roles. However, the gender stratification differs in the two countries in some aspects. In Australia, women are discriminated via pay inequalities. On the contrary, in Panem, women are discriminated against through non-recognition. They do not enjoy the legal requirement to ensure gender equality, which exists in Australia after the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984.
Stratification between metropolitan and countryside regions in Panem and Australia
Countryside and metropolitan regional stratification is a common phenomenon in all countries across the globe. In Australia, urban areas are highly developed as opposed to the rural areas. Industries are concentrated in urban areas, and thus individuals living in these areas have better livelihoods as compared to their rural-dwelling counterparts. The rural-urban continuum theory supports this argument by holding that rural areas are always underdeveloped as opposed to urban areas where resources are concentrated. In Panem, rural areas, viz. the Districts, are poorly developed. The basic social amenities like power supply are inconsistent.
People like Katniss live in abject poverty. On the contrary, the Capitol belongs to the bourgeois and politicians. The differences between the Capitol and the districts are clearly cut, with towering buildings and modern infrastructure adorning the former. However, the Districts are poorly developed to the extent of people depending on hunting and gathering for livelihood.
Rural and urban stratifications in Panem and Australia are similar because the rural areas are underdeveloped as opposed to the developed urban areas in both countries. However, in Australia, the rural areas are fairly developed as opposed to their counterparts in Panem. In addition, only the rich in Panem live in the urban areas as opposed to Australia where poor people inhabit some urban areas. The issue of urbanisation leads to the emergence of cheap housing in urban areas, which attracts the poor, who cannot afford to live in the leafy suburban areas. Ultimately, the low-end housing creates a form of ghetto. In Panem, the Districts are permanent ghettoes.
Conclusion
Social stratification is a controversial issue in the contemporary society. Social class, which is occasioned by inequalities in wages and salaries, is the most pronounced form of social stratification. Gender stratification is also common in spite of having laws against discrimination based on gender. Finally, urban-rural stratification exists in almost every nation across the world. In Australia and Panem, the aforementioned forms of social stratification are prevalent. As expected, social class is the most outstanding form of social stratification in the two countries. The gap between the rich and the poor in the two nations is dismaying. Unfortunately, gender stratification is still prevalent in the contemporary Australia in terms of pay inequalities and leadership roles. As discussed in this paper, the social stratifications in Panem and Australia have differences and similarities.
Reference List
Connel, R 1987, Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Web.
Fevre, R & Bancroft, A 2010, Dead white men and other important people: sociology’s big ideas, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Web.
Graetz, B 2002, ‘Class and Inequality’, in P Beilharz & T Hogan (eds), Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to Sociological Ideas, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp. 155-170. Web.
Hage, G 2006, ‘Insiders and outsiders’, in P Beilharz & T Hogan (eds), Sociology: place, time & division, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp. 342-346. Web.
Henslin, A 2014, Sociology: a down-to-earth approach, Pearson, Frenchs Forest. Web.
Mack, E 2002, ‘Self-ownership, Marxism, and Egalitarianism -Part I: Challenges to Historical Entitlement’,Politics, Philosophy, Economy, vol.1, no.1, pp. 75-108. Web.
McGregor, C 2001, Class in Australia, Penguin, London. Web.
Simmons, A 2012, ‘Class on Fire: Using the Hunger Games Trilogy to Encourage Social Action’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 56, no.1, pp. 22 -34. Web.
For a long time, there are two various types of inequalities, which humanity is facing worldwide. The first one is inequality within nations, and the second one flourishes between them. Recently, the US authorities have begun to tackle disparity issues and have led the country to the greatest changes. However, class differences and upward or downward social mobility still affect society, therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the following phenomena.
Although it is getting more complex to define what class somebody is in by material goods, the stratification is seen today. There are four major classes: the upper, the middle, the working, and the lower, and they are determined by income, education, and occupation. According to Milanovic (2016), “the richest 1 percent (by wealth) hold three-quarters of their wealth in the form of corporate stocks, financial securities, and unincorporated business equity” (p. 184). Consequently, the overall capital concentration will sustain the upper-class’s political power, making impracticable policy changes in taxation, public education financing, or infrastructure expenses for other strata.
Moreover, the causes for upward or downward social mobility limitations do not take the last place on the list of current problems. Mobility is empowered to a limited extent by higher education, the capability to work hard and compete, various social networks, and even ownership of tools. However, “people with lower incomes are especially prone to overestimate overall upward mobility, and they expect that they have more room to move up than the rich who are already at the top” (Milanovic, 2016, p. 203). For example, family background influences one’s social class in adulthood due to the environment a person grew up in, the acquaintances they made, financial well-being, or whether they gained a proper education. Furthermore, the wealth gap is expanding because of globalization, immigration, and routine task robotization. Even the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to economic issues, and therefore the income inequality.
In conclusion, it is necessary to underline that the US impact on the disparity changes in emerging and prosperous economies is significant. If the inclination toward mean salary assembly proceeds, the possibilities for the decrease of worldwide imbalance could be crashed by what befalls disparity inside individual nations. Thus, one should maintain that it is always vital to track changes in this field, describe them, and organize the discussions either on the high or the low authority level.
Reference
Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.
Since the beginning of humanity, people have had unequal access to resources based on their community roles. Later, with society’s development, its structure became more complicated, resulting in division into groups that possess different access to resources and benefits. According to “What is social stratification,” (n.d.), “in modern times, this phenomenon is defined as a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy according to four principles and called social stratification” (para. 1). From my perspective, social stratification is a generally accepted method of awarding personal achievements, utilizing privileges and access to additional resources. The disadvantage of social stratification is the unfairness of transferring social positions in the community from generation to generation and biases regarding some groups of people. This pattern results in conflict, as the initial purpose of the phenomenon is to motivate, remunerate, and honor. Social stratification stimulates to rise of position in the hierarchy but raises the frequent discussion of its inequities.
An Instance of the Social Stratification in the United States
Comparatively unequal rights and opportunities are provided to different racial groups, people of various ages, and representatives of opposite genders because of social stratification. This phenomenon results in inequities, all forms of which are presented in the United States. As non-Hispanic white men are the largest demographic group, they are used as a benchmark for others’ earnings (Miller & Vagins, 2018). According to Miller and Vagins (2018), in the United States, in 2017, women were paid 80% of what men earned. It is explained by men’s and women’s predispositions to different industries and occupations, where men tend to have jobs with higher rates of pay (Miller & Vagins, 2018). A structural-functional theory is applicable to this evidence as it claims the reasonability of unequal rewards, which depend on personal talents and abilities (“Theories of social inequality,” n.d.). In this instance, men are inclined to occupy better-paid positions that require additional skills or imply difficult working conditions. From this point of view, social stratification fulfills its initial purpose to encourage people.
References
Miller, K. & Vagins, D. J. (2018). The simple truth about the gender pay gap. American Association of University Women.
Theories of social inequality. (n.d.). Pearson College. Web.
What is social stratification? (n.d.). Pearson College. Web.
Classifying a society’s citizens into ranks based on money, employment, education, family history, and influence is known as social stratification. One might begin by looking into the notion of slavery to understand the described concept better. People were not enslaved due to crimes, debts they owed, or lost wars in the United States, which resulted in a social stratification structure, but by birth (Lumen, 2019). The caste system is another essential factor to consider in this case. It is a closed social system where people have little or no control over their social status. It is considered the caste system when an individual is born in their social status group, or “caste,” and stays there for the rest of their lives (Lumen, 2019). There are hardly any possibilities to enhance one’s social standing, and thus such models are highly deterministic.
The last part of social stratification’s foundation is the class system. It is a free-for-all system that considers both societal and individual aspects. People inside a class system have the freedom to pursue a higher degree of education or career than their parents, mingle with it, and marry individuals of other groups. Therefore, one may conclude that wealth and money dictate class, regarded as an earned status.
Based on the above information, one can conclude that such trends can strongly impact a person. Their life principles and decisions depend on the perception and social norms accepted by those around them, which is considered an adaptation under which a person can compromise their morality for material benefits. The Davis and Moore argument, the work that laid the foundation for an ideology such as functionalism, deserves special attention. In this view, food, shelter, clothing, and money are the fundamental elements of social order (Trueman, 2017). Such an assertion in academic sociology, in turn, serves as direct proof of the reasoning described above. However, the main issue is that authors see incentives as an assurance of performance while, according to their theory, awards should be based on merit. As a result, it is suggested that if capabilities were innate, an incentive system would be unnecessary.
Works Cite
Lumen. (2019). Systems of Social Stratification | Introduction to Sociology. Lumen Learning. Web.
Trueman, A. (2017). Concepts of Functionalism. History Learning Site. Web.
Social stratification means the way a society can be organized into socioeconomic ranks on factors such as income, power, wealth, and education. The perspective of social stratification can be evaluated from different theoretical points of view. The theories include functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism. The concepts differ from each other in various ways. Functionalism states that society has systems that exist for fair reasons. The theory focuses on how society operates by revealing that different aspects of life exist for a given specific purpose.
On the other hand, conflict theory is critical of social stratification because it appears to benefit a few but not the entire community. For example, a conflict theorist would argue that it is unfair to pay engineers millions of monies for a short-term contract. At the same time, civil servants earn lower wages when they work permanently. Symbolic interactionism applies real-life interactions of people to base its argument on the general community. It evaluates social stratification from a lower-level perspective, and the analysis focuses on explaining how an individual’s social status may affect their daily life.
Horizontal mobility is evident in some situations, such as doctors changing their career from medical practitioners to teaching in a medical school. Ideally, the occupation has changed, but the social status remains the same. In vertical mobility, a factory worker may enroll in a college, add their business skills, and become a recognized world businessperson. Intergenerational mobility applies when a daughter of an ice-cream seller gains breakthrough after studies to become a successful legal practitioner. On the other hand, intergenerational mobility can be related to a person who is born in a middle-class society, grows to be a nurse, and lives the same lifestyle they were brought up in.
Nowadays, the problem of inequality still formulates an acute issue in some spheres of human life. Although it is not as severe as earlier (considering, for example, racial inequality), there are manifestations of stratification. Today, society is divided into some groups, depending on education, income, and wealth. It formulates social stratification, and the aim of this paper is to analyze whether it is improved or worsened.
The main principles of democracy are freedom of speech and equality. However, the article The view from the country club: wealthy whites and the matrix of privilege shows that there are gender, racial, and social inequality manifestations in country clubs (Sherwood, 2010). The members of these clubs enjoy a “matrix of privilege” by coexisting and cooperating with people only from the wealthy class. It formulates a separateness and exclusivity of such places, making it impossible for people from other racial or social layers to join.
My example from real life, similar to mentioned above, is an observation of private schools. The problem is formulated by the unequal distribution of funds, personnel, and other resources among schools depending on pupils’ income level. Thus, the more costly studying is, the more comfortable the conditions would be. It involves the level of teaching quality, technical equipment, and the interiorexterior. Moreover, studying in private schools means the social superiority of pupils as they unconsciously realize their belonging to the upper class.
To conclude, I want to mention that this type of stratification has improved over time, however, only in the racial aspect. Thus, there is no more separation of pupils depending on their origin. Although, the social layer issue is still acute as there is a segregation of pupils according to their wealth level. Moreover, this problem is not likely to be solved in the near future as the income level difference is still significant.
Reference
Sherwood, J. H. (2010). The view from the country club: Wealthy whites and the matrix of privilege. University of North Carolina Press.
Social stratification refers to the “hierarchical arrangement of large social groups based on their control over basic resources” (Kendall, 2022, p. 209). The way in which a society is stratified, that is, arranged from top to bottom, can have a significant influence on the position of an individual within the established social structure. Therefore, since stratification exists in all societies, researchers suggested that inequality is not only bound to occur but is also necessary for their ongoing functioning.
An example of social stratification in my local community is gender groupings that are formed under the pressure of patriarchal conditions. In the community, women at large assumed the role of mothers and homemakers, relying on their husbands to provide for them. While there is nothing wrong with making such a choice individually, there is also a pattern of only men holding administrative positions in the local community as well as running businesses. This means that due to patriarchal pressure, women do not get the same personal development opportunities, which is a sign of gender inequality.
The sociological explanation of gender inequality in the United States is linked to the continuous reinforcement of pre-set gender roles and stereotypes that starts in childhood. The main message that is being conveyed is that girls are less important or intelligent than boys and, thus, should have fewer ambitions and aspirations. In terms of treating boys, there is a continuous reinforcement of competition rather than collaboration. Finally, mass media has a longstanding history of portraying men and women in their stereotypical roles, which furthers gender inequality and diminishes women’s roles in society even though they are fully capable of facilitating positive change.
Reference
Kendall, D. (2022). Sociology in our times (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.