sociology essays on stratification

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Social Forces
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, early years: 1920s–1930s, topics in stratification: 1940s–present, a century of key trends and debates in social stratification in social forces.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ted Mouw, A Century of Key Trends and Debates in Social Stratification in Social Forces , Social Forces , Volume 101, Issue 2, December 2022, Pages 535–545, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac097

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This essay reviews research on social stratification appearing in Social Forces as it marks its Centennial Anniversary. As one of the oldest general interest journals in the field, a review of 100 years of stratification research in this journal provides a useful window on changes in the topics, theories, and methods in this central sociological topic over a broad span of time. The papers reviewed are primarily based a sample of 351 papers that were identified as part of a social stratification topic cluster by Moody, Edelmann, and Light (2022 , “MEL”) 1 who used a co-word analysis approach to group papers based on similar patterns of word use. The 351 papers from the MEL sample cover the period from 1940 to 2020, but I also consider stratification-related articles published in Social Forces between 1922 and 1939.

Overall, MEL’s results illustrate the important location of stratification and inequality research within the field of sociology as a whole: the thirty-nine topic clusters identified in the co-word analysis (cf. figure 1 in MEL) are arranged spatially based on their connectedness to the other topics, and the four stratification-related topics reviewed here (class, mobility, occupational prestige, and income inequality) are all located in the center of the figure, illustrating their centrality to other topics in the field. The pivotal location of social stratification means that it will naturally overlap with research in other clusters. 2

Social Stratification Topics in Social Forces , 1940–2020

a Cross-cutting category, includes other topic categories as well.

Table 1 classifies the 351 articles into twenty-four subtopics representing key themes. 3   Table 1 shows the time trends for these topics, with the columns representing article counts for twenty-year periods from 1940 to 2020. Italics in the text to refer to the topics in table 1 , which are listed in the general order they are discussed. Overall, the classification underscores the internal complexity of the field, identifying large and small subtopics that wax and wane over time (e.g., research on occupational status and the effect of status inconsistency ), as well as emerging new topics (such as cross-national mobility ). Given space constraints, the goal of this essay is to discuss the broad trends while highlighting several notable articles and topic categories to give the reader a sense of how stratification research, as represented in Social Forces , has changed over time.

Some articles published in Social Forces in the first two decades addressed themes related to inequality and stratification. Overall, the range of topics would be broadly familiar to a contemporary sociologist, although there is little data analysis and the writing style involves fewer citations and a greater degree of informal theorizing, particularly compared with articles in Social Forces from the 1970s onward. Criswell (1923) , for example, discusses barriers to upward mobility in rural areas, Carter (1932) considers poverty relief efforts in the context of fluctuations in economic conditions, and Kennedy (1934) assesses the existence of a social aristocracy in rural areas of the deep South. There is also a notable debate in the January 1933 issue on the possibility of differential fertility based on social class ( Hankins 1933 ; Lorimer, Dublin, and Engle 1933 ; Notestein 1933 ). With respect to work and inequality, there is a discussion of the sharecroppers’ union in Alabama ( Beecher 1934 ), the exploitation of convict labor in the South ( McKelvey 1934 ), and working-class politics in the United States ( Delson 1936 ). Parsons (1939 ) argues that the social status of professional occupations is the result of their functional technical knowledge, foreshadowing a later debate in Social Forces on functional and conflict theories of stratification ( Kemper 1976 ; Kerbo 1976 ). There is substantial variation in studies of racial inequality, including: a nuanced analysis of the possibility of class consciousness across racial lines in the rapidly industrializing Southern economy ( Work 1937 ); a discussion of the social etiquette of racial control ( Johnson 1939a ); and a favorable review of book on racial demographics written by a eugenicist ( Johnson 1939b ).

The first topic listed in table 1 , social class, is a central sociological concept. It includes articles that focus on theoretical questions about defining class ( Haug and Sussman 1971 ; Hazelrigg 1972 ; Hill and Ackiss 1943 ; Western 1996 ) as well as empirical attempts to measure class-based inequality ( Robinson 1984 ). Research in the past five years ( Wodtke 2017 ; Zhou and Wodtke 2019 ) suggests the continued attraction of class as a research subject, although the article count for this topic has declined compared to the period from 1940 to 1960. Related studies on class consciousness and awareness (Row 2) attempt to understand and measure how respondents identify themselves with respect to class ( Tudor 1971 ; Vanneman and Pampel 1977 ). Row 3 in table 1 combines research on class conflict (e.g., Wingfield and Parenton 1965 ) with related work on class authority and subordination ( Leiter 1986 ; Lopreato 1968 ). There are no articles on either of these two topics in Social Forces since 2000.

A cluster of six articles between 1946 and 1966 in the social class category are really about comparisons between class and caste. Two of these articles debate the possibility of a transition from caste to class in India ( Adams 1953 ; Gist 1954 ), though the term is also used to describe inequality in Peru ( Adams 1953 ), and as a way of distinguishing class and race inequality in the United States ( Brooks 1946 ). The use of caste in the titles and abstracts of papers in Social Forces stops after 1966, but in retrospect it is interesting because it invokes a system of inequality with a high degree of subgroup consciousness but little overt conflict. Brooks’ (1946 ) paper “American Class and Caste: an Appraisal” is an early illustration of theoretical dissensus on the meaning of “class” while also highlighting the overlap between social stratification with MEL’s topic cluster on race. Brooks (1946) critiques Warner’s (1936) use of class to depict social groups arranged hierarchically with a relatively high degree of awareness and consensus regarding the group rankings. He also rejects Warner’s use of caste to describe racial inequality in the South, building on Cox (1942) , who argues that unlike the stability and internalized acquiescence of the Indian caste system, the racially segregated society of the Deep South is a precarious social order based power differentials, dissensus, and the threat of violence. Notably, despite a gap of almost eighty years, Brooks’ (1946) and Cox’s (1942) depictions race and class inequality would be quite at home in contemporary (circa 2020) debates in social stratification.

Other articles in the race subtopic in table 1 range broadly from an analysis of discrimination in professional baseball ( Jiobu 1988 ), to the racialized nature of inequality under capitalism ( Villemez and Beggs 1984 ), and the impact of slavery on modern racial inequality in the South ( O’Connell 2012 ). Moreover, as noted above, the paper counts are an underestimate because some papers on race and stratification/inequality are classified under the race topic cluster (see Hargrove and Malone Gonzalez 2022).

Gender stratification is another cross-cutting topic that overlaps with the “gender & inequality” topic cluster identified by MEL (see Weisshaar and Casey 2022 ). A brief discussion here of gender papers classified in the stratification cluster serves to emphasize developments in how gender inequality has been analyzed over time. Schmitt (1965) analyzes the impact of status incongruency on the political attitudes of married women and finds that a woman who “marries up” based on her education and her husband’s occupation is more likely to have liberal political views than one who “marries beneath herself.” This paper sees the opinions of married women as an appendage or extension of their husband’s status, class, and opinions. Similarly, Heer (1958) analyzes household decision-making of 138 couples and finds that women in families where they worked at least ten hours a week tended to exert greater dominance in household decision-making. Heer tests whether this effect might be due to self-selection by asking both partners questions about assertiveness in nonmarital roles (e.g., “Does your shyness ever keep you from doing things you would otherwise like to do?”, “Do you suffer from feelings of inferiority?”); this paper provides a glimpse of the kind of logic about “unusual” households comprised of working wives that seemed reasonable to test in the 1950s.

Two later papers illustrate developments in how stratification researchers included women in their analysis. Stevens and Boyd (1980) use loglinear models of intergenerational mobility for women in Canada and find that including mothers in the analysis and adding “housework” as a separate occupational category substantially improves the fit of the model above and beyond the effect of father’s occupation by itself. The paper shows that a loglinear approach to study mobility (where occupational classes are nominal categories rather than prestige rankings) makes it easy to incorporate all women in the analysis (regardless of their current labor force status) and to assess their important role in the mobility process. Davis and Robinson (1998) analyze the class identification of married respondents in the General Social Survey from 1974 to 1994 and find a substantial increase in the contribution of wives’ socioeconomic characteristics to the class identities of both men and women. These two articles reflect not only changes in the relative economic position of American women by the 1980s, but also the expansion of the theoretical and empirical toolkit of sociologists to incorporate gender in models of social class and intergenerational mobility.

Research on class culture illustrates shifts in language and methods in this subtopic over time, with early studies often revealing subjective appraisals of working-class culture. For example, Robinson (1942) argues that participants in middle-class drinking parties characterized by “inebriated, determined revelry” tended to be those occupational groups most affected by status and economic insecurity. This paper reflects the value judgements implied by the use of terms such as “social disorganization” or the focus on the values and culture of the “lower-class” that are evident in other papers from this period ( Clark and Wenninger 1963 ; Rodman 1963 ), although the existence of a distinct lower-class subculture was also disputed ( Roach and Gursslin 1967 ). Rodman’s (1963 ) highly cited paper analyzes the value systems of lower-class people who engage in deviant behavior such as non-marital births and juvenile delinquency, and argues that lower-class people do not reject common societal values but instead “stretch” those values to include “alternative values … which help them adjust to their deprived circumstances.”

In contrast, recent attempts to analyze class aspects of culture emphasize the use of survey data and involve more self-awareness regarding potential bias from researchers’ own value class-based evaluations and subjectivities. Katz-Gerro (2002) , for example, uses survey data from multiple countries to test whether there are class differences in leisure and cultural preferences. She finds substantial effects of stratification measures (education, income, and occupational class) on the level of “highbrow” cultural consumption. Relatedly, Garcia-Alvarez et al. (2007) breaks with Bourdieu’s (dominant) perspective that presupposes a class-specific cultural “habitus” and uses survey data on musical preferences to test a model of cultural omnivorousness, where the breadth of respondents’ musical tastes was analyzed rather than the mean or modal category of class-specific preferences. They claim that the innovation of their paper is that it does not presuppose that cultural omnivores are necessarily “highbrows”: for example, they code highbrow taste as whether the respondent liked opera and classical music, and lowbrow distaste based on disliking both country and bluegrass. However, this does seem to presuppose a certain limited class, regional, or temporal specific notion of class culture, as there is the substantial range of cultural sophistication within country and bluegrass genres. Nonetheless, this paper is distinguished by the attempt to break out of the cocoon of definitions of “high” culture that are derived from, and then privilege, sociologists’ own class positions.

The topics listed in Rows 9–12 of table 1 refer to a large body of research related to the measurement of occupational status and prestige, status attainment models, and a resulting structural critique of status attainment research. Although the use of occupational prestige as the key dependent variable in inequality research has declined recently in favor of alternative measures such as wages, income, and wealth, during the 1960s–1990s it was the principal measure used to measure socioeconomic standing. Although occupational prestige scores derived from respondents’ opinions of occupational standing are different than SEI indices based on the average income and education of occupations ( Hout, Smith, and Marsden 2015 ), they are often used interchangeably despite evidence that they perform differently in models of intergenerational mobility ( Featherman and Hauser 1976 ). Some studies published in Social Forces sought to measure the degree of consensus over the relative status and prestige of different occupations ( Balkwell, Bates, and Garbin 1980 ; Garbin and Bates 1961 ; Guppy and Goyder 1984 ; Kraus, Schild, and Hodge 1978 ; Thielbar and Feldman 1969 ), as a broad societal consensus over occupational rankings is an important assumption of status attainment models ( Balkwell, Bates and Garbin 1980 ; Horan 1978 ). Balkwell et al. (1980 ), for example, find there is a high degree of correlation among self-reported occupational rankings among all pairs of respondents in a sample of 259 students. Guppy and Goyder (1984) , however, use large scale survey data from the United States and Canada, and find that the intersubjective correlations in rankings are substantially lower than reported in Balkwell et al. (1980) , arguing that this points to substantial dissensus in occupational ratings across individuals, leading them to question the validity of the assumption of a common understanding of occupational rankings used in status attainment models.

A structural perspective on careers and mobility emerged in sociology in the 1970s–1980s as a critique of the dominant status attainment models of stratification. Structuralists argued for the importance of recognizing the constraints on mobility that lie outside of the individual (i.e., the allocation of opportunities based on labor market segmentation and ascriptive processes) rather than explaining mobility in terms of characteristics of an individual (i.e., aspirations and ability). Thus, Kerckhoff (1976 , 1989) argues that the dominant Wisconsin model of status attainment (e.g., Sewell, Haller, and Portes 1969 )—which assumes that educational achievement (and subsequent occupational attainment) result from an open competition where individual ambition, aspirations, ability, and parental status are the key independent variables—misses the role that structural constraints play in limiting educational and occupational attainment. These constraints affect aspirations and ambition, thereby making it problematic to interpret these variables as causal indicators of the meritocratic openness of the process of intergenerational mobility. Horan (1974) , in an article that is prescient for recent attempts to conceptualize occupational mobility along network lines ( Cheng and Park 2020 ; Villarreal 2020 ), argues that by reducing occupational mobility to a single vertical dimension (occupational status), status attainment models miss the role of the connections and ties between specific occupations that provide the social context for actual mobility patterns.

Randall Smith and Abbott (1983) illustrate a structural perspective on mobility by estimating a vacancy chain model of the labor market for college football coaches that sees mobility as a combination of both individual level factors and the availability of opportunities at the macro level. Some of the authors whose articles are grouped in this category might not classify themselves as “structuralists,” but their research nonetheless helps extend models of social mobility beyond the simplicity of the status attainment framework. Notable contributions include the role of non-status maximizing decisions in career choice ( Katz and Martin 1962 ), the role of social connections in occupational attainment ( Lin, Vaughn, and Ensel 1981 ), a critique of the way status attainment models measure the effect of education and post-school training on mobility ( Winfield et al. 1989 ), and a growth-curve model of structural and institutional effects on careers ( Manzoni, Harkonen, and Mayer 2014 ).

Social mobility has traditionally been a central topic in stratification research (Rows 13–17 of table 1 ). Although social mobility research tended to focus on intergenerational occupational mobility (e.g., Brody and McRae Jr 1987 ; Guest, Landale, and McCann 1989 ) until the 2000s, it shifted after that to primarily intergenerational income mobility (e.g., Bloome 2015 ; Sirniö, Martikainen, and Kauppinen 2013 ). A similar trend is evident in research that focuses on levels of inequality (Rows 18–22 of table 1 ), with fewer papers focusing on occupational inequality or other measures of the occupational structure, and more articles on income or wealth inequality. These trends in both mobility and levels of inequality research reflect the increase in large scale cross-sectional and longitudinal data sets and the corresponding methods needed to analyze them. In addition, the recent emergence of cross-national mobility studies ( Gregg et al. 2017 ; Jerrim and Macmillan 2015 ) complements existing research on comparative and cross-national inequality ( Kurzman 2022 ).

A careful examination of trends in subtopics within the field of social stratification appearing in Social Forces over the past 100 years reveals a field with substantial amounts of continuity and change. Overall, the style and tenor of the papers has shifted from largely informal essay-style prose to carefully cited writing and sophisticated analyses of empirical evidence. Key topics such as social class, status, race and gender inequality, social mobility, cross-national inequality, and class culture have consistently attracted research attention over time, whereas at the same time new data, methods, and critical perspectives have invigorated the field and stimulated new types of analysis. Of course, fundamental issues and concerns with high levels of inequality in the United States and other countries around the world—not something to be celebrated in and of itself—continue to underscore the importance of scientific research on social stratification so we can better understand the world that we live in and apply these insights to addressing social challenges.

1940 is the starting point of the data base provided by the analysis of Moody et al. (2022). Articles published in Social Forces from 1922 to 1939 did not have abstracts (and so were not included in MEE’s classification scheme) and hence were not classified in Table 1 .

Related topic clusters in MEL’s figure 1 such as race, gender & inequality, and work & labor, for example, would typically be included as part of a course on stratification. Moreover, because the classification scheme in MEL exclusively categorizes papers in one category, it is undoubtedly the case that stratification articles are missed that would otherwise be included under a more expansive or multi-topic definition of the field.

Twenty-four papers were coded as clearly non-stratification papers and removed from the sample.

Adams , Richard N.   1953 . “ A Change from Caste to Class in a Peruvian Sierra Town .” Social Forces   31 : 238 – 44 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2574221 .

Google Scholar

Balkwell , James W. , Frederick L.   Bates and Albeno P.   Garbin   1980 . “ On the Intersubjectivity of Occupational Status Evaluations: A Test of a Key Assumption Underlying the ‘Wisconsin Model’ of Status Attainment .” Social Forces   58 ( 3 ): 865 – 81 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2577189 .

Beecher , John   1934 . “ The Share Croppers’ Union in Alabama .” Social Forces   13 : 124 – 32 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570227 .

Bloome , Deirdre   2015 . “ Income Inequality and Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States .” Social Forces   93 ( 3 ): 1047 – 80 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou092 .

Brody , Charles J. and James A.   McRae Jr   1987 . “ Models for Estimating Effects of Origin, Destination, and Mobility .” Social Forces   66 ( 1 ): 208 – 25 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2578908 .

Brooks , Maxwell R.   1946 . “ American Class and Caste: An Appraisal .” Social Forces   25 : 207 – 11 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2571562 .

Carter , Hugh   1932 . “ An Analysis of the Relationships of Public Poor Relief in Pennsylvania since 1875 and Indices of Economic Conditions .” Social Forces   11 : 61 – 3 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2569619 .

Cheng , Siwei and Barum   Park   2020 . “ Flows and Boundaries: A Network Approach to Studying Occupational Mobility in the Labor Market .” American Journal of Sociology   126 ( 3 ): 577 – 631 . https://doi.org/10.1086/712406 .

Clark , John P. and Eugene P.   Wenninger   1963 . “ Goal Orientations and Illegal Behavior among Juveniles .” Social Forces   42 ( 1 ): 49 – 59 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2574944 .

Coser , Lewis A.   1973 . “ Servants: The Obsolescence of an Occupational Role .” Social Forces   52 ( 1 ): 31 – 40 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/52.1.31 .

Cox , Oliver C.   1942 . “ The Modern Caste School of Race Relations .” Social Forces   21 : 218 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570563 .

Criswell , W.S.   1923 . “ The Challenge of the Underprivileged Boy .” Journal of Social Forces   1 : 270 – 2 . https://doi.org/10.2307/3005398 .

Davis , Nancy J. and Robert V.   Robinson   1998 . “ Do Wives Matter? Class Identities of Wives and Husbands in the United States, 1974–1994 .” Social Forces   76 ( 3 ): 1063 – 86 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.3.1063 .

Delson , Harry   1936 . “ Feudalism and the American Working-Class: The Consequences of the Absence of a Feudal Back-Ground upon the Development of the Working-Class Movement in America .” Social Forces   14 ( 3 ): 433 – 40 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2571284 .

Featherman , David L. and Robert M.   Hauser   1976 . “ Prestige or Socioeconomic Scales in the Study of Occupational Achievement? ” Sociological Methods & Research   4 ( 4 ): 403 – 22 . https://doi.org/10.1177/004912417600400401 .

Garbin , Albeno P. and Frederick L.   Bates   1961 . “ Occupational Prestige: An Empirical Study of its Correlates .” Social Forces   40 ( 2 ): 131 – 6 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2574291 .

Garía-Álvarez , Ercilia , Tally   Katz-Gerro and Jordi   López-Sintas   2007 . “ Deconstructing Cultural Omnivorousness 1982–2002: Heterology in Americans’ Musical Preferences .” Social Forces   86 ( 2 ): 417 – 43 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/86.2.417 .

Gist , Noel P.   1954 . “ Occupational Differentiation in South India .” Social Forces   33 : 129 – 38 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2573536 .

Gregg , Paul , Jan O.   Jonsson , Lindsey   Macmillan and Carina   Mood   2017 . “ The Role of Education for Intergenerational Income Mobility: A Comparison of the United States, Great Britain, and Sweden .” Social Forces   96 ( 1 ): 121 – 52 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox051 .

Guest , Avery M. , Nancy S.   Landale and James C.   McCann   1989 . “ Intergenerational Occupational Mobility in the Late 19th Century United States .” Social Forces   68 ( 2 ): 351 – 78 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2579251 .

Guppy , Neil and John C.   Goyder   1984 . “ Consensus on Occupational Prestige: A Reassessment of the Evidence .” Social Forces   62 ( 3 ): 709 – 25 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2578707 .

Hankins , Frank H.   1933 . “ Is the Differential Fertility of the Social Classes Selective .” Social Forces   12 : 33 – 9 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570113 .

Haug , Marie R. and Marvin B.   Sussman   1971 . “ The Indiscriminate State of Social Class Measurement .” Social Forces   49 ( 4 ): 549 – 63 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2576736 .

Hazelrigg , Lawrence E.   1972 . “ Class, Property, and Authority: Dahrendorf’s Critique of Marx’s Theory of Class .” Social Forces   50 ( 4 ): 473 – 87 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2576790 .

Heer , David M.   1958 . “ Dominance and the Working Wife .” Social Forces   36 : 341 – 7 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2573973 .

Hill , Mozell C. and Thelma D.   Ackiss   1943 . “ Social Classes: A Frame of Reference for the Study of Negro Society .” Social Forces   22 : 92 – 8 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2571460 .

Horan , Patrick M.   1974 . “ The Structure of Occupational Mobility: Conceptualization and Analysis .” Social Forces   53 ( 1 ): 33 – 45 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2576835 .

Horan , Patrick M.   1978 . “ Is Status Attainment Research Atheoretical? ” American Sociological Review   43 : 534 – 41 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2094777 .

Hout , Michael , Tom W.   Smith , and Peter V.   Marsden . 2015 . “ Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores for the 2010 Census Codes .” Methodological Report MR124 , Chicago, NORC . Http://Gss . Norc. Org/Get-Documentation/Methodological-Reports.

Google Preview

Jerrim , John and Lindsey   Macmillan   2015 . “ Income Inequality, Intergenerational Mobility, and the Great Gatsby Curve: Is Education the Key? ” Social Forces   94 ( 2 ): 505 – 33 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov075 .

Jiobu , Robert M.   1988 . “ Racial Inequality in a Public Arena: The Case of Professional Baseball .” Social Forces   67 ( 2 ): 524 – 34 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2579194 .

Johnson , Guion Griffis   1939a . “ The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South, a Study in Social Control (Book Review) .” Social Forces   17 ( 4 ): 579 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570720 .

Johnson , Guy   1939b . “ The Negro’s Struggle for Survival: A Study in Human Ecology. By S. J. Holmes .” Social Forces   17 ( 4 ): 583 – 4 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570724 .

Katz , Fred E. and Harry W.   Martin   1962 . “ Career Choice Processes .” Social Forces   41 ( 2 ): 149 – 54 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2573605 .

Katz-Gerro , Tally   2002 . “ Highbrow Cultural Consumption and Class Distinction in Italy, Israel, West Germany, Sweden, and the United States .” Social Forces   81 ( 1 ): 207 – 29 . https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0050 .

Kemper , Theodore D.   1976 . “ Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements That Lead to a Test .” Social Forces   54 ( 3 ): 559 – 78 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2576282 .

Kennedy , Renwick C.   1934 . “ Black Belt Aristocrats-the Old South Lives on in Alabama’s Black Belt .” Social Forces   13 : 80 – 5 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570221 .

Kerbo , Harold R.   1976 . “ Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: A Comment .” Social Forces   55 : 191 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2577104 .

Kerckhoff , Alan C.   1976 . “ The Status Attainment Process: Socialization or Allocation? ” Social Forces   55 ( 2 ): 368 – 81 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2576228 .

Kerckhoff , Alan C.   1989 . “ On the Social Psychology of Social Mobility Processes .” Social Forces   68 ( 1 ): 17 – 25 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/68.1.17 .

Kraus , Vered , Erling O.   Schild and Robert W.   Hodge   1978 . “ Occupational Prestige in the Collective Conscience .” Social Forces   56 ( 3 ): 900 – 18 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2577225 .

Kurzman , Charles   2022 . “ The Globalization of Social Forces .” Social Forces   101 ( 1 ): 93 – 101 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac047 .

Leiter , Jeffrey   1986 . “ Reactions to Subordination: Attitudes of Southern Textile Workers .” Social Forces   64 ( 4 ): 948 – 74 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2578788 .

Lin , Nan , John C.   Vaughn and Walter M.   Ensel   1981 . “ Social Resources and Occupational Status Attainment .” Social Forces   59 ( 4 ): 1163 – 81 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2577987 .

Lopreato , Joseph   1968 . “ Authority Relations and Class Conflict .” Social Forces   47 ( 1 ): 70 – 9 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2574714 .

Lorimer , Frank , Louis I.   Dublin and Earl T.   Engle   1933 . “ Discussion of the Differential Fertility of Social Classes .” Social Forces   12 ( 1 ): 39 – 47 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570114 .

Manzoni , Anna , Juho   Harkonen and Karl   Ulrich Mayer   2014 . “ Moving on? A Growth-Curve Analysis of Occupational Attainment and Career Progression Patterns in West Germany .” Social Forces . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou002 .

McKelvey , Blake   1934 . “ A Half Century of Southern Penal Exploitation .” Social Forces   13 ( 1 ): 112 – 23 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570226 .

Moody , James , Achim   Edelmann and Ryan   Light   2022 . “ 100 Years of Social Forces as Seen through Bibliometric Pattern .” Social Forces   101 ( 1 ): 38 – 75 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac046 .

Mueller , Ulrich and Allan   Mazur   1996 . “ Facial Dominance of West Point Cadets as a Predictor of Later Military Rank .” Social Forces   74 ( 3 ): 823 – 50 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/74.3.823 .

Notestein , Frank W.   1933 . “ The Differential Rate of Increase among the Social Classes of the American Population .” Social Forces   12 ( 1 ): 17 – 33 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570112 .

O’Connell , Heather A.   2012 . “ The Impact of Slavery on Racial Inequality in Poverty in the Contemporary US South .” Social Forces   90 ( 3 ): 713 – 34 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sor021 .

Parsons , Talcott   1939 . “ The Professions and Social Structure .” Social Forces   17 ( 4 ): 457 – 67 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570695 .

Randall Smith , D. and Andrew   Abbott   1983 . “ A Labor Market Perspective on the Mobility of College Football Coaches .” Social Forces   61 ( 4 ): 1147 – 67 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/61.4.1147 .

Roach , Jack L. and Orville R.   Gursslin   1967 . “ An Evaluation of the Concept ‘Culture of Poverty .” Social Forces   45 ( 3 ): 383 – 92 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2575197 .

Robinson , Duane   1942 . “ Social Disorganization Reflected in Middle Class Drinking and Dancing Recreational Patterns .” Social Forces   20 : 455 – 9 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2570879 .

Robinson , Robert V.   1984 . “ Structural Change and Class Mobility in Capitalist Societies .” Social Forces   63 ( 1 ): 51 – 71 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2578858 .

Rodman , Hyman   1963 . “ The Lower-Class Value Stretch .” Social Forces   42 ( 2 ): 205 – 15 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2575693 .

Schmitt , David R.   1965 . “ An Attitudinal Correlate of the Status Congruency of Married Women .” Social Forces   44 ( 2 ): 190 – 5 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2575626 .

Sewell , William H. , Archibald O.   Haller and Alejandro   Portes   1969 . “ The Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process .” American Sociological Review   34 : 82 – 92 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2092789 .

Sirniö , Outi , Pekka   Martikainen and Timo M.   Kauppinen   2013 . “ Intergenerational Determinants of Income Level in Finland .” Social Forces   92 ( 2 ): 463 – 90 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot098 .

Stevens , Gillian and Monica   Boyd   1980 . “ The Importance of Mother: Labor Force Participation and Intergenerational Mobility of Women .” Social Forces   59 ( 1 ): 186 – 99 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2577840 .

Thielbar , Gerald and Saul D.   Feldman   1969 . “ Occupational Stereotypes and Prestige .” Social Forces   48 ( 1 ): 64 – 72 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2575470 .

Tudor , Jeannette F.   1971 . “ The Development of Class Awareness in Children .” Social Forces   49 ( 3 ): 470 – 6 . https://doi.org/10.2307/3005738 .

Vanneman , Reeve and Fred C.   Pampel   1977 . “ The American Perception of Class and Status .” American Sociological Review   42 : 422 – 37 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2094748 .

Villarreal , Andrés   2020 . “ The US Occupational Structure: A Social Network Approach .” Sociological Science   7 : 187 – 221 . https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a8 .

Villemez , Wayne J. and John J.   Beggs   1984 . “ Black Capitalism and Black Inequality: Some Sociological Considerations .” Social Forces   63 ( 1 ): 117 – 44 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2578861 .

Warner , W. Lloyd   1936 . “ American Caste and Class .” American Journal of Sociology   42 ( 2 ): 234 – 7 . https://doi.org/10.1086/217391 .

Weisshaar , Katherine and Patrick   Casey   2022 . “ 100 Years of Sex and Gender in Social Forces .” Social Forces .

Western , Mark   1996 . “ Intergenerational Mobility and Class Theory: A Reply to Kingston .” Social Forces   75 ( 1 ): 329 – 34 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2580768 .

Winfield , Idee , Richard T.   Campbell , Alan C.   Kerckhoff , Diane D.   Everett and Jerry M.   Trott   1989 . “ Career Processes in Great Britain and the United States .” Social Forces   68 ( 1 ): 284 – 308 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2579229 .

Wingfield , Roland and Vernon J.   Parenton   1965 . “ Class Structure and Class Conflict in Haitian Society .” Social Forces   43 ( 3 ): 338 – 47 .

Wodtke , Geoffrey T.   2017 . “ Social Relations, Technical Divisions, and Class Stratification in the United States: An Empirical Test of the Death and Decomposition of Class Hypotheses .” Social Forces   95 ( 4 ): 1479 – 508 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox012 .

Work , Monroe N.   1937 . “ Problems of Adjustment of Race and Class in the South .” Social Forces   16 ( 1 ): 108 – 17 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2571063 .

Zhou , Xiang and Geoffrey T.   Wodtke   2019 . “ Income Stratification among Occupational Classes in the United States .” Social Forces   97 ( 3 ): 945 – 72 . https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy074 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1534-7605
• Print ISSN 0037-7732
• Copyright © 2024 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics pp 1–5 Cite as

Stratification

• Stephen L. Morgan 2  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2016

177 Accesses

‘Stratification’ refers to a structure of inequality where individuals occupy differentiated positions that are ranked hierarchically according to broadly recognized standards. Prominent in 20th-century sociology, the term was used by Parsons and his students to explain why individuals in the most functionally important positions in society receive the greatest rewards for their services. In sociology, the most important legacy of stratification research is the cross-national study of intergenerational mobility between occupational categories. Recently, economists have joined sociologists in studying the relationship between increasing inequalities within the labour markets of industrialized countries and rates of intergenerational mobility.

This chapter was originally published in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics , 2nd edition, 2008. Edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Bibliography

Becker, G., and N. Tomes. 1979. An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Political Economy 87: 1153–1189.

Article   Google Scholar  

Benabou, R. 1996. Heterogeneity, stratification, and growth: Macroeconomic implications of community structure and school finance. American Economic Review 86: 584–609.

Google Scholar  

Birdsall, N., and C. Graham (eds.). 2000. New markets, new opportunities? Economic and social mobility in a changing world . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Björklund, A., and M. Jäntti. 1997. Intergenerational income mobility in Sweden compared to the United States. American Economic Review 87: 1009–1018.

Blau, P., and O. Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure . New York: Wiley.

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Charles, K., and E. Hurst. 2003. The correlation of wealth across generations. Journal of Political Economy 111: 1155–1182.

Closson, C. 1896. Ethnic stratification and displacement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 11: 92–107.

Davis, K., and W. Moore. 1945. Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review 10: 242–249.

Durlauf, S. 1994. Spillovers, stratification, and inequality. European Economic Review 38: 836–845.

Erikson, R., and J. Goldthorpe. 1992. The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heckman, J., and V. Hotz. 1986. An investigation of the labor market earnings of Panamanian males evaluating the sources of inequality. Journal of Human Resources 21: 507–542.

Kohn, M. 1969. Class and conformity: A study in values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Morgan, S., D. Grusky, and G. Fields (eds.). 2006. Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research from sociology and economics . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mulligan, C. 1997. Parental priorities and economic inequality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Myrdal, G. 1944. An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy . New York: Harper.

Parsons, T. 1940. An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. American Journal of Sociology 45: 841–862.

Parsons, T. 1953. A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. In Class, status, and power: A reader in social stratification , ed. R. Bendix and S. Lipset. Glencoe: Free Press.

Parsons, T. 1959. The school class as a social system. In Social structure and personality , ed. T. Parsons. New York: Free Press, 1964.

Shils, E. 1962. Center and periphery: Essays in macrosociology . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Solon, G. 1999. Intergenerational mobility in the labor market. In Handbook of labor economics , vol. 3, ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: North- Holland.

Solon, G. 2002. Cross-country differences in intergenerational earnings mobility. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(3): 59–66.

Sorokin, P. 1927. Social and cultural mobility. New York: Free Press, 1959.

Welch, F. 1999. In defense of inequality. American Economic Review 89: 1–17.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

http://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5

Stephen L. Morgan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, copyright information.

© 2008 The Author(s)

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Morgan, S.L. (2008). Stratification. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2290-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2290-1

Received : 12 September 2016

Accepted : 12 September 2016

Published : 03 December 2016

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-95121-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

9.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Apply functionalist, conflict theory, and interactionist perspectives on social stratification

Basketball is one of the highest-paying professional sports and stratification exists even among teams in the NBA. For example, the Toronto Raptors hands out the lowest annual payroll, while the New York Knicks reportedly pays the highest. Stephen Curry, a Golden State Warriors guard, is one of the highest paid athletes in the NBA, earning around $43 million a year (Sports Illustrated 2020), whereas the lowest paid player earns just over $200,000 (ESPN 2021). Even within specific fields, layers are stratified, members are ranked, and inequality exists.

In sociology, even an issue such as NBA salaries can be seen from various points of view. Functionalists will examine the purpose of such high salaries, conflict theorists will study the exorbitant salaries as an unfair distribution of money, and symbolic interactionists will describe how players display that wealth. Social stratification takes on new meanings when it is examined from different sociological perspectives—functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

In sociology, the functionalist perspective examines how society’s parts operate. According to functionalism, different aspects of society exist because they serve a vital purpose. What is the function of social stratification?

In 1945, sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore published the Davis-Moore thesis , which argued that the greater the functional importance of a social role, the greater must be the reward. The theory posits that social stratification represents the inherently unequal value of different work. Certain tasks in society are more valuable than others (for example, doctors or lawyers). Qualified people who fill those positions are rewarded more than others.

According to Davis and Moore, a firefighter’s job is more important than, for instance, a grocery store cashier’s job. The cashier position does not require similar skill and training level as firefighting. Without the incentive of higher pay, better benefits, and increased respect, why would someone be willing to rush into burning buildings? If pay levels were the same, the firefighter might as well work as a grocery store cashier and avoid the risk of firefighting. Davis and Moore believed that rewarding more important work with higher levels of income, prestige, and power encourages people to work harder and longer.

Davis and Moore stated that, in most cases, the degree of skill required for a job determines that job’s importance. They noted that the more skill required for a job, the fewer qualified people there would be to do that job. Certain jobs, such as cleaning hallways or answering phones, do not require much skill. Therefore, most people would be qualified for these positions. Other work, like designing a highway system or delivering a baby, requires immense skill limiting the number of people qualified to take on this type of work.

Many scholars have criticized the Davis-Moore thesis. In 1953, Melvin Tumin argued that it does not explain inequalities in the education system or inequalities due to race or gender. Tumin believed social stratification prevented qualified people from attempting to fill roles (Tumin 1953).

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists are deeply critical of social stratification, asserting that it benefits only some people, not all of society. For instance, to a conflict theorist, it seems wrong that a basketball player is paid millions for an annual contract while a public school teacher may earn $35,000 a year. Stratification, conflict theorists believe, perpetuates inequality. Conflict theorists try to bring awareness to inequalities, such as how a rich society can have so many poor members.

Many conflict theorists draw on the work of Karl Marx. During the nineteenth-century era of industrialization, Marx believed social stratification resulted from people’s relationship to production. People were divided into two main groups: they either owned factories or worked in them. In Marx’s time, bourgeois capitalists owned high-producing businesses, factories, and land, as they still do today. Proletariats were the workers who performed the manual labor to produce goods. Upper-class capitalists raked in profits and got rich, while working-class proletariats earned skimpy wages and struggled to survive. With such opposing interests, the two groups were divided by differences of wealth and power. Marx believed workers experience deep alienation, isolation and misery resulting from powerless status levels (Marx 1848). Marx argued that proletariats were oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

Today, while working conditions have improved, conflict theorists believe that the strained working relationship between employers and employees still exists. Capitalists own the means of production, and a system is in place to make business owners rich and keep workers poor. According to conflict theorists, the resulting stratification creates class conflict.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism uses everyday interactions of individuals to explain society as a whole. Symbolic interactionism examines stratification from a micro-level perspective. This analysis strives to explain how people’s social standing affects their everyday interactions.

In most communities, people interact primarily with others who share the same social standing. It is precisely because of social stratification that people tend to live, work, and associate with others like themselves, people who share their same income level, educational background, class traits and even tastes in food, music, and clothing. The built-in system of social stratification groups people together. This is one of the reasons why it was rare for a royal prince like England’s Prince William to marry a commoner.

Symbolic interactionists also note that people’s appearance reflects their perceived social standing. As discussed above, class traits seen through housing, clothing, and transportation indicate social status, as do hairstyles, taste in accessories, and personal style. Symbolic interactionists also analyze how individuals think of themselves or others interpretation of themselves based on these class traits.

To symbolically communicate social standing, people often engage in conspicuous consumption , which is the purchase and use of certain products to make a social statement about status. Carrying pricey but eco-friendly water bottles could indicate a person’s social standing, or what they would like others to believe their social standing is. Some people buy expensive trendy sneakers even though they will never wear them to jog or play sports. A $17,000 car provides transportation as easily as a $100,000 vehicle, but the luxury car makes a social statement that the less expensive car can’t live up to. All these symbols of stratification are worthy of examination by an interactionist.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/9-4-theoretical-perspectives-on-social-stratification

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Social Stratification in the United States

38 What Is Social Stratification?

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate between open and closed stratification systems
• Distinguish between caste and class systems
• Understand meritocracy as an ideal system of stratification

Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing. 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.

You may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct vertical layers found in rock, called stratification, are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The people who have more resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers of our society.

In the United States, people like to believe everyone has an equal chance at success. To a certain extent, Aaron illustrates the belief that hard work and talent—not prejudicial treatment or societal values—determine social rank. This emphasis on self-effort perpetuates the belief that people control their own social standing.

However, sociologists recognize that social stratification is a society-wide system that makes inequalities apparent. While there are always inequalities between individuals, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Stratification is not about individual inequalities, but about systematic inequalities based on group membership, classes, and the like. No individual, rich or poor, can be blamed for social inequalities. The structure of society affects a person’s social standing. Although individuals may support or fight inequalities, social stratification is created and supported by society as a whole.

Factors that define stratification vary in different societies. In most societies, stratification is an economic system, based on wealth , the net value of money and assets a person has, and income , a person’s wages or investment dividends. While people are regularly categorized based on how rich or poor they are, other important factors influence social standing. For example, in some cultures, wisdom and charisma are valued, and people who have them are revered more than those who don’t. In some cultures, the elderly are esteemed; in others, the elderly are disparaged or overlooked. Societies’ cultural beliefs often reinforce the inequalities of stratification.

One key determinant of social standing is the social standing of our parents. Parents tend to pass their social position on to their children. People inherit not only social standing but also the cultural norms that accompany a certain lifestyle. They share these with a network of friends and family members. Social standing becomes a comfort zone, a familiar lifestyle, and an identity. This is one of the reasons first-generation college students do not fare as well as other students.

Other determinants are found in a society’s occupational structure. Teachers, for example, often have high levels of education but receive relatively low pay. Many believe that teaching is a noble profession, so teachers should do their jobs for love of their profession and the good of their students—not for money. Yet no successful executive or entrepreneur would embrace that attitude in the business world, where profits are valued as a driving force. Cultural attitudes and beliefs like these support and perpetuate social inequalities.

Recent Economic Changes and U.S. Stratification

As a result of the Great Recession that rocked our nation’s economy in the last few years, many families and individuals found themselves struggling like never before. The nation fell into a period of prolonged and exceptionally high unemployment. While no one was completely insulated from the recession, perhaps those in the lower classes felt the impact most profoundly. Before the recession, many were living paycheck to paycheck or even had been living comfortably. As the recession hit, they were often among the first to lose their jobs. Unable to find replacement employment, they faced more than loss of income. Their homes were foreclosed, their cars were repossessed, and their ability to afford healthcare was taken away. This put many in the position of deciding whether to put food on the table or fill a needed prescription.

While we’re not completely out of the woods economically, there are several signs that we’re on the road to recovery. Many of those who suffered during the recession are back to work and are busy rebuilding their lives. The Affordable Health Care Act has provided health insurance to millions who lost or never had it.

But the Great Recession, like the Great Depression, has changed social attitudes. Where once it was important to demonstrate wealth by wearing expensive clothing items like Calvin Klein shirts and Louis Vuitton shoes, now there’s a new, thriftier way of thinking. In many circles, it has become hip to be frugal. It’s no longer about how much we spend, but about how much we don’t spend. Think of shows like Extreme Couponing on TLC and songs like Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop.”

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists distinguish between two types of systems of stratification. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relationships between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. Different systems reflect, emphasize, and foster certain cultural values and shape individual beliefs. Stratification systems include class systems and caste systems, as well as meritocracy.

The Caste System

Caste systems are closed stratification systems in which people can do little or nothing to change their social standing. A caste system is one in which people are born into their social standing and will remain in it their whole lives. People are assigned occupations regardless of their talents, interests, or potential. There are virtually no opportunities to improve a person’s social position.

In the Hindu caste tradition, people were expected to work in the occupation of their caste and to enter into marriage according to their caste. Accepting this social standing was considered a moral duty. Cultural values reinforced the system. Caste systems promote beliefs in fate, destiny, and the will of a higher power, rather than promoting individual freedom as a value. A person who lived in a caste society was socialized to accept his or her social standing.

Although the caste system in India has been officially dismantled, its residual presence in Indian society is deeply embedded. In rural areas, aspects of the tradition are more likely to remain, while urban centers show less evidence of this past. In India’s larger cities, people now have more opportunities to choose their own career paths and marriage partners. As a global center of employment, corporations have introduced merit-based hiring and employment to the nation.

The Class System

A class system is based on both social factors and individual achievement. A class consists of a set of people who share similar status with regard to factors like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Unlike caste systems, class systems are open. People are free to gain a different level of education or employment than their parents. They can also socialize with and marry members of other classes, which allows people to move from one class to another.

In a class system, occupation is not fixed at birth. Though family and other societal models help guide a person toward a career, personal choice plays a role.

In class systems, people have the option to form exogamous marriages , unions of spouses from different social categories. Marriage in these circumstances is based on values such as love and compatibility rather than on social standing or economics. Though social conformities still exist that encourage people to choose partners within their own class, people are not as pressured to choose marriage partners based solely on those elements. Marriage to a partner from the same social background is an endogamous union .

Meritocracy

Meritocracy is an ideal system based on the belief that social stratification is the result of personal effort—or merit—that determines social standing. High levels of effort will lead to a high social position, and vice versa. The concept of meritocracy is an ideal—because a society has never existed where social rank was based purely on merit. Because of the complex structure of societies, processes like socialization, and the realities of economic systems, social standing is influenced by multiple factors—not merit alone. Inheritance and pressure to conform to norms, for instance, disrupt the notion of a pure meritocracy. While a meritocracy has never existed, sociologists see aspects of meritocracies in modern societies when they study the role of academic and job performance and the systems in place for evaluating and rewarding achievement in these areas.

Status Consistency

Social stratification systems determine social position based on factors like income, education, and occupation. Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency, or lack thereof, of an individual’s rank across these factors. Caste systems correlate with high status consistency, whereas the more flexible class system has lower status consistency.

To illustrate, let’s consider Susan. Susan earned her high school degree but did not go to college. That factor is a trait of the lower-middle class. She began doing landscaping work, which, as manual labor, is also a trait of lower-middle class or even lower class. However, over time, Susan started her own company. She hired employees. She won larger contracts. She became a business owner and earned a lot of money. Those traits represent the upper-middle class. There are inconsistencies between Susan’s educational level, her occupation, and her income. In a class system, a person can work hard and have little education and still be in middle or upper class, whereas in a caste system that would not be possible. In a class system, low status consistency correlates with having more choices and opportunities.

On April 29, 2011, in London, England, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, married Catherine Middleton, a commoner. It is rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Kate Middleton has an upper-class background, but does not have royal ancestry. Her father was a former flight dispatcher and her mother a former flight attendant and owner of Party Pieces. According to Grace Wong’s 2011 article titled, “Kate Middleton: A family business that built a princess,” “[t]he business grew to the point where [her father] quit his job . . . and it’s evolved from a mom-and-pop outfit run out of a shed . . . into a venture operated out of three converted farm buildings in Berkshire.” Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (Köhler 2010).

Britain’s monarchy arose during the Middle Ages. Its social hierarchy placed royalty at the top and commoners on the bottom. This was generally a closed system, with people born into positions of nobility. Wealth was passed from generation to generation through primogeniture , a law stating that all property would be inherited by the firstborn son. If the family had no son, the land went to the next closest male relation. Women could not inherit property, and their social standing was primarily determined through marriage.

The arrival of the Industrial Revolution changed Britain’s social structure. Commoners moved to cities, got jobs, and made better livings. Gradually, people found new opportunities to increase their wealth and power. Today, the government is a constitutional monarchy with the prime minister and other ministers elected to their positions, and with the royal family’s role being largely ceremonial. The long-ago differences between nobility and commoners have blurred, and the modern class system in Britain is similar to that of the United States (McKee 1996).

Today, the royal family still commands wealth, power, and a great deal of attention. When Queen Elizabeth II retires or passes away, Prince Charles will be first in line to ascend the throne. If he abdicates (chooses not to become king) or dies, the position will go to Prince William. If that happens, Kate Middleton will be called Queen Catherine and hold the position of queen consort. She will be one of the few queens in history to have earned a college degree (Marquand 2011).

There is a great deal of social pressure on her not only to behave as a royal but also to bear children. In fact, Kate and Prince William welcomed their first son, Prince George, on July 22, 2013 and are expecting their second child. The royal family recently changed its succession laws to allow daughters, not just sons, to ascend the throne. Kate’s experience—from commoner to potential queen—demonstrates the fluidity of social position in modern society.

Stratification systems are either closed, meaning they allow little change in social position, or open, meaning they allow movement and interaction between the layers. A caste system is one in which social standing is based on ascribed status or birth. Class systems are open, with achievement playing a role in social position. People fall into classes based on factors like wealth, income, education, and occupation. A meritocracy is a system of social stratification that confers standing based on personal worth, rewarding effort.

Section Quiz

What factor makes caste systems closed?

• They are run by secretive governments.
• People cannot change their social standings.
• Most have been outlawed.
• They exist only in rural areas.

What factor makes class systems open?

• They allow for movement between the classes.
• People are more open-minded.
• People are encouraged to socialize within their class.
• They do not have clearly defined layers.

Which of these systems allows for the most social mobility?

Which person best illustrates opportunities for upward social mobility in the United States?

• First-shift factory worker
• First-generation college student
• Firstborn son who inherits the family business
• First-time interviewee who is hired for a job

Which statement illustrates low status consistency?

• A suburban family lives in a modest ranch home and enjoys a nice vacation each summer.
• A single mother receives food stamps and struggles to find adequate employment.
• A college dropout launches an online company that earns millions in its first year.
• A celebrity actress owns homes in three countries.

Based on meritocracy, a physician’s assistant would:

• receive the same pay as all the other physician’s assistants
• be encouraged to earn a higher degree to seek a better position
• most likely marry a professional at the same level
• earn a pay raise for doing excellent work

Short Answer

Track the social stratification of your family tree. Did the social standing of your parents differ from the social standing of your grandparents and great-grandparents? What social traits were handed down by your forebears? Are there any exogamous marriages in your history? Does your family exhibit status consistencies or inconsistencies?

What defines communities that have low status consistency? What are the ramifications, both positive and negative, of cultures with low status consistency? Try to think of specific examples to support your ideas.

Review the concept of stratification. Now choose a group of people you have observed and been a part of—for example, cousins, high school friends, classmates, sport teammates, or coworkers. How does the structure of the social group you chose adhere to the concept of stratification?

Further Research

The New York Times investigated social stratification in their series of articles called “Class Matters.” The online accompaniment to the series includes an interactive graphic called “How Class Works,” which tallies four factors—occupation, education, income, and wealth—and places an individual within a certain class and percentile. What class describes you? Test your class rank on the interactive site: http://openstax.org/l/NY_Times_how_class_works

Köhler, Nicholas. 2010. “An Uncommon Princess.” Maclean’s , November 22. Retrieved January 9, 2012 ( http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/22/an-uncommon-princess/ ).

McKee, Victoria. 1996. “Blue Blood and the Color of Money.” New York Times , June 9.

Marquand, Robert. 2011. “What Kate Middleton’s Wedding to Prince William Could Do for Britain.” Christian Science Monitor , April 15. Retrieved January 9, 2012 ( http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0415/What-Kate-Middleton-s-wedding-to-Prince-William-could-do-for-Britain ).

Wong, Grace. 2011. “Kate Middleton: A Family Business That Built a Princess.” CNN Money . Retrieved December 22, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/smallbusiness/kate-middleton-party-pieces/).

Introduction to Sociology 2e Copyright © 2012 by OSCRiceUniversity (Download for free at https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8.1 Systems of Stratification

Learning objectives.

• Explain the difference between open and closed societies.
• Define the several systems of stratification.
• Understand how Max Weber and Karl Marx differed in their view of class societies.

When we look around the world and through history, we see different types of stratification systems. These systems vary on their degree of vertical mobility , or the chances of rising up or falling down the stratification ladder. In some so-called closed societies, an individual has virtually no chance of moving up or down. Open societies have more vertical mobility, as some people, and perhaps many people, can move up or even down. That said, a key question is how much vertical mobility really exists in these societies. Let’s look at several systems of stratification, moving from the most closed to the most open.

The most closed system is slavery , or the ownership of people, which has been quite common in human history (Ennals, 2007). Slavery is thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, after agricultural societies developed, as people in these societies made prisoners of war work on their farms. Many of the ancient lands of the Middle East, including Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia, also owned slaves, as did ancient China and India. Slavery especially flourished in ancient Greece and Rome, which used thousands of slaves for their trade economies. Most slaves in ancient times were prisoners of war or debtors. As trade died down during the Middle Ages, so did slavery.

Slavery is the most closed system of stratification. Although U.S. slavery, depicted here, ended with the Civil War, slavery still exists today in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

But once Europeans began exploring the Western Hemisphere in the 1500s, slavery regained its popularity. Portuguese and Spanish colonists who settled in Brazil and Caribbean islands made slaves of thousands of Indians already living there. After most of them died from disease and abuse, the Portuguese and Spaniards began bringing slaves from Africa. In the next century, the English, the French, and other Europeans also began bringing African slaves into the Western Hemisphere, and by the 1800s they had captured and shipped to the New World some 10–12 million Africans, almost 2 million of whom died along the way (Thornton, 1998).

The United States, of course, is all too familiar with slavery, which remains perhaps the most deplorable experience in American history and continues to have repercussions for African Americans and the rest of American society. It increasingly divided the new nation after it won its independence from Britain and helped lead to the Civil War eight decades later. The cruel treatment of slaves was captured in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s classic but controversial book Uncle Tom’s Cabin , which ignited passions on both sides of the slavery debate.

Slavery still exists in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America, with some estimates putting the number of slaves in the tens of millions. Today’s slaves include (a) men first taken as prisoners of war in ethnic conflicts; (b) girls and women captured in wartime or kidnapped from their neighborhoods and used as prostitutes or sex slaves; (c) children sold by their parents to become child laborers; and (d) workers paying off debts who are abused and even tortured and too terrified to leave (Bales, 2007; Batstone, 2007).

Estate Systems

Estate systems are characterized by control of land and were common in Europe and Asia during the Middle Ages and into the 1800s. In these systems, two major estates existed: the landed gentry or nobility and the peasantry or serfs. The landed gentry owned huge expanses of land on which serfs toiled. The serfs had more freedom than slaves had but typically lived in poverty and were subject to arbitrary control by the nobility (Kerbo, 2009).

Estate systems thrived in Europe until the French Revolution in 1789 violently overturned the existing order and inspired people in other nations with its cries for freedom and equality. As time went on, European estate systems slowly gave way to class systems of stratification (discussed a little later). After the American colonies won their independence from Britain, the South had at least one characteristic of an estate system, the control of large plots of land by a relatively few wealthy individuals and their families, but it used slaves rather than serfs to work the land.

Much of Asia, especially China and Japan, also had estate systems. For centuries, China’s large population lived as peasants in abject conditions and frequently engaged in peasant uprisings. These escalated starting in the 1850s after the Chinese government raised taxes and charged peasants higher rents for the land on which they worked. After many more decades of political and economic strife, Communists took control of China in 1949 (DeFronzo, 2007).

Caste Systems

In a caste system , people are born into unequal groups based on their parents’ status and remain in these groups for the rest of their lives. For many years, the best-known caste system was in India, where, supported by Hindu beliefs emphasizing the acceptance of one’s fate in life, several major castes dictated one’s life chances from the moment of birth, especially in rural areas (Kerbo, 2009). People born in the lower castes lived in abject poverty throughout their lives. Another caste, the harijan , or untouchables , was considered so low that technically it was not thought to be a caste at all. People in this caste were called the untouchables because they were considered unclean and were prohibited from coming near to people in the higher castes. Traditionally, caste membership in India almost totally determined an individual’s life, including what job you had and whom you married; for example, it was almost impossible to marry someone in another caste. After India won its independence from Britain in 1949, its new constitution granted equal rights to the untouchables. Modern communication and migration into cities further weakened the caste system, as members of different castes now had more contact with each other. Still, caste prejudice remains a problem in India and illustrates the continuing influence of its traditional system of social stratification.

A country that used to have a caste system is South Africa. In the days of apartheid, from 1950 to 1990, a small group of white Afrikaners ruled the country. Black people constituted more than three-quarters of the nation’s population and thus greatly outnumbered Afrikaners, but they had the worst jobs, could not vote, and lived in poor, segregated neighborhoods. Afrikaners bolstered their rule with the aid of the South African police, which used terror tactics to intimidate blacks (I. Berger, 2009).

Many observers believe a caste system existed in the U.S. South until the civil rights movement ended legal racial segregation.

U.S. Library of Congress – public domain.

Many observers believe a caste system also existed in the South in the United States after Reconstruction and until the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended legal segregation. A segregated system called Jim Crow dominated the South, and even though African Americans had several rights, including the right to vote, granted to them by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, these rights were denied in practice. Lynchings were common for many decades, and the Southern police system bolstered white rule in the South just as the South African police system bolstered white rule in that country (Litwack, 2009).

Class Systems

Many societies, including all industrial ones, have class systems . In this system of stratification, a person is born into a social ranking but can move up or down from it much more easily than in caste systems or slave societies. This movement in either direction is primarily the result of a person’s own effort, knowledge, and skills or lack of them. Although these qualities do not aid upward movement in caste or slave societies, they often do enable upward movement in class societies. Of the three systems of stratification discussed so far, class systems are by far the most open, meaning they have the most vertical mobility. We will look later at social class in the United States and discuss the extent of vertical mobility in American society.

Sociologist Max Weber, whose work on organizations and bureaucracies was discussed in Chapter 6 “Groups and Organizations” , also had much to say about class systems of stratification. Such systems, he wrote, are based on three dimensions of stratification: class (which we will call wealth ), power, and prestige. Wealth is the total value of an individual or family, including income, stocks, bonds, real estate, and other assets; power is the ability to influence others to do your bidding, even if they do not want to; and prestige refers to the status and esteem people hold in the eyes of others.

In discussing these three dimensions, Weber disagreed somewhat with Karl Marx, who said our ranking in society depends on whether we own the means of production. Marx thus felt that the primary dimension of stratification in class systems was economic. Weber readily acknowledged the importance of this economic dimension but thought power and prestige also matter. He further said that although wealth, power, and prestige usually go hand-in-hand, they do not always overlap. For example, although the head of a major corporation has a good deal of wealth, power, and prestige, we can think of many other people who are high on one dimension but not on the other two. A professional athlete who makes millions of dollars a year has little power in the political sense that Weber meant it. An organized crime leader might also be very wealthy but have little prestige outside the criminal underworld. Conversely, a scientist or professor may enjoy much prestige but not be very wealthy.

Classless Societies

Although, as noted earlier, all societies except perhaps for the simplest ones are stratified, some large nations have done their best to eliminate stratification by developing classless societies . Marx, of course, predicted that one day the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie and create a communist society, by which he meant a classless one in which everyone had roughly the same amount of wealth, power, and prestige. In Russia, China, and Cuba, revolutions inspired by Marx’s vision occurred in the 20th century. These revolutions resulted in societies not only with less economic inequality than in the United States and other class systems but also with little or no political freedom. Moreover, governing elites in these societies enjoyed much more wealth, power, and prestige than the average citizen. Overall, the communist experiments in Russia, China, and Cuba failed to achieve Marx’s vision of an egalitarian society.

Some Western European nations, such as Sweden and Denmark, have developed social democracies based on fairly socialist economies. Although a few have nominal monarchies, these nations have much political freedom and less economic inequality than the United States and other class societies. They also typically rank much higher than the United States on various social and economic indicators. Although these nations are not truly classless, they indicate it is possible, if not easy, to have a society that begins to fulfill Marx’s egalitarian vision but where political freedom still prevails (Sandbrook, Edelman, Heller, & Teichman, 2007).

Key Takeaways

• Systems of stratification vary in their degree of vertical social mobility. Some societies are more open in this regard, while some are more closed.
• The major systems of stratification are slavery, estate systems, caste systems, and class systems.
• Some Western European nations are not classless but still have much less economic inequality than class societies such as the United States.

For Your Review

• What, if anything, should the United States and the United Nations try to do about the slavery that still exists in today’s world?
• Why do you think some class societies have more vertical social mobility than other class societies?

Bales, K. (2007). Ending slavery: How we free today’s slaves . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Batstone, D. (2007). Not for sale: The return of the global slave trade—and how we can fight it . New York, NY: HarperOne.

Berger, I. (2009). South Africa in world history . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

DeFronzo, J. (2007). Revolutions and revolutionary movements (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ennals, R. (2007). From slavery to citizenship . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Kerbo, H. R. (2009). Social stratification and inequality . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Litwack, L. F. (2009). How free is free? The long death of Jim Crow . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sandbrook, R., Edelman, M., Heller, P., & Teichman, J. (2007). Social democracy in the global periphery: Origins, challenges, prospects . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Thornton, J. K. (1998). Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic world, 1400–1800 (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

10.4: Theoretical Perspectives on Global Stratification

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 164518

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Describe the modernization and dependency theory perspectives on global stratification

As with any social issue, global or otherwise, scholars have developed a variety of theories to study global stratification. The two most widely applied perspectives are modernization theory and dependency theory.

Modernization Theory

According to modernization theory , low-income countries are affected by their lack of industrialization and can improve their global economic standing through (Armer and Katsillis 2010):

• an adjustment of cultural values and attitudes to work
• industrialization and other forms of economic growth

Critics point out the inherent ethnocentric bias of this theory. It supposes all countries have the same resources and are capable of following the same path. In addition, it assumes that the goal of all countries is to be as “developed” as possible. There is no room within this theory for the possibility that industrialization and technology are not the best goals.

There is, of course, some basis for this assumption. Data show that core nations tend to have lower maternal and child mortality rates, longer life spans, and less absolute poverty. It is also true that in the poorest countries, millions of people die from the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation facilities, which are benefits most of us take for granted. At the same time, the issue is more complex than the numbers might suggest. Cultural equality, history, community, and local traditions are all at risk as modernization pushes into peripheral countries. The challenge, then, is to allow the benefits of modernization while maintaining a cultural sensitivity to what already exists.

Dependency Theory

Dependency theory was created in part as a response to the Western-centric mindset of modernization theory. It states that global inequality is primarily caused by core nations (or high-income nations) exploiting semi-peripheral and peripheral nations (or middle-income and low-income nations), which creates a cycle of dependence (Hendricks 2010). As long as peripheral nations are dependent on core nations for economic stimulus and access to a larger piece of the global economy, they will never achieve stable and consistent economic growth. Further, the theory states that since core nations, as well as the World Bank, choose which countries to make loans to, and for what they will loan funds, they are creating highly segmented labor markets that are built to benefit the dominant market countries.

At first glance, it seems this theory ignores the formerly low-income nations that are now considered middle-income nations and are on their way to becoming high-income nations and major players in the global economy, such as China. But some dependency theorists would state that it is in the best interests of core nations to ensure the long-term usefulness of their peripheral and semi-peripheral partners. Following that theory, sociologists have found that entities are more likely to outsource a significant portion of a company’s work if they are the dominant player in the equation; in other words, companies want to see their partner countries healthy enough to provide work, but not so healthy as to establish a threat (Caniels and Roeleveld 2009).

Sociological Research

Factory girls.

We’ve examined functionalist and conflict theorist perspectives on global inequality, as well as modernization and dependency theories. How might a symbolic interactionist approach this topic?

The book Factory Girls: From Village to City in Changing China , by Leslie T. Chang, provides this opportunity. Chang follows two young women (Min and Chunming) employed at a handbag plant. They help manufacture coveted purses and bags for the global market. As part of the growing population of young people who are leaving behind the homesteads and farms of rural China, these female factory workers are ready to enter the urban fray and pursue an ambitious income.

Although Chang’s study is based in a town many have never heard of (Dongguan), this city produces one-third of all shoes on the planet (Nike and Reebok are major manufacturers here) and 30 percent of the world’s computer disk drives, in addition to an abundance of apparel (Chang 2008).

But Chang’s focus is centered less on this global phenomenon on a large scale, than on how it affects these two women. As a symbolic interactionist would do, Chang examines the daily lives and interactions of Min and Chunming—their workplace friendships, family relationships, gadgets and goods—in this evolving global space where young women can leave tradition behind and fashion their own futures. Their story is one that all people, not just scholars, can learn from as we contemplate sociological issues like global economies, cultural traditions and innovations, and opportunities for women in the workforce.

Module 5: Social Stratification and Inequality

Reading: theoretical perspectives on social stratification, functionalism.

In sociology, the functionalist perspective examines how society’s parts operate. According to functionalism, different aspects of society exist because they serve a needed purpose. What is the function of social stratification?

In 1945, sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore published the Davis-Moore thesis , which argued that the greater the functional importance of a social role, the greater must be the reward. The theory posits that social stratification represents the inherently unequal value of different work. Certain tasks in society are more valuable than others. Qualified people who fill those positions must be rewarded more than others.

According to Davis and Moore, a firefighter’s job is more important than, for instance, a grocery store cashier’s. The cashier position does not require the same skill and training level as firefighting. Without the incentive of higher pay and better benefits, why would someone be willing to rush into burning buildings? If pay levels were the same, the firefighter might as well work as a grocery store cashier. Davis and Moore believed that rewarding more important work with higher levels of income, prestige, and power encourages people to work harder and longer.

Davis and Moore stated that, in most cases, the degree of skill required for a job determines that job’s importance. They also stated that the more skill required for a job, the fewer qualified people there would be to do that job. Certain jobs, such as cleaning hallways or answering phones, do not require much skill. The employees don’t need a college degree. Other work, like designing a highway system or delivering a baby, requires immense skill.

In 1953, Melvin Tumin countered the Davis-Moore thesis in “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” Tumin questioned what determined a job’s degree of importance. The Davis-Moore thesis does not explain, he argued, why a media personality with little education, skill, or talent becomes famous and rich on a reality show or a campaign trail. The thesis also does not explain inequalities in the education system or inequalities due to race or gender. Tumin believed social stratification prevented qualified people from attempting to fill roles (Tumin 1953). For example, an underprivileged youth has less chance of becoming a scientist, no matter how smart she is, because of the relative lack of opportunity available to her. The Davis-Moore thesis also does not explain why a basketball player earns millions of dollars a year when a doctor who saves lives, a soldier who fights for others’ rights, and a teacher who helps form the minds of tomorrow will likely not make millions over the course of their careers.

The Davis-Moore thesis, though open for debate, was an early attempt to explain why stratification exists. The thesis states that social stratification is necessary to promote excellence, productivity, and efficiency, thus giving people something to strive for. Davis and Moore believed that the system serves society as a whole because it allows everyone to benefit to a certain extent.

Conflict Theory

These people are protesting a decision made by Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, Tennessee, to lay off custodians and outsource the jobs to a private firm to avoid paying employee benefits. Private job agencies often pay lower hourly wages. Is the decision fair? (Photo courtesy of Brian Stansberry/Wikimedia Commons)

Conflict theorists are deeply critical of social stratification, asserting that it benefits only some people, not all of society. For instance, to a conflict theorist, it seems wrong that a basketball player is paid millions for an annual contract while a public school teacher earns $35,000 a year. Stratification, conflict theorists believe, perpetuates inequality. Conflict theorists try to bring awareness to inequalities, such as how a rich society can have so many poor members.

Many conflict theorists draw on the work of Karl Marx. During the nineteenth-century era of industrialization, Marx believed social stratification resulted from people’s relationship to production. People were divided by a single line: they either owned factories or worked in them. In Marx’s time, bourgeois capitalists owned high-producing businesses, factories, and land, as they still do today. Proletariats were the workers who performed the manual labor to produce goods. Upper-class capitalists raked in profits and got rich, while working-class proletariats earned skimpy wages and struggled to survive. With such opposing interests, the two groups were divided by differences of wealth and power. Marx saw workers experience deep alienation, isolation and misery resulting from powerless status levels (Marx 1848). Marx argued that proletariats were oppressed by the money-hungry bourgeois.

Today, while working conditions have improved, conflict theorists believe that the strained working relationship between employers and employees still exists. Capitalists own the means of production, and a system is in place to make business owners rich and keep workers poor. According to conflict theorists, the resulting stratification creates class conflict. If he were alive in today’s economy, as it recovers from a prolonged recession, Marx would likely have argued that the recession resulted from the greed of capitalists, satisfied at the expense of working people.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theory that uses everyday interactions of individuals to explain society as a whole. Symbolic interactionism examines stratification from a micro-level perspective. This analysis strives to explain how people’s social standing affects their everyday interactions.

In most communities, people interact primarily with others who share the same social standing. It is precisely because of social stratification that people tend to live, work, and associate with others like themselves, people who share their same income level, educational background, or racial background, and even tastes in food, music, and clothing. The built-in system of social stratification groups people together. This is one of the reasons why it was rare for a royal prince like England’s Prince William to marry a commoner.

Symbolic interactionists also note that people’s appearance reflects their perceived social standing. Housing, clothing, and transportation indicate social status, as do hairstyles, taste in accessories, and personal style.

(a) A group of construction workers on the job site, and (b) a group of businessmen. What categories of stratification do these construction workers share? How do construction workers differ from executives or custodians? Who is more skilled? Who has greater prestige in society? (Photo (a) courtesy of Wikimedia Commons; Photo (b) courtesy of Chun Kit/flickr)

To symbolically communicate social standing, people often engage in conspicuous consumption , which is the purchase and use of certain products to make a social statement about status. Carrying pricey but eco-friendly water bottles could indicate a person’s social standing. Some people buy expensive trendy sneakers even though they will never wear them to jog or play sports. A $17,000 car provides transportation as easily as a $100,000 vehicle, but the luxury car makes a social statement that the less expensive car can’t live up to. All these symbols of stratification are worthy of examination by an interactionist.

Think It Over

• Analyze the Davis-Moore thesis. Do you agree with Davis and Moore? Does social stratification play an important function in society? What examples can you think of that support the thesis? What examples can you think of that refute the thesis?
• Consider social stratification from the symbolic interactionist perspective. How does social stratification influence the daily interactions of individuals? How do systems of class, based on factors such as prestige, power, income, and wealth, influence your own daily routines, as well as your beliefs and attitudes? Illustrate your ideas with specific examples and anecdotes from your own life and the lives of people in your community.

1. The basic premise of the Davis-Moore thesis is that the unequal distribution of rewards in social stratification:

• is an outdated mode of societal organization
• is an artificial reflection of society
• serves a purpose in society
• cannot be justified

2. Unlike Davis and Moore, Melvin Tumin believed that, because of social stratification, some qualified people were _______ higher-level job positions.

• denied the opportunity to obtain
• encouraged to train for
• often fired from
• forced into

3. Which statement represents stratification from the perspective of symbolic interactionism?

• Men often earn more than women, even working the same job.
• After work, Pat, a janitor, feels more comfortable eating in a truck stop than a French restaurant.
• Doctors earn more money because their job is more highly valued.
• Teachers continue to struggle to keep benefits such as health insurance.

4. When Karl Marx said workers experience alienation, he meant that workers:

• must labor alone, without companionship
• do not feel connected to their work
• move from one geographical location to another
• have to put forth self-effort to get ahead

5. Conflict theorists view capitalists as those who:

• are ambitious
• fund social services
• spend money wisely
• get rich while workers stay poor

Show Glossary

• Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/02040312-72c8-441e-a685-20e9333f3e1d/Introduction_to_Sociology_2e . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Explaining Stratification

Learning objectives.

• Outline the assumptions of the functionalist explanation of stratification.
• Outline the assumptions of the conflict theory explanation of stratification.
• Understand how symbolic interactionism views stratification.

Why is stratification so common? Is it possible to have a society without stratification? Sociologists trying to answer these questions have developed two very different macro explanations of stratification, while symbolic interactionists have examined the differences that stratification produces for everyday interaction. Table 8.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes these three approaches.

Table 8.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functionalist View

Recall from Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” that functionalist theory assumes that the various structures and processes in society exist because they serve important functions for society’s stability and continuity. In line with this view, functionalist theorists in sociology assume that stratification exists because it also serves important functions for society. This explanation was developed more than 60 years ago by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (Davis & Moore, 1945) in the form of several logical assumptions that imply stratification is both necessary and inevitable. When applied to American society, their assumptions would be as follows:

• Some jobs are more important than other jobs. For example, the job of a brain surgeon is more important than the job of shoe-shining.
• Some jobs require more skills and knowledge than other jobs. To stay with our example, it takes more skills and knowledge to do brain surgery than to shine shoes.
• Relatively few people have the ability to acquire the skills and knowledge that are needed to do these important, highly skilled jobs. Most of us would be able to do a decent job of shining shoes, but very few of us would be able to become brain surgeons.
• To induce the people with the skills and knowledge to do the important, highly skilled jobs, society must promise them higher incomes or other rewards. If this is true, some people automatically end up higher in society’s ranking system than others, and stratification is thus necessary and inevitable. To illustrate this, say we have a society where shining shoes and doing brain surgery both give us incomes of $150,000 per year. (This example is very hypothetical, but please keep reading.) If you decide to shine shoes, you can begin making this money at age 16, but if you decide to become a brain surgeon, you will not start making this same amount until about age 35, as you first must go to college and medical school and then acquire several more years of medical training. While you have spent 19 additional years beyond age 16 getting this education and training and taking out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, you could have spent these 19 years shining shoes and making $150,000 a year, or $2.85 million overall. Which job would you choose?

Functional theory argues that the promise of very high incomes is necessary to induce talented people to pursue important careers such as surgery. If physicians and shoe shiners made the same high income, would enough people decide to become physicians?

Public Domain Images – CC0 public domain.

As this example suggests, many people might not choose to become brain surgeons unless considerable financial and other rewards awaited them. By extension, we might not have enough people filling society’s important jobs unless they know they will be similarly rewarded. If this is true, we must have stratification. This all sounds very logical, but a few years after Davis and Moore published their functionalist theory of stratification, other sociologists pointed out some serious problems in their argument (Tumin, 1953; Wrong, 1959).

First, it is difficult to compare the importance of many types of jobs. For example, which is more important, doing brain surgery or mining coal? Although you might be tempted to answer “brain surgery,” if no coal were mined, much of our society could not function. In another example, which job is more important, attorney or professor? (Be careful how you answer this one!)

Second, the functionalist explanation implies that the most important jobs have the highest incomes and the least important jobs the lowest incomes, but many examples, including the ones just mentioned, counter this view. Coal miners make much less money than physicians, and professors, for better or worse, earn much less on the average than lawyers. A professional athlete making millions of dollars a year earns many times the income of the president of the United States, but who is more important to the nation? Elementary school teachers do a very important job in our society, but their salaries are much lower than those of sports agents, advertising executives, and many other people whose jobs are far less essential.

Third, the functionalist view also implies that people move up the economic ladder based on their abilities, skills, knowledge, and, more generally, their merit. If this is true, another implication is that if they do not move up the ladder, they lack the necessary merit. This view ignores the fact that much of our stratification stems from lack of equal opportunity, as our Monopoly example at the beginning of the chapter made clear. Because of their race, ethnicity, gender, and class standing at birth, some people have less opportunity than others to acquire the skills and training they need to fill the types of jobs addressed by the functionalist approach.

Finally, the functionalist explanation might make sense up to a point, but it does not justify the extremes of wealth and poverty found in the United States and other nations. Even if we do have to promise higher incomes to get enough people to become physicians, does that mean we also need the amount of poverty we have? Do CEOs of corporations really need to make millions of dollars per year to get enough qualified people to become CEOs? Don’t people take on a CEO job or other high-paying job at least partly because of the challenge, working conditions, and other positive aspects they offer? The functionalist view does not answer these questions adequately.

The Conflict View

Conflict theory’s explanation of stratification draws on Karl Marx’s view of class societies and incorporates the critique of the functionalist view just discussed. Many different explanations grounded in conflict theory exist, but they all assume that stratification stems from a fundamental conflict between the needs and interests of the powerful, or “haves,” in society and those of the weak, or “have-nots” (Kerbo, 2009). The former take advantage of their position at the top of society to stay at the top, even if it means oppressing those at the bottom. At a minimum, they can heavily influence the law, the media, and other institutions in a way that maintains society’s class structure.

Ideology and Stratification

In explaining stratification, conflict theory emphasizes ideology , or a set of ideas that justifies the status quo. This emphasis goes back to the work of Marx, who said the ruling class shapes and even controls the ruling ideas of a society. It tries to shape these ideas so that they justify the existing order and decrease the chances that the poor will challenge it. The key goal of the ruling class here is to prevent the poor from achieving class consciousness , or an awareness of their oppression and the true reasons for it (Marx & Engels, 1947). If the poor instead do not recognize their interests as a class that does not control the means of production, they suffer from false consciousness .

As an example, Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses.” By this he meant that religious beliefs influence the poor to feel that their fate in life is God’s will or a test of their belief in God. If they hold such beliefs, they will neither blame their poverty on the rich nor rebel against them. Religious beliefs help create false consciousness.

Ideological beliefs bolster every system of stratification and domination. In slave societies, the dominant ideology, and one that at least some slaves accepted, was that slaves are inferior to their masters and deserve no better fate in life. When U.S. slavery existed in the South, it was commonly thought that blacks were biologically inferior and suited only to be slaves. Caste societies, as we noted earlier, have similar beliefs that justify the existence and impact of the caste system. Hitler’s “final solution” likewise rested on the belief that Jews and other groups he targeted were biologically inferior and deserving of extermination.

Because he was born in a log cabin and later became president, Abraham Lincoln’s life epitomizes the American Dream, the belief that people born into poverty can become successful through hard work. The popularity of this belief leads many Americans to blame poor people for their poverty.

U.S. Library of Congress – public domain.

Ideological beliefs in class societies are more subtle and complex but nonetheless influential. One of the most important beliefs in the United States is the American Dream, epitomized by the story of Abraham Lincoln. According to this belief, people born into poverty can lift themselves up by the bootstraps and become successful if they work hard enough. By implication, if people remain poor, they are not trying hard enough or have other personal deficiencies keeping them in poverty. This ideology prompts many Americans to take a blaming-the-victim approach (see Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” ) by blaming poverty on laziness and other problems in the poor rather than on discrimination and the lack of opportunity in society. To the extent that people accept such ideological beliefs, they are less likely to criticize the existing system of stratification. Marx did not foresee the extent to which these beliefs would impede the development of class consciousness in the United States.

International data underline this American ideology. We saw in Chapter 3 “Culture” that about 60% of Americans attribute poverty to laziness and lack of willpower, compared to less than half that in Mexico, Russia, Spain, and Sweden. Belief in the American Dream evidently helps lead to a blaming-the-victim ideology that blames the poor for their own fate.

Conflict theory assumes that class position influences our perceptions of social and political life, even if not to the degree envisioned by Marx. Some national survey data support this assumption. A General Social Survey question asks whether it is the government’s responsibility to “reduce income differences between the rich and poor.” As Figure 8.2 “Annual Family Income and Belief That Government “Should Reduce Income Differences Between the Rich and Poor”” shows, low-income people are much more likely than high-income people to think the government has this responsibility.

Figure 8.2 Annual Family Income and Belief That Government “Should Reduce Income Differences Between the Rich and Poor”

Source: Data from General Social Survey, 2006.

Symbolic Interactionism

Consistent with its micro orientation, symbolic interactionism tries to understand stratification by looking at people’s interaction and understandings in their daily lives. Unlike the functionalist and conflict views, it does not try to explain why we have stratification in the first place. Rather, it examines the differences that stratification makes for people’s lifestyles and their interaction with other people.

One of the most insightful analyses of stratification that fits into a symbolic interactionist framework was Thorstein Veblin’s (1899/1953) famous discussion of conspicuous consumption , or the acquisition and display by the wealthy of lavish products that show off their wealth. The very rich do not need mansions or other very opulent homes, and neither do they need a motor vehicle costing upward of $100,000 or more or jewelry costing thousands and thousands of dollars. Yet they purchase these products to show off their wealth and to feel better about themselves. The lifestyles of the rich are featured in classic novels by writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and in classic films such as The Philadelphia Story , starring the formidable trio of Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart. Although one message of many of these cultural works is that money does not always bring happiness, it remains true, as Fitzgerald once wrote, “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.”

Examples of the symbolic interactionist framework are also seen in the many literary works and films that portray the difficulties that the rich and poor have in interacting on the relatively few occasions when they do interact. For example, in the film Pretty Woman , Richard Gere plays a rich businessman who hires a prostitute, played by Julia Roberts, to accompany him to swank parties and other affairs. Roberts has to buy a new wardrobe and learn how to dine and behave in rich social settings, and much of the film’s humor and poignancy come from her awkwardness in learning the lifestyle of the rich.

If there are many dramatic and humorous accounts of the “lifestyles of the rich and famous,” there are also many sociological and other accounts of lives of the poor. Poverty is discussed later in this chapter, but for now it is sufficient to say that the poor often lead lives of quiet desperation and must find many ways of coping with the fact of being poor. Studies of the poor, too, reflect the symbolic interactionist perspective.

Key Takeaways

• According to the functionalist view, stratification is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the need to use the promise of financial reward to induce talented people to pursue important jobs and careers.
• According to conflict theory, stratification results from lack of opportunity and discrimination against the poor and people of color.
• According to symbolic interactionism, social class affects how people interact in everyday life and how they view certain aspects of the social world.

Davis, K., & Moore, W. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10 , 242–249.

Kerbo, H. R. (2009). Social stratification and inequality . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1947). The German ideology . New York, NY: International Publishers.

Tumin, M. M. (1953). Some principles of stratification: A critical analysis. American Sociological Review, 18 , 387–393.

Veblen, T. (1953). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions . New York, NY: New American Library. (Original work published 1899).

Wrong, D. H. (1959). The functional theory of stratification: Some neglected considerations. American Sociological Review, 24 , 772–782.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times Essay

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.

Kendall, D. (2022). Sociology in our times (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 11). Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-stratification-sociology-in-our-times/

"Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times." IvyPanda , 11 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/social-stratification-sociology-in-our-times/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times'. 11 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-stratification-sociology-in-our-times/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-stratification-sociology-in-our-times/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Stratification: Sociology in Our Times." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-stratification-sociology-in-our-times/.

• Constituents of an Information System
• Sex Work: Decriminalizing or Legalizing?
• The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett
• Mona Lisa Smile
• Halloween: Origins and Modern Traditions
• Quality Measurement With Stratified Random Sampling
• Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in the Stratified Medium
• Ed Shein on Corporate Culture
• "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan
• Stratification and Network Building
• Multiracial Categorization of Ambiguous Group Members
• Structural Disparities and Traffic Jams in US South
• Social Issues Related to Detroit's Demographics: The Urban Crisis
• Nature and Importance of a Center for Homeless People
• Sociological Issues: Socioeconomic Factors

Social Stratification: Definition, Types & Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The term social stratification refers to how societies categorize people based on factors such as wealth, income, education, family background, and power.
• Social stratification exists in all societies in some form. However, it is easier to move up socially in some than others. Societies with more vertical social mobility have open stratification systems, and those with low vertical mobility have closed stratification systems.
• The importance of stratification is that those at the top of the hierarchy have greater access to scarce resources than those at the bottom.
• Sociologists have created four main categories of social stratification systems: class systems, caste systems, slavery, and meritocracy. The last of these is a largely hypothetical system.
• Class consistency refers to the variability of one”s social status among many dimensions (such as education and wealth) during one”s lifetime. More open stratification systems tend to encourage lower class consistency than closed stratification systems.
• Social stratification can work along multiple dimensions, such as those of race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and so on. Intersectionality is a method for studying systems of social stratification through the lens of multiple identities.

What is Meant by Social Stratification?

Social stratification refers to a society”s categorization of its people into rankings based on factors such as wealth, income, education, family background, and power. Someones” place within a system of social stratification is called their socioeconomic status.

Social stratification is a relatively fixed, hierarchical arrangement in society by which groups have different access to resources, power, and perceived social worth.

Although many people and institutions in Western Societies indicate that they value equality — the belief that everyone has an equal chance at success and that hard work and talent — not inherited wealth, prejudicial treatment, racism, or societal values — determine social mobility , sociologists recognize social stratification as a society-wide system that makes inequalities apparent.

While there are inequalities between individuals, sociologists are interested in large social patterns. That is to say, sociologists look to see if those with similar backgrounds, group memberships, identities, and geographic locations share the same social stratification.

While some cultures may outwardly say that one’s climb and descent in socioeconomic status depends on individual choices, sociologists see how the structure of society affects a person’s social standing and, therefore, is created and supported by society.

Origins Social Stratification

Human social stratification has taken on many forms throughout the course of history. In foraging societies, for example, social status usually depended on hunting and leadership ability, particularly in males (Gurven & von Rueden, 2006).

Those who brought back meat for meals were held in higher status than those who rarely succeeded at hunting.

Meanwhile, in parts of the world where agriculture has replaced hunting and gathering, Anne’s land holdings often form the basis for social stratification. These holdings tend to be transmitted throughout generations.

This intergenerational transfer of wealth gave rise to what is known as estates, which were dominant in medieval Europe (Ertman, 1997).

The rise of agriculture also brought the emergence of cities, each with its own forms of stratification, now centered on one”‘s occupation. As the skills needed for acquiring certain occupational skills grew, so did the intergenerational transmission of status according to one”‘s occupational class.

One example of stratification according to occupational classes are guilds (Gibert, 1986). More rigid occupational classes are called castes, which exist both in and outside India.

Examples of Stratification

The factors that define stratification vary from society to society. In many societies, stratification is an economic system based on wealth, or the net values of the money and assets a person has, and income, their wages or income from investments.

However, there are other important factors that influence social standing. In some cultures, for instance, prestige — be it obtained through going to a prestigious university, working for a prestigious company, or coming from an illustrious family — is valued. In others, social stratification is based on age.

The elderly may be either esteemed or disparaged and ignored. The cultural beliefs of societies often reinforce stratification.

Broadly, these factors define how societies are classified or stratified:

Economic condition: the amount someone earns;

Social class: classification based on, for example, economy and caste;

Social networks: the connections that people have — and the opportunities these allow people in finding jobs, partners, and so on.

One determinant of social standing is one”s parents. Parents tend to pass their social position onto their children, as well as the cultural norms, values, and beliefs that accompany a certain lifestyle. Parents can also transfer a network of friends and family members that provide resources and support.

This is why, in situations where someone who was born into one social status enters the environment of another — such as the child of an uneducated family entering college, the individual may fare worse than others; they lack the resources and support often provided to those whose parents have gone to college (Gutierrez et al., 2022).

A society’s occupational structure can also determine social stratification. For example, societies may consider some jobs — such as teaching, or nursing — to be noble professions, which people should do out of love and the greater good rather than for money.

In contrast, those in other professions, such as athletes and C-suite executives, do not receive this attitude. Thus, those who are highly-educated may receive relatively low pay (Gutierrez et al., 2022).

Types of Stratification

Slavery and indentured servitude are likely the most rigid types of social stratification. Both of these involve people being treated as actual property and are often based on race or ethnicity. The owner of a slave exploits a slave”s labor for economic gain.

Slavery is one of the lowest levels in any stratification system, as they possess virtually no power or wealth of their own.

Slavery is thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, after agricultural societies developed, as people in these societies made prisoners of war work on their farm.

As in other social stratification systems, the status of one”s parents often defines whether or not someone will be put into slavery. However on a historic level, slavery has also been used as a punishment for crimes and as a way of controlling those in invaded or enemy territories.

For example, ancient Roman slaves were in large part from conquered regions (Gutierrez et al., 2022).

Slavery regained its property after the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere in the 1500s. Portuguese and Spanish colonists who settled in Brazil and the Caribbean enslaved native populations, and people from Africa were shipped to the “new world” to carry out various tasks.

Notably, the United State’s early gricultural economy was one intertwined with slavery, a fact that would help lead the Civil War after it won its independence from Britain.

Slavery still exists in many parts of the world.

Modern slaves include those taken as prisoners of war in ethnic conflicts, girls and women captured and kidnapped and used as prostitutes or sex slaves, children sold by their parents to be child laborers, and workers paying off debts who are abused, or even tortured, to the extent that they are unable to leave (Bales, 2007).

Even in societies that have officially outlawed slavery, the practice continues to have wide-ranging repercussions on socioeconomic standing. For example, some observers believe that a caste system existed in the southern part of the United States until the civil rights movement ended legal racial segregation. Rights, such as the right to vote and to a fair trial, were denied in practice, and lynchings were common for many decade (Litwack, 2009).

South Africa, meanwhile, had an official caste system known as apartheid until the 1990s. Although black people constituted the majority of the nation”s population, they had the worst jobs, could not vote, and lived in poor, segregated neighborhoods.

Both systems have, to the consensus of many sociologists, provided those of color with lower intergenerational wealth and higher levels of prejudice than their white counterparts, systematically hampering vertical class mobility.

Caste Systems

Caste systems are closed stratification systems, meaning that people can do very little to change the social standing of their birth. Caste systems determine all aspects of an individual”s life, such as appropriate occupations, marriage partners, and housing.

Those who defy the expectations of their caste may descend to a lower one. Individual talents and interests do not provide opportunities to improve one”s social standing.

The Indian caste system is based on the principles of Hinduism.

Those who are in higher castes are considered to be more spiritually pure, and those in lower castes — most notably, the “untouchable” — are said to be paying remuneration for misbehavior in past lives. In sociological terms, the belief used to support a system of stratification is called an ideology, and underlies the social systems of every culture (Gutierrez et al., 2022).

In caste systems, people are expected to work in an occupation and to enter into a marriage based on their caste. Accepting this social standing is a moral duty, and acceptance of one”s social standing is socialized from childhood.

While the Indian caste system has been dismantled on an official, constitutional level, it is still deeply embedded in Indian society outside of urban areas.

The Class System

Class systems are based on both social factors and individual achievement. Classes consist of sets of people who have similar status based on factors such as wealth, income, education, family background, and occupation.

Class systems, unlike caste systems, are open. This means that people can move to a different level of education or employment status than their parents. A combination of personal choice, opportunity, and one’s beginning status in society each play a role.

Those in class systems can socialize with and marry members of other classes.

In a case where spouses come from different social classes, they form an exogamous marriage. Often, these exogamous marriages focus on values such as love and compatibility.

Though there are social conformities that encourage people to marry those within their own class, people are not prohibited from choosing partners based solely on social ranking (Giddens et al., 1991).

Meritocracy (as an ideal system of stratification)

Meritocracy , meanwhile, is a hypothetical social stratification system in which one’s socioeconomic status is determined by personal effort and merit.

However, sociologists agree that no societies in history have determined social standing solely on merit.

Nonetheless, sociologists see aspects of meritocracies in modern societies when they study the role of academic and job performance and the systems in place intended to evaluate and reward achievement in these areas (Giddens et al., 1991).

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists have distinguished between two systems of stratification: closed and open. Closed systems accommodate for little change in social position.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for people to shift levels and social relationships between levels are largely verboten.

For example, estates, slavery, and caste systems are all closed systems. In contrast, open systems of social stratification are — nominatively, at least — based on achievement and allow for movement and interaction between layers and classes (Giddens et al., 1991).

What is Status Consistency?

The term status consistency describes the consistency — or lack thereof — of an individual”s rank across factors that determine social stratification within a lifetime. For example, a child in a class system may fail to finish high school — a trait of the lower class — and take up a manual job at a store”s warehouse — consistent with the lower or working class.

However, through persistence and favor with their employers, this person may work their way up to managing the store or even joining the corporation”s higher level management – an occupation consistent with the upper-middle class.

The discrepancies between someone’s educational level, occupation, and income represent low status consistency. Caste and closed systems, meanwhile, have high status consistency, as one”‘s birth status tends to control various aspects of one’s life.

The Role of Intersectionality

Intersectionality is an approach to the sociological study of social stratification. Sociologists have preferred it because it does not reduce the complexity of power constructions along a single social division, as has often been the case in stratification theories.

Generally, societies are stratified against one or more lines. These include race and ethnicity, sex and gender, age, religion, disability, and social class. Kimberle Crenshaw introduced the concept of intersectionality as a way of analyzing the intersection of race and gender (2017).

Crenshaw analyzed legal cases involving discrimination experienced by African American roman along the lines of both racism and sexist. The essence of intersectionality, as articulated by the sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (1990), is that sociologists cannot separate the effects of race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, and so on in understanding social stratification (Gutierrez et al., 2022).

Bales, K. (2007). What predicts human trafficking?. International journal of comparative and applied criminal justice, 31 (2), 269-279.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment, 138 (1990), 221-238.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press.

Ertman, T. (1997). Birth of the Leviathan: Building states and regimes in medieval and early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D. S. (1991). Introduction to sociology . Norton.

Gilbert, G. N. (1986). Occupational classes and inter-class mobility. British Journal of Sociology , 370-391.

Grusky, D. (2019). Social stratification, class, race, and gender in sociological perspective . Routledge.

Grusky, D. B., & Sørensen, J. B. (1998). Can class analysis be salvaged ?. American journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1187-1234.

Gurven, M., & Von Rueden, C. (2006). Hunting, social status and biological fitness. Social biology, 53(1-2), 81-99.

Gutierrez, E., Hund, J., Johnson, S., Ramos, C., Rodriguez, L., & Tsuhako, J. (2022). Social Stratification and Intersectionality .

Litwack, L. F. (2009). How free is free?: The long death of Jim Crow (Vol. 6). Harvard University Press.

What is social stratification?

Social stratification refers to the way in which society is organized into layers or strata, based on various factors like wealth, occupation, education level, race, or gender.

It’s essentially a kind of social hierarchy where individuals and groups are classified on the basis of esteemed social values and the unequal distribution of resources and power.

What is the main purpose of social stratification?

Ensures Roles are Filled by the Competent: Stratification means that positions are given to those who have the ability and skill to execute the duties of the job. People in higher strata often have higher education and skills.

Maintains Social Order: By establishing a hierarchy and clear societal roles, stratification can contribute to overall societal stability and order.

Essay Plans

Marked essays.

Data which is presented as statistical data or numerical is described as  being a Quantitative method . Sociologist, among others will contend that  quantitative method , like questionnaire and others would better be suited to  undergo the rigours of sociological research. This is so because of the  advantages that they hold. However, in contrast sociologist would disagree  with this statement.                 Quantitative methods , such as questionnaires, structured interviews and  official statistics has advantages that would prove to be more efficient. In  sociology, for a research to be valid r carried out effectively, the data  collected must be objective. This view is supported by the positivist, Emile  Durkheim and auguste Comte. Quantitative methods collect empirical data which  further means that data being collected is objective. Empirical data is  statistical, anything dealing with numbers and if the data being collected is  numerical it suggest that the method used was unbiased. Also quantitative  methods are nothing cognitive, as cognitive information cannot be measured or  understood. Also cognitive data would be studying the perception and not  exactly what is happening.                 It is argued that in quantitative methods , the researcher is detached from  the study and is not influenced by his personal belief. Therefore the  information would not be flawed, because the researcher would just say  what’s happening and would not have his personal views. This would have  resulted from the empirical data collected. For example, a researcher who is  doing a research on: why are students in Jane brown High school prone to  violence. The research her would practice observable phenomena and report  what she sees and not what she thinks the individual is thinking.                 Furthermore, quantitative research methods are easily replicable. This  means that the data/information collected will always be the same years after  the research was conducted. However, new information or knowledge can be  added to what is already there because it is accumulative. No matter how long  the research was conducted it will always remain the same because numbers  cannot change, but an explanation can. This makes quantitative methods one of  the preferred methods . In coherence, quantitative research methods   facilitates theory formulation, this is so as a large amount of data is  collected that the researcher is used to formulate theories that seek to  explain social phenomena.                 Other reasons why quantitative methods would be better suited is that it  saves the researcher time and money, which means that the researcher would  not have to spend a lot of time on the research as it will directly get to  the point.                 Nevertheless, some sociologist would disagree with the fact that  quantitative methods would be best suited because no method in sociology,  they say can be objective. One disadvantage of using quantitative method is  that there is no indication about the respondents’ personal state of mind,  for example, mood, attitude or feelings. Weber in his theory contend that in  sociology, any research being conducted the researcher must practice  verstehen. Verstehen is subjective, this, there is no objectivity in  sociology researchers. This would therefore mean that quantitative methods   are not best suited for sociological research. Weber contends that a  researcher must be attached to the research such that verstehen is practiced;  this would involve the placing of oneself in the respondents’ shoes. He  further states that through thus process, the researcher will be able to  understand the actions and the meaning behind them.                 Additionally, Atkinson and Cicourel believe that other methods such as  qualitative research methods would have a better advantage over quantitative  methods . This is so because they also believe like Weber that there is no  objectivity in any sociological research. Atkinson and Cicourel posit this  view because even with the statistical data collected through the  quantitative method the information gathered id subjective. The statistical  data is influence by the perception of the person collating and analyzing the  data.                 Qualitative methods would be best suited for sociological researches  because they provide explanation and look beyond the numbers. The  interpretive theorist believe that the study of humans is complex, because  humans have consciousness and consciousness fluctuates and will not always  remain in the same manner to external stimuli, and the is no universal law of  human behaviour.                 Analyzing the statement from both views, quantitative methods would be best  suited to undergo the rigours of sociological research to an extent and then  there is the other view that qualitative methods would be better because of  its subjectivity which is best for sociological researches.

Sociology is a discipline that has been the subject of debate within the social sciences about whether it can be considered a science or not. While some scholars argue that sociology is a science due to its use of empirical evidence and scientific methods to study social phenomena, others argue that it is not a science because social phenomena are inherently complex and difficult to measure. This essay will evaluate the major positions in this debate, providing a more detailed definition of science, exploring the limitations and challenges of using scientific methods in sociology, and using a wider range of academic sources to support the arguments.

One of the main arguments for sociology as a science is its use of empirical evidence and scientific methods. The positivist perspective, which sees sociology as a hard science like physics or chemistry, argues that sociology should use the same methods as natural sciences, such as experiments and quantitative surveys, to generate reliable and valid data. For example, Durkheim's study of suicide used statistical methods to demonstrate the relationship between social factors and suicide rates. However, critics argue that such methods are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of social phenomena, and may be subject to issues of reliability, validity, and generalizability.

Another argument for sociology as a science is its ability to generate testable hypotheses and theories. According to the falsificationist perspective, sociology should generate hypotheses that can be tested through empirical evidence, with theories that have been falsified by data being discarded. For example, Merton's strain theory of deviance was based on the hypothesis that individuals who experience strain are more likely to engage in deviant behavior. However, critics argue that such an approach neglects the role of interpretation and subjectivity in social research, and may overlook important aspects of social life that cannot be easily quantified.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that sociology is not a science because social phenomena are inherently complex and difficult to measure. The interpretive perspective, for example, argues that sociology should use qualitative methods such as participant observation and interviews to understand the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. For example, Bourdieu's study of cultural capital demonstrated how social class and cultural background can influence an individual's taste in art and culture. However, critics argue that such methods may lack objectivity and reliability, and may be subject to the researcher's biases and interpretations.

Despite these debates, it is important to recognize that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, Hochschild's study of emotion management in airline flight attendants used a mixed-methods approach to explore the complex and often contradictory emotions that attendants experienced on the job. By using both quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, Hochschild was able to capture both the objective and subjective aspects of the attendants' experiences. This demonstrates that a mixed-methods approach can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the social world.

In conclusion, while the debate surrounding sociology as a science is ongoing, it is clear that there are both strengths and limitations to using scientific methods in sociology. While sociology may not be a hard science like physics or chemistry, it is still a valuable tool for understanding society and making informed decisions about social policies. Therefore, it is important to continue the debate surrounding the nature of sociology and to develop new research methods that can address the complexities of the social world. By doing so, we can continue to advance our understanding of society and contribute to the development of more effective social policies.

Discuss the similarities and differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories in sociology. [25 marks] 2004

Introduction

Sociology is a field of study that attempts to understand human society and social behavior. It is a broad discipline with several theoretical perspectives, two of which are Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories. These two theories attempt to explain social phenomena, but they differ in their assumptions and explanations. This essay discusses the similarities and differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories in sociology.

Similarities between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories

Both Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories recognize the importance of social structures in shaping society. They acknowledge that institutions, such as the family, government, education, and the economy, play a crucial role in creating and maintaining social order. Additionally, both theories attempt to explain the dynamics of social order and change. They are concerned with how societies maintain stability and the factors that lead to social change.

Differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories

Conflict/Marxist theories focus on social inequality and the struggle for power and resources. They argue that society is divided into classes, and the struggle for power and resources between these classes is the primary cause of social change. Functionalist theories, on the other hand, emphasize social harmony and the maintenance of social order. They argue that society is like a biological organism, with different parts working together to maintain stability and equilibrium.

Conflict/Marxist theories view society as inherently unstable and in constant conflict, while Functionalist theories view society as stable and well-functioning. Conflict/Marxist theories are critical of the status quo and focus on the ways in which society is unequal and oppressive. Functionalist theories, however, are more accepting of the status quo and view social inequality as a necessary component of society.

Examples of Conflict/Marxist and Functionalist theories in action

An example of Conflict/Marxist theory in action is the struggle for workers' rights. Conflict/Marxist theorists argue that workers are oppressed by capitalists who control the means of production and exploit their labor. The workers' struggle for better wages and working conditions is a response to this oppression. An example of Functionalist theory in action is the importance of social norms in maintaining order. Functionalist theorists argue that social norms, such as laws and customs, are necessary for social order and that individuals who violate these norms are punished to maintain social stability.

Criticisms of Conflict/Marxist and Functionalist theories

Critics of Conflict/Marxist theories argue that they oversimplify complex social phenomena and do not pay enough attention to individual agency. Critics of Functionalist theories argue that they fail to account for social inequality and the inability to explain social change adequately.

In conclusion, Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories are two different theoretical perspectives in sociology. Although they share some similarities, they differ in their assumptions and explanations. Conflict/Marxist theories focus on social inequality and the struggle for power and resources, while Functionalist theories emphasize social harmony and the maintenance of social order. These theories provide a framework for understanding society and social behavior, but they also have their limitations and criticisms. Nonetheless, they remain relevant and continue to shape sociological research and thinking.

Question: Assess the extent to which a longitudinal approach is useful for the study of either HIV/AIDS or teenage pregnancy in the Caribbean. Unit & Module: Unit 1 Module 1 - Sociology, Culture & Identity Year: 2009 Essay: A longitudinal design is the study of one group over a period of time noting change and continuity. In this essay, the writer shall discuss the practicality of the longitudinal design in studying HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. Longitudinal designs or approaches aim to study a particular group and monitor it over a specific period of time. The goal is to notice and document any changes, developments or actions which continuously occur. This approach would be appropriate for studying HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. The target group in this study would be persons who have either virus, paying attention to how the virus progresses and affects them and their bodies. HIV/AIDS are viruses who attack the human body. Persons who contract these viruses usually start off with a cold/flu virus which eventually transforms into more than that. After that stage, the virus then attacks the immune system of the host. These viruses are initially mild and further progress into a life-threatening illness. Therefore, because of the nature of a longitudinal design, it would be the perfect approach in carrying out a study like this. In using this design, the researcher should monitor the hosts of the viruses as they go through each stage. Longitudinal designs also aim to give information on cause and effect relationships. So, this approach could pay much attention to the effects on the body caused by the virus, for example, deterioration in the condition and of the body itself. Overall, this approach is the most appropriate to investigate such a study. A longitudinal design is not the only data collection method that can be utilized but can arguably be the best one. This study could be conducted with the use of a questionnaire distributed to persons who have contracted the viruses but it could be more time consuming and less cost-effective to do such. The study could also be conducted using interviews but if conducted using that method, it could take extremely long. A longitudinal design unlike a questionnaire or an interview can study the entire target group at one time thus making the research process less tedious. In conclusion, a longitudinal approach can be seen as the most useful data collection method to carry out a study on HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean due to its characteristics and process. It is more cost-effective and less time consuming than a questionnaire or interviews would be in this study.

Question: It is becoming evidently clear that the family is no longer in the main agent of socialization in society. Discuss. Unit & Module: Unit 1 Module 1 - Sociology, Culture & Identity Year: N/A Essay: Socialization is the process of learning the culture of one’s society. Giddens stated that it is through the process of socialization that people become members of society, thereby learning acceptable behaviors and becoming skilled in the ways of their culture. Durkheim believes that socialization is important as it lets individuals know what is expected of them and it also constrains behaviour. Maconis (2007) states that socialization is an important ingredient for personality development. This can be seen in Davis’ case with Anna and Isabelle, who were isolated from the rest of society, from birth to age six. Upon being found, they were unable to speak, unresponsive and incapable of functioning properly. Socialization thus aids in forming our personalities and also avoids punishment in society. Socialization first begins with the family. This is referred to as primary socialization. This essay will discuss the role of the family in socialization, highlighting the reasons why family is no longer the main agent of socialization and identifying other agents of socialization. To begin, the family was essentially the main agent of socialization. They contribute to primary socialization, which takes place from birth, teaching individuals the culture of society. In our early life, the family is very important in shaping our ideas, beliefs, and behaviour. According to Murdock, the family plays important roles in society. These roles include, socializing children into the culture of society, reproducing the next generation, providing the basic needs and aiding in companionship and gratification. In addition, functionalism sees that the family is a universal social institution in society that takes care of the needs of society. Hubert Spencer suggests that society is just like an organism. The organism consists of different parts, which contribute to equilibrium and the wellbeing of this organism. Similarly, the family is the “different parts” in society, that maintain order in society. Each part function to meet Parson’s functional prerequisites. The integration of the various parts, that is, the different roles in the family, provides consensus and patterned relationships. Additionally, although the family is seen as “the cornerstone in society” and provides the means of primary socialization, there are various factors contributing to its decline as the main agent. Through primary socialization, individuals have developed negative attitudes. This is evident as social issues are usually traced back to the family as the source. This is because family is portrayed as the “building blocks” of society. The family has also broken down due to job opportunities. This has led to mothers, whose traditional role was to socialize the children, now working and staying longer periods, away from the home. Due to the lack of the family as the agent of primary socialization, individuals now utilize other agents as they interact with new groups, thus promoting, secondary socialization. Furthermore, solutions for the decline of the family as the main agent includes; the use of new agents, anticipatory socialization and resocialization. Other agents of socialization include school, religious institutions, peers, the media and the community. These agents contribute to secondary socialization, as the individuals interact with other groups, apart from the family. These agents also aid in the resocialization of individuals, where they reinforce the values and beliefs of society. These agents may also play a role in anticipatory socialization, where individuals deliberately seek help to socialize them into the expected behaviour. Religious intuitions are an example of an agent who contributes to anticipatory socialization. However, it must be noted that just like the family, all agents are flawed. For example, religious institutions portray certain activities like adultery in a negative manner to “boost family values”. Therefore, various agents which are not flawless, aid in secondary and anticipatory socialization, as well as resocialization of individuals. To conclude, the family was considered the main agent of socialization. According to functionalism, the family played numerous roles to ensure the transmission of values, norms, and beliefs in society, in an attempt to maintain consensus and stability in society. However, due to numerous factors such as interactions with new groups, the creation of alternatives and job opportunities, the family is no longer the main agent, and there are now other agents who contribute to secondary socialization. These agents include school, religious institutions, peers, the media and the community. These agents although they have flaws, also play an important role in the socialization of individuals.

Question: Within the social sciences, there is a debate about whether sociology is a science or not. Evaluate the major positions in this debate.

A popular debate in sociology concerns whether sociology should be studied as a science or not. Science is defined as the use of systematic methods of research and investigation and the logical analysis of arguments in order to develop an understanding of a particular subject matter. The sociologists that claim it is a science are known as positivists. Those that dispute their viewpoint are known as interpretivists, who suggest that society cannot be measured and oversimplified into a mere thing to be studied. Within this essay, the major arguments made for each viewpoint will be discussed as well as an evaluation of each position on this debate. Positivism is a sociological tradition stating that human behaviour within society can be studied using the same procedures and methods employed in studying natural sciences. Those methods include observation and multivariate analysis as noted by Nasser Mustapha 2009. This tradition was founded by French sociologist Auguste Comte. Comte advanced his theory of positivism by furthering his belief that human behaviour was controlled in the same way that matter was constricted. Positivists adhere to their claim that sociology possesses certain features that allows it to be identified as a science. They make the claim that sociology is theoretical, meaning that data is obtained by research and utilized in formulating theories. This can be seen as sociologists may employ different approaches in order to study the same phenomena and can be related to scientists also utilizing various approaches in order to study the same matter. Sociology can be said to have both a cumulative and a value free nature. Sociology’s cumulative nature means that sociologists are able to develop and refine the older theories established by their predecessors. For example, Emile Durkheim expanded on Herbert Spencer’s idea that society can be viewed as an organism. This concept is similar to that of scientific studies which over time has disputed and modified theories as time has developed. Positivists also hold the view that similar to studying natural sciences; sociology is value-free, meaning it is merely reported without any of the researcher’s moral conclusions on social life. Due to their beliefs, positivists utilize quantitative methods in acquiring information. Quantitative research methods involve statistics and numerical data which ensure that it is easy to quantify and is a reliable source of data. Max Weber, a German sociologist, opposed Comte’s theory that sociology should and can be studied as a natural science. This perspective is known as Interpretivism and is the other tradition of the study of sociology as noted by Mustapha. Interpretivists mainly oppose positivism as it simplifies society to be studied as a single thing. They view human behaviour as something that cannot be measured because it is based on emotions and feelings. Human behaviour also will differ depending on who they are interacting with. Interpretivists are also critical of their view that human behaviour is controlled and contained by the laws and norms of society. Due to this view, they adopt humanistic and subjective research methods referred to as qualitative methods in order to obtain data. Not all sociologists have agreed that sociology is a science and have made very strong cases to support their claims. Their main argument is that human behaviour changes based on several factors which include who exactly they are interacting with. Due to human behaviour being rather subjective (personal) makes it very difficult to study it as a being objective (detached). Alternatively, positivists have made a very strong argument for studying sociology as a natural science. They have linked many of its characteristics which make it very suitable to be considered a science.

Essay submitted by user shanique hayden General Comments on Essay:

1. The writer demonstrated a very good understanding to the subject matter - quatitative research methods vs qualitative research methods.

2. Good use of language and expression.

3. The writer did not cite sociologists, in the discussion/analysis phase of the essay, although their arguments/points of views on the strenghts of the quantitative research method was stated.

Mark out of 25

Knowledge & Understanding 6

Interpretation & Analysis 7

Synthesis and Evaluation 7

Total 20/25 Quantitative methods are better suited to undergo the rigours of sociological research. Discuss.     Quantitative research methods can be described as those methods employing the use of more scientific and numerical data. Quantitative research methods are predominantly used in the positivist approach to research and it was the method adopted by Emile Durkheim in his study on suicide. This research method is also deemed as reliable and practical.      Emile Durkheim did his study on suicide in nineteenth century. In conducting his study, he used the positivist approach which warrants the use of social facts, statistical data, correlations, causation, multivariate analysis and laws of human behaviour. Durkheim's research methodology was therefore quantitative. His quantitative method allowed him to make very good use of the statistical data available to him which helped to propel his theory. He used this statistical data to explain why the suicide rates among Roman Catholics and Protestants were either higher or lower than those of other groups. This data also enabled him to make a correlation between the suicide rates and the group with which it is associated. After making his correlations, he used multivariate analysis, which involves trying to isolate the effects of a particular independent variable upon the dependent variables, to isolate the most important variables and also to determine if there was a genuine causal relationship between these factors and suicide. The quantitative method proves to be better suite d in this situation as it would be difficult to obtain the information for the study using other means such as the qualitative method of research. This is due to the fact that the persons under study are d e ad and so would not be able to provide the information needed for the research. Therefore due to the method used it was easy for conclusions to be drawn about the situation based on data such as statistics that were available.      Quantitative research methods are deemed to be reliable. Reliability means that the study done can be replicated and the same results will be produced. Quantitative methods usually produce standardized data in a statistical form which makes it easy for the results to be repeated and checked.  On the other hand qualitative methods are seen as failing to meet the standards of reliability because the procedures used to collect data are often unsystematic, the results are hardly ever quantified and so there is no way that a qualitative study can be replicated and the reliability of the findings checked.      Practicality alludes to efficiency of the time and effort associated with the study. Quantitative methods are generally less time consuming and require less personal commitment when compared to the qualitative method. It is also possible to study larger and more representative samples which could provide a better understanding of the population under study. Qualitative methods however are less practical as they require a lot of time and most times the study has to be confined to a small group thus at times making the sample non-representative of the population under study and so accurate generalizations cannot be made.    To conclude qualitative method of research provides the research with the use of statistical data thus making it easier to study phenomenon where the direct individuals under study are not available for interviews, for example suicide victims. This research method is also reliable and so other persons in the field of study can improve on the study or use the study to assist in another. The research method is also very practical which becomes useful when there is not a lot of time or resources and when the population size is quite large, thus requiring a large representative sample. However it must be noted that while quantitative methods are better suited for conducting some research in sociology, it is not suited for all and so the writer would like to conclude that quantitative methods are better suited to undergo some rigours of sociological research but not all.

Scholar Essays

Capesociology.org.

• Note to Parents
• Submit Essay for marking
• Frequently Asked Questions

Connect with Us

• Empirical Evidence
• Multiple Choice
• Question Bank
• Revision Exercises
• Visual Summaries