-###Social Stratification.

***SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

-The concept of stratification

- Forms of stratification
-Social class
- Life chances
- Social mobility.

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL

STRATIFICATION.
***The concept of Social stratification

-In all societies people differ from each

other on the basis of their age, sex and
personal characteristics. Human society
is not homogeneous but heterogeneous.
Apart from the natural differences,
human beings are also differentiated
according to socially approved criteria.

-So socially differentiated men are

treated as socially unequal from the
point of view of enjoyment of social
rewards like status, power, income etc.
That may be called social inequality. The
term social inequality simply refers to
the existence of socially created
inequalities.

Meanings:

-Social stratification: This represents a

process whereby different social groups
are ranked higher or lower on some form
of scale, usually, but not exclusively, in
terms of categories such as class, age,
gender and ethnicity.

Social stratification is a particular form

of social inequality.

All societies arrange their members in

terms of superiority, inferiority and
equality. Stratification is a process of
interaction or differentiation whereby
some people come to rank higher than
others.

In one word, when individuals and

groups are ranked, according to some
commonly accepted basis of valuation
in a hierarchy of status levels based
upon the inequality of social positions,
social stratification occurs.

Social stratification means division of

society into different strata or layers. It
involves a hierarchy of social groups.
Members of a particular layer have a
common identity. They have a similar
life style.
-Modern stratification fundamentally
differs from stratification of primitive
societies. Social stratification involves
two phenomena

(i) differentiation of individuals or

groups on the basis of possession of
certain characteristics whereby some
individuals or groups come to rank
higher than others,

(ii) the ranking of individuals according

to some basis of evaluation.

-Definitions:

-Giddens (2001) defines stratification as

‘structured inequalities between
different groupings’

-Crompton (1993) argues it involves ‘a

hierarchical system of inequality
(material and symbolic), always
supported by a meaning system that
seeks to justify inequality’.
- Ogburn and Nimkoff:
‘The process by which individuals and
groups are ranked in more or less
enduring hierarchy of status is known as
stratification”

-Lundberg: “A stratified society is one

marked by inequality, by differences
among people that are evaluated by
them as being “lower” and “higher”.

-Gisbert: “Social stratification is the

division of society into permanent
groups of categories linked with each
other by the relationship of superiority
and subordinations”.
 -Williams: Social Stratification refers to
“The ranking of individuals on a scale of
superiority-inferiority- equality,
according to some commonly accepted
basis of valuation.

- Raymond W. Murray: Social

stratification is horizontal division of
society into “higher” and “lower” social
units.”

-Melvin M Tumin: “Social stratification

refers to “arrangement of any social
group or society into hierarchy of
positions that are unequal with regard to
power, property, social evaluation and
psychic gratification”.
Origin of Stratification:

Regarding the origin of stratification

many views have been given.

(i) According to Davis, social

stratification has come into being due to
the functional necessity of the social
system.

(ii) Professor Sorokin attributed social

stratification mainly to inherited
difference in environmental conditions.

(iii) According to Karl Mrax, social

factors are responsible for the
emergence of different social strata, i.e.
social stratification.
(iv) Gumplowioz and other contended
that the origin of social stratification is
to be found in the conquest of one group
by another.

(v) According to Spengler, social

stratification is founded upon scarcity
which is created whenever society
differentiates positive in terms of
functions and powers.

(vi) Racial differences accompanied by

dissimilarity also leads to stratification.

Types of Social stratification.

• slave systems that have appeared
throughout human history (from Ancient
Greece and Rome to
eighteenth/nineteenth-century Britain
and the USA)
• caste systems (characteristic of some
parts of South East Asia)
• estates systems (characteristic of
feudal or early modern societies) and, of
course,
• class systems, which characterise
stratification in modern societies such
as Britain.

Class system

In this respect, class stratification in our

society is conventionally considered a:
Primary system of stratification (with
stratification based around age, gender
and ethnicity being secondary forms),
on the basis that economic rankings
(and their associated inequalities) have
greater impact on people’s lives than
inequalities associated with non-
economic differences in status (which
may, of course, develop alongside
primary systems – upper-class men, for
example, may have a different social
status to upper-class women).
Scott (1999), for example, argues social
stratification ‘... emphasises the idea
that individuals are distributed among
the levels or layers of a social hierarchy
because of their economic
relationships’. For Scott, social
stratification is a particular form of
social division that differs from other
types of division on the basis that it is
‘solidly based in economic relations’.

Slave systems

Slavery is one of the oldest (and most

persistent) forms of stratification that
involves, according to Mazur (1996), a
situation in which one group claims
ownership over another, such that the
former take upon themselves ‘the right
to use, abuse and take the fruits of the
latter’s labour’. The slave, therefore, is
the:
• Property of their owner. Slave systems
arguably reached their height in Europe
and the USA between the seventeenth
and nineteenth centuries, when the
capture and shipment of slaves from
Africa (in particular) took on a global
dimension. Perhaps the most familiar
example of a slave-based modern
society is that of the US southern states
in the nineteenth century, a tightly
regulated system supported by a variety
of laws governing the behaviour of the
enslaved (whether they could marry,
where they could live, when and if they
could travel and so forth).
Although opinions differ as to whether
slaves can be considered a ‘class’ in the
same way that slave owners were a
class – Gingrich (2002), for example,
suggests slaves are a status group
because, in Weberian terms, ‘they have
nothing to sell’ and hence have no
market situation – it’s clear that, in
status terms, slaves were always at the
very bottom of society, or even outside
it. Slave status was also:
Ascribed – children born to slave
parents also became slaves. Slaves
could, however, be given their freedom
by their owners.
The basic belief system (ideology)
underpinning slavery, at least in early
modern society, was usually one of
biological superiority – slaves were
‘naturally inferior’ to their owners.

-Feudal (estate) systems.

Estate systems characterise pre-

modern, pre- industrial, agrarian
(agricultural) societies,
such as Britain in the sixteenth century,
and are based around:
• Land ownership: In agricultural (or
feudal) societies, where there are no
factories or machines to produce goods,
farming is the main economic activity,
which makes land the single most
important commodity. To own land,
therefore, is to be powerful, since you
control something vital to the lives of
thousands, if not millions, of people.
Land ownership was not distributed
fairly or equally and, in feudal Britain,
land could not be legally owned; it was
considered the property of God and, as
such, was held ‘in trust’ by the monarch,
as God’s earthly representative. Land
was delegated, initially by the monarch,
in a:
• Pyramid structure of land divisions and
stratification ranks.The system was
based on a strong structure of rights
and duties, underpinned by:
• A religious belief system that stressed
its ‘divine nature’. The Church taught
that God had created the world in His
image and, since God was all-powerful,
it was not for mere mortals to question
or challenge the social order.
• Military might, consolidated in the
hands of the nobility and their knight-
retainers.
• Legal sanctions: different levels in the
structure had different legal rights –
serfs, for example, although not slaves,
were under the control and patronage of
their feudal lord, who could impose
restrictions on their behaviour: whom
they could marry, where they could live
and so forth.

Caste systems

The caste system has existed for around

3000 years, mainly in India, where the
influence of the Hindu religion has been
traditionally strong (although, as Kane
(2004) notes, variations have appeared
in countries such as Brazil). The system
involves the division of society into five
major caste groups (varna), each
traditionally associated with a particular
form of work. Each major caste is sub-
divided into thousands of different sub-
castes (jatis)Conventionally, the caste
system is portrayed as a:
Closed system of stratification (no
individual movement up or down the
class structure), with a couple of
exceptions:
• Sub-castes (jatis) can improve their
social status in the hierarchy (they can
move up or down within the major caste
categories).
• Individuals can losetheircaste position
by breakingcastelaw (such as marrying
outsidetheircaste). When this occurs,
they become ‘out-caste’ –ineffect,
relegatedtothelowest position in
thecaste hierarchy (harijan or,as itwas
formerly known in theWest,
‘Untouchable’).
Caste systems are examples of absolute
social mobility.
Ascribed: Caste positions are given at
birth, based on parental caste position.
Each caste is, therefore, endogamous –
self-contained and allowing marriage
only between members of the same
caste.

The system, although based around

occupational groupings, is underpinned
by a Hindu religious belief system that
stresses two important concepts:
• Reincarnation (kharma) – the belief that
once someone dies they are
reborn.Caste mobility – the individual is
reborn into a higher or lower caste on
the basis of how well they performed the
religious duties associated with their
caste position in their previous life.
-Waters (1997) argues that contemporary
Western societies are:
Post-class societies in the sense that
the significance of economic class has
diminished as it is gradually replaced
by:
Status-conventional forms of
stratification. These are based around –
and expressed through – lifestyles and
values, focused mainly on consumption
differences (as opposed to the
production differences on which social
class analysis is conventionally based)
and the increasing importance of:
Ascribed status-group memberships –
especially those related to gender and
ethnicity.
This raises important questions about
the nature of stratification in
contemporary society – not least
concerning the conventional wisdom
that such societies are:Class societies:
As we’ve suggested, stratification in
modern society is conventionally
characterised by social class as the
dominant (primary) form – a system
based on differences at the level of
economic production (the origins of
class stratification are located ‘in the
workplace’ and the differential
relationships experienced therein).
Given its significance in modern
societies, we shall examine the concept
of social class later

Characteristics of Social Stratification:

 On the basis of the analysis of the
different definitions given by eminent
scholars, social stratification may have
the following characteristics. (a) Social
stratification is universal: There is no
society on this world which is free from
stratification. Modern stratification
differs from stratification of primitive
societies. It is a worldwide phenomenon.
According to Sorokin “all permanently
organized groups are stratified.” (b)
Stratification is social: It is true that
biological qualities do not determine
one’s superiority and inferiority. Factors
like age, sex, intelligence as well as
strength often contribute as the basis on
which statues are distinguished. But
one’s education, property, power,
experience, character, personality etc.
are found to be more important than
biological qualities. Hence, stratification
is social by nature.

(c) It is ancient: Stratification system is

very old. It was present even in the small
wondering bonds. In almost all the
ancient civilizations, the differences
between the rich and poor, humble
andpowerful existed. During the period
of Plato and Kautilya even emphasis
was given to political, social and
economic inequalities.

(d) It is in diverse forms: The forms of

stratification is not uniform in all the
societies. In the modern world class,
caste and estate are the general forms of
stratification. In India a special type of
stratification in the form of caste is
found. The ancient Aryas were divided
into four varnas: the Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The
ancient Greeks were divided into
freemen and slaves and the ancient
Romans were divided into the particians
and the plebians. So every society, past
or present, big or small is characterized
by diversed forms of social
stratification.

(e) Social stratification is

Consequential: Social stratification has
two important consequences one is “life
chances” and the other one is “life
style”. A class system not only affects
the “life- chances” of the individuals but
also their “life style”. The members of a
class have similar social chances but
the social chances vary in every society.
It includes chances of survival and of
good physical and mental health,
opportunities for education, chances of
obtaining justice, marital conflict,
separation and divorce etc.

Life style denotes a style of life which is

distinctive of a particular social status.
Life-styles include such matters like the
residential areas in every community
which have gradations of prestige-
ranking, mode of housing, means of
recreation, the kinds of dress, the kinds
of books, TV shows to which one is
exposed and so on. Life- style may be
viewed as a sub-culture in which one
stratum differs from another within the
frame work of a commonly shared over-
all culture.

##Theories of Stratification.

1) Functionalist Theory.

-Social stratification: In the organisation

of the modern workplace, for example,
roles are necessarily differentiated – in
simple terms we could point to
differences between ‘managerial roles’
and ‘non-managerial roles’ – and
hierarchical: for a system (such as the
workplace or a society) to function,
something must give coherence and
drive to people’s relationships – there
must be some way of:
• motivating people to perform certain
roles
• rewarding them for role performance.
As Harris (2005) notes, classical
functionalists, such as Davis and Moore,
put forward a range of reasons for
institutions to develop a ‘system of
rewards and distributions’. Some roles,
for example, are simply ‘more agreeable’
(it might be preferable to work in a warm
office than on a cold street), require
‘special talents, training, skills or
knowledge’ or are ‘functionally more
important than others’ – pivotal
organisational roles that must be
performed by well-qualified, well-
motivated, talented individuals.
Stratification, therefore, develops out of
the way people have to be encouraged
to perform different roles, some of which
are more important, skilled and
time/effort- consuming to learn than
others. Higher levels of status, income
and job satisfaction,
therefore, represent necessary
motivations and rewards that lead to the
development of inequalities and social
hierarchies. For Davis and Moore, these
represent ‘an unconsciously evolved
device by which societies ensure the
most important positions are
conscientiously filled by the most
qualified people’.

Support for classical functionalism has,

in recent times, come from writers such
as Lenski (1994), whose analysis of
‘Marxist social systems’ (such as China
and North Korea) suggested that social
stratification, developed along classical
functionalist lines, was inevitable,
necessary and functional – ‘incentive
systems’ are required to motivate and
reward the ‘best qualified people’ for
occupying the ‘most important
positions’ within a social system.
Conventional criticisms of this general
approach, however, have focused on
two main areas:

• Empirical: Tumin (1953) questions the

idea that we can measure differences in
the ‘functional importance’ of different
roles.
• Subjectivity: Concepts of ‘functional
importance’ are, at root, value
judgements about the relative worth of
different roles (is a well-paid company
director a more ‘functionally important’
role than that of a nurse?).

2) Marxism

Social stratification from this position is

an:
Inevitable feature of contemporary
capitalist societies, based around
economic relationships and inequalities
related to social classes – broad groups
that share a common economic, political
and ideological background. a range of
ideas generally characteristic of Marxist
analysis in the following terms:
Economic behaviour is the most
significant activity in any society
because, as we’ve previously
suggested, it is through work that
people produce the means of survival on
which all other forms of behaviour
(politics and culture, for example) are
dependent.

Different types of society (suchas

feudalism and capitalism) organise
economic behaviour in significantly
different ways, but all are characterised
by a specific:
Mode of production that, for our
purposes, consists of two broad ideas:
• Means of production refers to the
things (such as land, machinery,
buildings and investment capital) used
to produce commodities. People are not
part of the means of production, since
their role is played out in terms of:
Social relations to production: This
refers to the relationships that exist
within a mode of production. In capitalist
societies, for example, the main social
relationship is ‘employer–employee’ and
it derives from the important distinction
between two ideas:
• ownership of the means of production
(the sphere of capital), and
• non-ownership, a sphere consisting of
people who sell their ability to work
(their labour power in capitalist societies
people are neither slaves nor serfs; they
are ‘free’ economic actors in the sense
that they can ‘choose’ to whom they sell
their labour power for the best possible
wage).
Social stratification is based around the
economic system (into which people are
born and socialised), structured in terms
of these relationships to the means of
production. In classical Marxism, the
economic structure gives rise to two
basic classes (owners and non-owners,
or the bourgeoisie and the proletariat);
for neo- Marxists the growth of a ‘third
class’ in modern capitalism (the ‘middle’
or ‘petit bourgeoisie’) – consisting of
intellectuals, knowledge workers,
professionals and managers at the
higher levels and the self- employed at
the lower – complicates the general
class picture since this class involves
people who neither wholly own the
means of production nor are simply
‘waged workers’. Writers like Poulantzas
(1974) generally refer to this class as
occupying a contradictory class
position.

Marxism offers a way of understanding

Stratification and differentiation
stratification and differentiation in a way
that is both:
• objective, in the sense that class
positions in a stratification system can
be ‘read off’ from people’s economic
relationships, and
• empirical, in the sense that social class
can be linked objectively to social
inequalities that derive from different
class positions.

However, a major criticism relates to

ideas about alternative forms of
stratification/inequality based around:
-Gender and ethnicity: Dahrendorf
(1959), among others, argues that
economic and political power are not
necessarily the same thing. In other
words, the question arises as to whether
economic divisions are the only (or
main) basis for social stratification in
modern societies. As in the example of
the caste system, Marxists generally
explain ideas like sexual and racial
discrimination in economic terms – as
developments from the unequal
distribution of power in society based
ultimately (or ‘in the last instance’, as
neo-Marxists such as Poulantzas (1974)
like to put it) on unequal economic
positions. Other conflict theorists have
argued this is a mistaken interpretation.
3) : Weberian

Weberian theories of stratification are

based on two fundamental ideas:
• Social resources (anything that is
valued in a society). Where competition
exists in any society, some people will
have greater access to, ownership of
and control over social resources, which
Weber (1922) classified as belonging to
three main types:
• class(or economic) resources, such as
income,wealth, possessions and so
forth
-status (or social) resources, involving
ideas such as honour, prestige and
respect – these can be given and gained
in a wide variety of ways, such as
through physical or intellectual abilities
• power (sometimes called ‘party’)
resources that relate to the ability to
influence the behaviour of others
(through authority or coercion, for
example).

How social resources are distributed

relates to the second idea:
• Social inequality – defined, by
Weberians, in terms of ‘the unequal
distribution of resources between
individuals and groups’. Inequalities
neither automatically nor easily translate
directly into social stratification, for a
couple of reasons:
• Conditions: For differences and
inequalities to become stratification
requires:
• identifiable groups with demonstrable
inequalities
• structured (or systematic) inequalities
involving some kind of hierarchical
connections between different groups;
those at the top always do better, as a
group, than those below them
• a belief system (ideology) that both
justifies and explains inequality and
stratification
• resources with a society-wide value:
higher social groups always have
greatest access to, ownership of and
control over the most valued resources
(such as wealth, status, and power).
• Dimensions: Stratification can have
many dimensions – economic
ownership and divisions, for example,
are not necessarily the only basis for
stratification, since such systems, for
Weberians, may be:
• status-based, in terms of gender or
ethnicity (as in, for example, the caste
system, or apartheid as it operated in
countries like South Africa (1945–1994)
under white rule)
• multidimensional, whereby different
groups in the same society experience
different forms of stratification,
depending on a combination of class,
status and power – people, for example,
may have a high income (class), but low
status (and vice versa). However, class,
status and power can also combine,
such that those with high levels of
wealth can use this situation to enhance
their status and increase their levels of
power and influence (to become
wealthier, for example.
##########Social class

-Meaning:

A social class is made up of people of

similar social status who regard one
another as social equals. Each class has
a set of values, attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour norms which differ from those
of the other classes. According to
Giddens (2000), “a class is a large- scale
grouping of people who share common
economic resources, which strongly
influence the type of lifestyle they are
able to lead”. Horton and Hunt (1968)
writes: “A social class is defined as a
stratum of people of similar position in
the social status continuum.” A stratum
is a collectivity of people occupying
similar positions in the hierarchical
order. Max Weber has defined class in
terms of life chances and said, “a class
is a number of people sharing one or
more causes of life chances”. By life
chances he meant “the typical chances
for a supply of goods, external living
conditions, and personal life
experience”. Karl Marx, an another main
theorist of class, has written much about
social class but nowhere he has defined
it in certain exact terms.

From his writings, it appears that for

Marx, “a class is a group of people who
stand in a common relationship to the
means of production”, to the political-
power structure, and to the ideas of the
time, a relationship which necessarily
brings it into conflict with some other
group having divergent ideas and
different interests with respect to the
economic and political structures”
(Lopreato and Lawrence, 1972). This
statement presents the Marx’s basic
notion of class. Thus, he defined class
in economic terms. Thus, a social class
is an aggregate of people who have
same status, rank or common
characteristics (lifestyle). This aggregate
of people is identified on the basis of
their relationship to the economic
market who have differential access to
wealth, power and certain styles of life.
Ownership of wealth together with
occupation are the chief criteria of class
differences but education, hereditary
prestige, group participation, self-
identification and recognition by others
also play an important part in class
distinction.

-Characteristics of Class System:

The following are the principal

characteristics of class system:

1. A system of hierarchy of status.

2. A system of social ranking based

primarily on economic position.
3. A system marked by unequal
distribution of wealth and power.

4. A system more mobile than caste

system.

5. A system in which status is achieved

by one’s own efforts rather than
ascribed, assigned or inherited.

6. A system having some degree of

permanency of the class structure.

7. A system based on stratum (class)

consciousness and solidarity.

8. A system having distinctive mode of

life (lifestyle) and cultural expressions of
each class.

9. A system based on the recognition of

superiority and inferiority in relation to
those who stand or below in the social
hierarchy.

10. A system in which boundaries

between classes are fluid and are less
precisely defined.

11. A system in which social classes act

as sub- cultures—each social class is a
system of behaviour, a set of values and
a way of life.

-Divisions of social classes:

 How many classes are there? Classes
are not sharply defined status groups
like castes. Social status varies along a
continuum. The several social classes
may be viewed as points on this
continuum. Consequently, the number of
social classes is not fixed, nor do any
definite boundaries separate them.
Earlier scholars of social class broke up
the status continuum into three main
classes—upper, middle, and lower. Later
scholars found this division
unsatisfactory and often used a six-fold
classification by breaking each of these
three classes into an upper and lower
section.

Warner and associates (1941, 1942)

used this classification in their study of
a New England town. The most
commonly used classification is of J.H.
Goldthrope who developed it in his
study Social Mobility and Class
Structure in Britain (1980).

Goldthrope identifies eleven social

class categories, which may be
compressed into three major social
classes —service, intermediate and
working. This classification was later on
severely criticised by feminist writers.
They contend that the Goldthrope’s
class scheme inadequately represents
the class position of women.

Recently, Giddens (2000) developed a

four-fold classification that exists in
western societies.
These are an upper class (the wealthy,
employers, and industrialists, plus top
executives); a middle class (which
includes most white-collar workers and
professionals); and a working class
(those in blue-collar or manual jobs).

In some of the industrialised countries,

such as France or Japan, a fourth class
— peasants (people engaged in
traditional types or agricultural
production) —has also until recently
been important.

In addition to these four classes, there is

one more class known as underclass,
which is composed of ethnic majority
and underprivileged minorities.
Members of the underclass have worse
working conditions and living standards
than the majority of the population.

-Theories on Social class.

-Marxism .
Karl Marx: 1818-1883 Assertion that
there were two great classes – the
owners of the means of production
(capitalists) and the workers – the only
thing that the workers owned was their
ability to work, what Marx called “labor
power.” Because owners (capitalists)
paid wages to workers and could for the
most part determine that wage, owners
had power over workers. Marx felt that
the lack of power of workers was the
source of exploitation and the basis of
class conflict. Marx argued that owners
and workers developed ideas,
understandings about their positions
and this Marx called class
consciousness. When owners
convinced workers that their situations
were compatible – Marx called this false
consciousness. Although Marx talked
mainly about the two great classes –
owners and workers – he was aware as
well of a third category which he called
petit bourgeoisie – literally little
middleclass and these were owners of
own small businesses. Finding a
location for this group was difficult
because they lacked the power if the
owners and at the same time had control
over their work and wages unlike the
workers. Moreover, according to Marx,
sometimes they identified with the
owners and sometimes with the
workers.
###Further theories on Social Class.

-Functionalist explanations of class

- Social class is inevitable in modern

-Society has common value system, so
people can be ranked and stratification
occurs
-Ex. Western societies value
achievement and efficiency so there are
high rewards for being successful
-Class creates a way of ensuring that all
work is done
-Function of education system is to sort
out individuals abilities to meet societies
needs, those with high rank will be
motivated to get great job
-It is necessary for groups to have
different levels of wealth and power than
others
Only some individuals can make
important decisions so leaders are
necessary
-People may get mad at what they don't
have, but functionalist believe this is
balanced with the acception of common
value system.
-Functionalist see division of have and
have-nots as natural and right
-Any attempt to make things more equal
is dangerous because it will cause
conflict.

-Feminism and social class

-Most studies are Individual

classification (focus on breadwinner) or
joint (looking at both partners)
-Fembitches point out that that the
money they make is important to
household
-Woman can be breadwinner
-Dual class families where families join
to be higher class
-Radical: we should chance our ideas
about class. Since women oppressed
they want to fight another class-men
-Sylvia Walby says that men force
domestic work out of women so they
cant work
-
MAX WEBER
Class and status groups.
Unlike Marx, Weber believed that
classes in society could be divided into
more than just two. He argued that
classes were divided on the basis of two
similarities among people
1. Their market situation: where is a
person located in the economy of a
society
2. Their life chances: chances of a
person to achieve certain materialistic
and non materialistic goals which are
highly valued in society. Instead of
getting polarised into two extreme
opposites of the have and the have nots,
Weber argues that the rise of the middle
class takes place as a result of
dissatisfaction with the economic
structure. According to him classes in
society can be roughly classified into:
1. The propertied upper class
2. The property-less white collar workers
3. The petty bourgeoisie
4. The manual worker class He says that
these classes are distributed based on
their market situation in a particular
economy. This stratification does not
necessarily entail their identification
with each other leading to class
consciousness and eventually a
revolution.
---Weber's multidimensional approach to
stratification focused on the interplay
among wealth, power, and prestige as
being necessary in determining a
person's class position. Identified
additional classes to Marx’s model

--Weber placed people who have a

similar level of Wealth- the value of all of
a person's or family's economic assets
(including income, personal property,
and income-producing property) in the
same class.
--Also looked at power and prestige.
Power-the ability of people or groups to
carry out their own goals despite
opposition from others gives some
people the ability to shape society in
accordance with their own interests and
to direct the actions of others. Prestige
is the respect or regard with which a
person or status position is regarded by
others, and those who share similar
levels of social prestige belong to the
same status group regardless of their
level of wealth. Wealth, prestige, and
power are separate continuums on
which people can be ranked from high to
low; individuals may be high on one
dimension while being low on
anotherDoes social class matter?

Think of each social class as a broad

subculture with distinct approaches to
life, so significant that it affects our
health, family life, education, religion,
politics, and even our experiences with
crime and the criminal justice system.
Let’s look at some of the ways that
social class affects our lives.

Physical Health

-The principle is simple: As you go up

the social-class ladder, health improves.
As you go down the ladder, health gets
worse (Masters et al. 2012). Age makes
no difference. Infants born to the poor
are more likely to die before their first
birthday, and a larger percentage of
poor people in their old age—whether 75
or 95— die each year than do the elderly
who are wealthy.

How can social class have such

dramatic effects? While there are many
reasons, here are three. First, social
class opens and closes doors to medical
care. People with good incomes or with
good medical insur- ance are able to
choose their doctors and pay for what-
ever treatment and medications are
prescribed. The poor, in contrast, don’t
have the money or insurance to afford
this type of medical care.

A second reason is lifestyle, which is

shaped by social class. People in the
lower classes are more likely to smoke,
eat a lot of fats, be overweight, abuse
drugs and alcohol, get little exercise,
and practice unsafe sex (Chin et al.
2000)

There is a third reason, too. Life is hard

on the poor. The persistent stresses
they face weaken their immune systems
and cause their bodies to wear out faster
(Geronimus et al. 2010; John-Henderson
et al. 2012). For the rich, life is so much
better. They have fewer problems and
vastly more resources to deal with the
ones they have. This gives them a sense
of control over their lives, a source of
both physical and mental health.

Mental Health

Sociological research from as far back

as the 1930s has found that the mental
health of the lower classes is worse than
that of the higher classes (Faris and
Dunham 1939; Srole et al. 1978; Sareen
et al. 2011). Greater mental problems are
part of the higher stress that
accompanies poverty. Compared with
middle- and upper-class , the poor have
less job security and lower wages. They
are more likely to divorce, to be the
victims of crime, and to have more
physical illnesses. Couple these
conditions with bill collectors and the
threat of eviction and you can see how
they deal severe blows to people’s
emotional well-being.

People higher up the social class ladder

experience stress in daily life, of course,
but their stress is generally less, and
their coping resources are greater. Not
only can they afford vacations,
psychiatrists, and counselors, but their
class position also gives them greater
control over their lives, a key to good
mental health.

Family Life.

Social class also makes a significant

difference in our choice of spouse, our
chances of getting divorced, and how
we rear our children.

Choice of Husband
or Wife.

Members of the capitalist class place

strong emphasis on family tradition.
They stress the family’s history, even a
sense of purpose or destiny in life
(Baltzell 1979; Aldrich 1989). Children of
this class learn that their choice of
husband or wife affects not just them
but the entire family, that it will have an
impact on the “family line.” These
background expectations shrink the
field of “eligible” mar- riage partners,
making it narrower than it is for the
children of any other social class. As a
result, parents in this class play a strong
role in their children’s mate selection.

-Divorce. The more difficult life of the

lower social classes, especially the
many tensions that come from insecure
jobs and inadequate incomes, leads to
higher marital friction and a greater
likelihood of divorce. Consequently,
children of the poor are more likely to
grow up in broken homes.

Child Rearing.

lower-class parents focus more on

getting their children to follow rules and
obey authority, while middle-class
parents focus more on developing their
children’s creative and leadership skills
(Lareau and Weininger 2008).
Sociologists have traced this difference
to the parents’ occupations (Kohn 1977).
-Lower- class parents are closely
supervised at work, and they anticipate
that their children will have similar jobs.
Consequently, they try to teach their
children to defer to authority. --Middle-
class parents, in contrast, enjoy greater
independence at work. Anticipating
similar jobs for their children, they
encourage them to be more creative. Out
of these contrast- ing orientations arise
different ways of disciplining children;
lower-class parents are more likely to
use physical punishment, while the
middle classes rely more on verbal
persuasion.

Education

education increases as one goes up the

social class ladder. It is not just the
amount of education that changes but
also the type of edu- cation. Children of
the capitalist class bypass public
schools. They attend exclusive pri- vate
schools where they are trained to take a
commanding role in society. These
schools teach upper-class values and
prepare their students for prestigious
universities (Beeghley 2008; Stevens
2009).
Keenly aware that private schools can
be a key to upward social mobility, some
upper- middle-class parents do their
best to get their children into the
prestigious preschools that feed into
these exclusive prep schools. Although
some preschools cost $37,000 a year,
they have a waiting list (Anderson
2011) . Figuring that waiting until birth to
enroll a child is too late, some parents-
to-be enroll their child as soon as the
woman knows she is pregnant (Ensign
2012). Other parents hire tutors to train
their 4-year-olds in test-taking skills so
they can get into public kindergartens
for gifted students. Experts teach these
preschoolers to look adults in the eye
while they are being interviewed for
these limited positions (Banjo 2010).
You can see how such parental
involvement and resources make it more
likely that children from the more privi-
leged classes go to college—and
graduate.

Religion

One area of social life that we might

think would not be affected by social
class is religion. (“People are just
religious, or they are not however, the
classes tend to cluster in different
denominations. Episcopalians, for
example, are more likely to attract the
middle and upper classes, while
Baptists draw heavily from the lower
classes. Patterns of worship also follow
class lines: The lower classes are
attracted to more expressive worship
services and louder music, while the
middle and upper classes prefer more
“subdued” worship.

Politics

Political views are no exception to this

symbolic interactionist principle, and the
rich and the poor walk different political
paths. The higher that people are on the
social class ladder, the more likely they
are to vote for Republi- cans (Hout
2008). In contrast, most members of the
working class believe that the
government should intervene in the
economy to provide jobs and to make
citizens financially secure. Although the
working class is more liberal on
economic issues (policies that increase
government spending), it is more
conservative on social issues (such as
opposing abortion and the Equal Rights
Amendment) (Houtman 1995; Hout
2008).
People toward the bottom of the class
structure are also less likely to be
politically active—to campaign for
candidates or even to vote (Gilbert 2003;
Beeghley 2008).

Crime and Criminal Justice.

If justice is supposed to be blind, it
certainly is not when it comes to one’s
chances of being arrested . The white-
collar crimes of the more privileged
classes are more likely to be dealt with
outside the criminal justice system,
while the police and courts deal with the
street crimes of the lower classes. One
conse- quence of this class standard is
that members of the lower classes are
more likely to be in prison, on probation,
or on parole. In addition, since those
who commit street crimes tend to do so
in or near their own neighborhoods, the
lower classes are more likely to be
robbed, burglarized, or murdered.
##Life chances
Defination.

Life chances – the level of opportunity

an individual has to acquire material,
social and cultural rewards such as
possessions, status and education.

-According to Weber three different

aspects of life determine life chances:
class (economic relationships); status
(social standing) & party (power through
trade unions, pressure groups and other
organisations). Although he claimed that
all three were important, he recognised
that they were linked to one another

-More recent, simpler definitions have

come from other Sociologists such as C
Wright Mills (1959) who saw life chances
as all aspects of health, completion of
higher education and the avoidance of
being labelled as a criminal. Unlike
Weber, Mills saw life chances as the
result solely of a person’s position in the
social class structure.

-Dahrendorf (1979) introduced the

concepts of relative chances because a
person’s life chances are compared with
others in their society. He said that they
were a person’s relative chances of
obtaining those things desired within
society (such as financial security) and
avoiding those considered undesirable
(dying young).

-The life chances approach suggests

that status is not entirely achieved, but
is, to some extent, ascribed. This means
that people are, effectively, given their
status as a result of the group into
which they are born, rather than earning
it entirely on merit. The life chances
approach does not treat this as the only
factor determining adult status, but as
an important contributory influence.

-An individual’s position in the

stratification system will have important
implications for many other areas of
their lives. It will affect their access to
those things defined by society as
desirable, and their ability to avoid those
things defined as undesirable.

- According to Gerth and Mills (1953),

this includes the opportunity to avoid
infant mortality, to stay healthy, to
receive a good, long term education and
to avoid becoming a criminal.

- A person’s life chances are also

influenced by other aspects of
stratification such as gender and
ethnicity. However, the relationship is
complex because it is not always the
case that one gender or ethnic group
benefits in comparison to others.

-Those such as Peter Saunders (1990),

from the New Right, who support the
Capitalist system, point to the fact that
the absolute life chances of everybody
have improved, no matter where they
come in the stratification system.
However, their critics point to the fact
that the relative difference in life
chances of those at different levels in
the system, has increased.
-Evidence comes from government
statistics. The middle class enjoy higher
standards of health, longer education,
live longer, are more likely to own their
own homes and to own a variety of
consumer goods. They are likely to have
higher pensions and better working
conditions. The evidence that material
inequalities in life chances are not new
comes from Westergaard and Resler
(1976) who found that between 1913 and
1960, the difference in income between
manual and non manual males
increased by 9%. Routh’s (1980) figures
show that the gap had narrowed
somewhat by 1978, but nevertheless
unskilled manual workers earned 65% of
the average wage compared with higher
professionals’ 159%.

--Recent government statistics back this

up showing that the higher your class,
the more likely it is that:
• You will inherit significant amounts of
money from your family who will also
know the right people
• Achieve higher level qualifications •
Have higher status work and avoid
unemployment. Avoid poverty.
• Have greater wealth and higher
income. Live in better quality housing.
• Live longer. Be ill less. Avoid a child
dying
• Avoid a criminal record .
-The middle classes transmit their
advantages to their children, not only
through greater economic capital, but
also through greater cultural capital.
Bourdieu (1977) introduced the term
cultural capital to refer to the extra
cultural resources possessed by the
middle classes. This includes higher
education, having similar cultural
experiences to those who run society,
and sharing their culture. Not only do
the middle class have an initial
advantage with regards to income, they
also expect their income to continue to
increase through most of their working
lives, whereas manual workers may
have to face pay cuts as they get older
and less fit.
-Middle class jobs usually involve
greater security than working class jobs
with longer periods of notice and better
redundancy arrangements. They are
also more likely to involve company
cars, paid sick leave, health insurance
and other ‘fringe benefits’.

The inferior market position of the

working class is reflected in their lower
life chances. They are less likely to
attain the desirable things such as good
health, long life and higher education;
and are more likely to suffer the
undesirable such as criminal
convictions and having to rent council
run property.
The same sort of inequalities in life
chances can be found with regard to
ethnicity. However, it is not a simple
equation that ethnic minority status
equals fewer life chances.

-According to the Labour Force Survey

(2002/3), in some aspects of life, such as
employment at the highest levels in
business, minority ethnicity does equal
fewer opportunities e.g the Tonga
people. However, it is generally not
possible to generalise because in most
areas of life there are great differences
between the opportunities of different
ethnic groups. White, Indian and
Chinese people are least likely to be
unemployed and most likely to be found
in professional occupations.
 Black people have highest levels of
unemployment and are least likely to be
found in professional occupations.

#Think in terms of ethnicity in

Zimbabwe. E.g
Blacks/English/Whites/Indians
/Shona/Ndebele .

-Between the ages of 18 and 60 there is

a higher proportion of men than women
employed in every age group.

However, while the male working-age

inactivity rate rose to 17% in 2005, the
female rate fell to 27%, narrowing the
gap in life chances.
In 2005, 23% of male employees usually
worked over 48 hours a week, with 11%
of females usually working these longer
hours. Longer working hours often
means a higher income, relating to the
superior income of males compared with
females, but worse health, relating to the
fact that men die at a younger age than
women.

The gap between women’s median

hourly pay and men’s was 13.0% in
2005. The median hourly rate for men
went up 3.1% to $11.31, while the rate for
women increased by 4.9% to $9.84. This
demonstrates that although the gender
gap in pay has narrowed, it is still
substantial, reflecting and reinforcing
the difference in life chances of males
and females. Thus gender affects one's
life chance.

-The Health Evidence

Lower working class infants are twice as

likely to die during pregnancy or the first
year of life as professional class infants.
This is true throughout the stratification
system with morbidity and mortality life
chances directly related to social class
position.

Death rates are falling throughout the

stratification system, but professionals’
death rates fell by 34% more than
unskilled workers’ death rates, between
1972 and 1997, widening the social class
health gap.

While most causes of death have

declined, some morbidity such as
asthma and diabetes have increased
during this period and this growth is
particularly true for the working class.

-In terms of gender and long term

sickness or disability, women’s rates
were higher than men’s for Indians,
Pakistanis, Black Caribbeans and Black
Africans. On the other hand, men’s rates
of long term sickness or disability were
higher than women’s in White British
and Irish groups. However, in terms of
general good health, rates were
generally slightly higher for men than for
women in all age groups. Health
inequalities are compounded by the
likelihood of smoking which is highest
in men

-Health and life chances

- Structuralist explanations suggest that

choices are constrained by an
individual’s position in the stratification
system. Fresh fruit and vegetables are
expensive, particularly in smaller shops.
If an individual travels on public
transport to avoid this expense, fruit and
vegetables are heavy and not many can
be carried back on the bus. Leisure
facilities are often located in white,
middle class areas or near non manual
work places. Gym membership is
expensive and subsidies are rarely
available for lower grade staff, those
from ethnic minorities or women.
Therefore the white, middle classes have
far greater lifestyle choices available
than the less advantaged groups.

-The life chances view of the

stratification system is based on a
structuralist, Marxist approach and sees
inequalities in education, health, wealth
etc as a result of material deprivation.
This can be contrasted with the New
Right position of theorists such as
Saunders (1990) and Warde (1997) who
see the disadvantaged situation of some
sections of society as a result of life
choices.

-Another important area for life chances

is housing. Poorer housing will affect
health, available facilities, the likelihood
of being a victim of crime, and many
other aspects of life. While life chances
improved for everyone in many ways in
the latter half of the 20th century, in
terms of housing they have deteriorated
for those at the bottom of the
stratification system, primarily as a
result of government policies in the
1980s.

-Education and life chances

Gillborn & Youdell (2000) point to

increasing inequality at secondary
school level, resulting from schools
concentrating on those children most
likely to improve their league table
position. They tend to be white, middle
class girls.

Similarly, Gewirtz et al (1995) found that

the supposed increase in choice in
secondary education has led to those
parents with the greatest experience of
the British education system being in a
position to choose and be selected for
the ‘best’, most popular schools.
Despite the huge expansion in higher
education over the past 40 years, some
social groups have benefited to a
greater extent than others. In 1998, 45%
of people from higher social classes and
20% of people from lower social classes
took up courses leading to higher
educational qualifications. Connor et al
(2001) found that this was influenced by
the life chances of different social
classes because of the differential
knowledge of parents and because
working class parents are less likely to
be able to provide their children with
financial support into their twenties.

Girls are far more likely than boys to

achieve 5+ higher grades at GCSE and
the gap continues to widen In 1992/3,
9.2% more girls than boys achieved this
benchmark, whereas in 2001/2 this gap
had increased to 10.8%. (DES, 2003) A
similar pattern can be seen at A’ level
with the likelihood of achieving two or
more A’ levels having increased for girls
from 20% in 1992/3 to 43% in 2001/2,
whilst the equivalent figures for boys
were 18% and 34%. For example in
Britain, Some ethnic minority groups
such as the Chinese and Indians achieve
better results at GCSE than White British
students, whereas others such as Black
Caribbean and African boys are far less
successful with less than 30% achieving
5 good GCSEs compared with over 60%
of Indian boys and nearly 50% of White
British boys. Girls achieve better results
in all groups. Their ethnicity had the
same affect as it did for boys, with
Indians achieving best results and
Caribbean and African girls doing least
well. At higher education level, the
Chinese were most likely to have a
degree (31%) followed by the Indians
and White Irish.

#its also good to think in terms of

Zimbabwe.

-Finally, an individual’s chances of

becoming a criminal are seriously
influenced by position in the
stratification system. Males of all ages
are, on average, seven times more likely
to be found guilty of an indictable crime
than females although the gap is smaller
among young teenagers. Black African
men are more likely than other groups to
be found guilty of indictable crimes. In
addition, the working class are the most
likely social class to be found guilty of
indictable crimes according to the .
Criminal convictions and life chances .

The chances of being convicted of a

crime have been shown by Beinart et al
(2002) to be closely linked with various
other life chance factors including
• Low income
• Poor housing
• Low achievement at school
• Living in areas with a concentration of
problem families .
Racial harassment.

# Thus main factors affecting Life

chances are
-Social Class
-Gender
-Ethnicity
-Religion
-Geography Age
-health
-Education
***SOCIAL MOBILITY

Social mobility, movement of

individuals, families, or groups through
a system of social hierarchy or
stratification.

Mobility stands for shift, change and

movement. The change may be of a
place or from one position to another.
Further, change is value free i.e it cannot
be said that change is for good or bad.
When we prefix ‘social’ along with
mobility it would imply that people or
individual occupying a social position,
move to another position or status.

On mobility Sorokin was the first

sociologist who wrote a book “Social
and Cultural Mobility”. He was of the
opinion that there is no society which is
closed (Caste System in India) and no
society which is completely open (Class
System). He further contended that no
two societies are exactly same in the
amount of movement allowed or
discouraged. Further the speed of
movement or change may differ from
one period of time to another.
The rate of change depends upon the
level of modernization of a given
society.

As defined by Barber, social mobility

refers to movement, either upward or
downward between higher or lower
social classes; or more precisely,
movement between one relatively full
time, functionally significant social role
and another that is evaluated as either
higher or lower.

This movement is to be conceived as a

process occurring over time, with
individuals moving from one role and
social class position to another because
of what has happened to them in various
kinds of social interaction.
Mobility arises in social interaction, as
each individual reacts to others in a
changing series of social roles.
In this sense, mobility “provides the
individual with more or less of the
benefits which his economy and society
have to offer.” A rickshaw puller’s son
becomes a lawyer; a clerk’s son
becomes a doctor. In each case, a
change in role between father and son
provides the latter with more of the good
things of life.
The roles of lawyer, doctor and engineer
require initiative, training and self-
sacrifice.

Persons are motivated according to a

complex variety of factors to work
toward new roles, with their higher
status and greater rewards. The good
things of life are scarce and individuals
must compete, conflict and cooperate
with others to gain them.

We tend to assume that social mobility

is positive rather than a negative value
and that an open society is preferable to
a closed one. It is, however, not the
case. A closed society, in which there is
little social mobility, shelters the
individual from the frustrations of
unsuccessful competition. It does not
encourage expectations that cannot be
fulfilled. Furthermore, it protects a
person from the strain of adjusting to
unfamiliar surroundings.
The mobile individual must constantly
adapt to socially unfamiliar situations a
new class, new norms, new values. A
member of a closed society spends his
life in an environment that is familiar to
him. In other words, an open society,
with its high degree of mobility, does not
guarantee happiness.
On the other hand, a closed society, in
which there is little social mobility, is not
very likely to become a world leader.
Heredity does not guarantee that the son
of a capable and wise father will be
equally capable and wise. A society that
does not give talented people from the
lower strata an opportunity to advance
into positions of leadership will not fare
well for long .
 Mobility may be considered in different
senses, such as:
(a) A change in occupation that involves
a consequent change in status.
(b) A promotion within the same
occupational group.
(c) The accumulation of seniority within
a given occupation.
(d) A change in occupation from one
generation to another, as from father to
son.

##Factors Responsible for Social

Mobility:

The following factors facilitate Social

Mobility:
1. Motivation:
Each individual has a desire not only to
have a better way of living but also
wants to improve upon his social stand.
In open system it is possible to achieve
any status. This openness motivates
people to work hard and improve upon
the skills so that one can attain higher
social status. Without such motivation
and efforts on the part of the individual
social mobility is impossible.

2. Achievements and Failures:

Achievement here refers to extra

ordinary, usually unexpected
performance, which attracts the
attention of a wider public to the abilities
of a person. Not all achievements will
result in social mobility. Achievements
affect status only if they are remarkable.
For example, a poor man who has
acquired wealth or an unknown writer
who has won a literary prize will improve
his status.
Failures and misdeeds have a similar
effect on downward mobility. Fraudulent
bankruptcy will remove a member of the
upper classes from blue books; he will
receive no dinner invitations from his
peers and he will become ineligible as a
marriage partner. If he is already
married, his wife may divorce him. He
will have to resign from his clubs and all
positions he holds. But he will not
become a member of the lowest stratum,
although it will be difficult for him to find
new association.

3. Education:

Education not only helps an individual to

acquire knowledge but is also a
passport to better better positions.
It is only after acquiring minimum formal
education that individual can aspire to
occupy higher positions. In the modern
industrial society in which statuses can
be achieved, education is basic
requirement.

4. Skills and Training:

-acquire skill and training one has to

spend a lot of time as well as money.
Why these persons spend money and
time? The reason being that society
gives incentives to such persons. When
they complete their training, they are
entitled to high positions, which are far
better than those positions which they
might have taken without such training.
Society not only assigns higher social
status but also gives higher economic
rewards and other privileges to those
persons who have these training.
Keeping in view these incentives people
undergo these training with a hope to
move up in the social ladder. In other
words, skills and training facilitate in
improvement of the position, this
leading to social mobility.
5. Migration:

Migration also facilitates social mobility.

People migrate from one place to
another either due to pull or push
factors. A particular place may not have
opportunities and facilities to improve
upon. Hence, people are forced to
migrate to other places to earn their
livelihood. At new places, where they
migrate, may have different openings
and opportunities.
These persons avail of these
opportunities and improve upon their
social position. We can take the example
of people who go to UK to earn their
livelihood.
After acquiring an accumulating money
they come back to Zimbabwe and buy
land; property etc. They till their own
land and become owner cultivators.
Hence, from traditional work of Chamars
or scavengers, they improve their status
and become owner cultivators. Similar is
the situation with regard to Asians who
migrate to various European countries
and the United State of America.
The pull factors attract the people
because they do not have those facilities
at their place of residence and the new
place attracts them by providing these
facilities, so that after acquiring new
skills and knowledge they could occupy
better positions.
People migrate from villages to cities
because urban centres have institutions
of higher status as well as opportunities
for jobs. People come to urban areas to
acquire education and skills and occupy
higher positions than their parents and
brothers who continue to live in villages.
In this way we find that both push and
pull factors lead to migration which
subsequently facilitates social mobility.

6. Industrialization:

Industrial Revolution ushered in a new

social system in which people are given
status according to their ability and
training. No importance was given to
their caste, race, religion and ethnicity.
Industrialization, resulted in mass
production at cheaper rate. This forced
the artisans out of their work. In search
of jobs they migrated to industrial
towns.
They acquired new vocational training
and got jobs in industries. With
experience and training they moved up
in the social ladder. In the industrial
society, the statuses are achieved,
whereas in the traditional society like
India, the statuses are ascribed
according to birth. Hence
industrialization facilitates greater social
mobility.

7. Urbanization:

In the cities there are more people, they

have formal relations. People do not
know each other intimately. Urban
centres are marked by anonymity.
People are close to their friends and
relatives only. Urban settlements
provide secrecy to individual’s caste
and background. Individual’s position is
largely dependent upon his education,
occupation and income rather than his
background.
If an individual has higher education,
income and is engaged in occupation of
higher prestige, he occupies high social
status irrespective of his caste.
Urbanization facilitates social mobility
by removing those factors which hinder
social mobility.

8. Legislation:

The enactment of new laws can also

facilitate socialobility . Similarly, the
legal provision for reservation of jobs
and promotion for the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes has also helped in
social mobility in India .
Reservation with regard to admission in
professional colleges, job reservation
and promotions have a large number of
individuals from Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes to improve upon their
status. .
Similarly, the judicial system by passing
certain judgments may also facilitate
social mobility. Marriage Act in different
ways has enhanced the status of
women. Inheritance Act has given equal
rights to the daughter in the family
property. Anti-Discrimination Act of
America has facilitated social mobility of
persons of Black race as well as women.
In this way we find that legal provisions
also facilitate social mobility.

#Think of other laws that have promoted

social mobility in Zimbabwe.

9. Politicisation:

With education and greater exposure to

mass media of communication as well
as greater contacts have made people
aware about their rights. The political
parties also educate the people about
their rights. To achieve their rights
people unite and force the authority in
power to accept their demands. These
persons may use agitations, strikes etc.
as methods of attaining the desired
goals.
The political party to get votes provides
a number of concessions. With the help
of these new concessions and
provisions, they improve upon their
social status. A few persons may
become political leaders, Ministers,
Cabinet Ministers or Chief Minister of a
State.
Many such examples can be found in the
present day Indian polity. This has
resulted into upward social mobility for
them. Similarly, with greater political
awareness with representatives in State
assembly and Parliament they can (once
the government to enact certain laws
helping the lower segments of the
society.

10. Modernization:
The process of modernization involves
use of scientific knowledge and modern
technology. It also refers to rationality
and secular way of life. With the
improvement in technology, people
engaged in occupations of low prestige
like scavengers discard their traditional
occupations and take up occupations
which are not dirty and have no polluting
effects.
In this way, they change their position
upward. Similarly, the level of
development of a country also facilitates
or hinders social mobility. The less
developed and traditional societies
continue with old system of stratification
and with accretive statuses.
Whereas the developed and modern
societies paved the way for greater
opportunities and competition, it is only
in the developed countries that there is a
greater possibility of achieved statuses.
In other words, modernization facilitates
social mobility.
Aspirations for moving upward also
results in frustration and different
mental and psychological problems. An
individual is given to understand that he
can achieve any status. But in reality
this does not happens, his social
background, birth in a race, ethnicity,
facilitate or hinder his chances of social
mobility. Similarly, the nations which do
not have avenues for social mobility
also suffer from stagnation and lack of
development. In short, social mobility
has both positive and negative
consequences.
##Types of Social Mobility:

Change of social position of an

individual or group of individuals takes
different forms and shapes. At one
period of time there would be one type
of mobility and another period of time it
can be another type. Each of the
following types are not exclusive but
they may overlap, it is only for the
purpose of convenience and analysis
they are given different labels.

1. Horizontal Mobility:

Under this type of social mobility, a

person changes his or her occupation
but the overall social standing remains
the same. Certain occupations like
Doctor, Engineer, and Professor may
enjoy the same status but when an
engineer changes his occupation from
engineer to teaching engineering, he has
horizontally moved from one
occupational category to another. But
no change has taken place in the system
of social stratification.
In other words, horizontal mobility is the
transition of an individual or social
object from one social group to another
situated on the same level. While
explaining horizontal mobility we are
mainly referring to movement of
individuals from one position to another
of more or less equal prestige. Sorokin
explains the concept of horizontal
mobility still more broadly.
According to Sorokin, “Horizontal
mobility refers to territorial, religious,
political party, family, occupational and
other horizontal shifting without any
noticeable change in vertical position.”
An increase of territorial circulation of
individuals within Western societies
since the second half of the nineteenth
century indicate horizontal mobility.
The individuals are no more attached to
their place of birth. The individuals move
from one place to another in search of
jobs which may be of same prestige. The
modern means of transportation have
brought in more territorial movement of
individuals.
The other expression of territorial
mobility, according to Sorokin, is greater
circulation of social things and values
which refer to newspaper news,
automobile implements, birth control or
money, if social thing is used by more
and more people of the same class,
regardless of the country or territorial
boundaries, then this is an example of
horizontal expression.
In addition to this, the shifting of
individuals from one job or factory or
occupation’ to another of the same kind
refers to horizontal circulation
especially, if they do not represent any
noticeable change in vertical direction.
These kinds of intra-occupational
circulation or labour turnover, therefore,
refer to not only vertical but horizontal
intra-occupational mobility.
Sorokin further indicates that since
territorial, family, intra-occupational
mobility of present Western society is
intensive it is expected to be
accompanied by a considerably
horizontal circulation of the individuals
from State to State, from one religious
group to another, from one political
party to another and generally from one
ideological group to another.

2. Vertical Mobility:

Vertical mobility refers to any change in

the occupational, economic or political
status of an individual or a group which
leads to change of their position. In the
words of Sorokin, by vertical social
mobility is meant the relations involved
in transition of an individual (or a social
object) from one social stratum to
another.
According to the direction of transition,
there are two types of vertical social
mobility – ascending and descending or
social climbing and social sinking. The
ascending currents exist in the two
principal forms – as an infiltration of the
individuals of a lower stratum into an
existing higher one, and as a creation of
such a group into a higher stratum
instead of, or side by side, with the
existing group of this stratum.
In simple words, vertical mobility stands
for change of social position either
upward or downward, which can be
labelled as ascending or descending
type of mobility. When a big
businessman meets with losses in his
business and is declared bankrupt, he
occupies a low status. On the other
hand, if a small businessman with
occupational skills of money and
manipulation becomes an industrialist
he occupies a higher position in the
social ladder. Hence his position
improves in the hierarchical order.
Vertical mobility is intensive in relatively
open societies. Sorokin has indicated
the following general principles of
vertical mobility:
(i) There has scarcely been any society
whose strata were absolutely closed or
in which vertical mobility in its three
forms – economic, political and
occupational was not present.
(ii) There has never been existed a
society in which vertical social mobility
has been absolutely free and the
transition from one social stratum to
another has had no resistance.
(iii) The intensiveness as well as the
generality of vertical social mobility,
varies from society to society
(iv) The intensiveness and generality of
the vertical mobility – the economic, the
political and the occupational- fluctuate
in the same society at different lines.

3. Upward Mobility:

When a person or a group of persons

move from lower position to upper
position it is called Upward Mobility e.g.
a person belonging to a lower caste and
occupying a lower position after winning
elections becomes a Minister and
occupies a higher position. He may not
be able to change his caste but with his
economic and political power he may
move upward. For example, Yadavs in
India stand as a testimony to this fact.
For the individuals involved, there are
many social and psychic costs of
upward mobility. Some of the costs are
obvious, as men and women break
under the strain of a consistent drive for
‘success’. In the course of his upward
movement, the mobile man must leave
behind many people and places. He
must leave the ways of thinking and
behaving that characterized many of his
earlier associations and he must learn, if
he can, new ways of thinking and
behaving appropriate to his new status.
4. Downward Mobility:

Downward mobility indicates that one

loses his higher position and occupies a
lower position. We can take the example
of an individual, who is an Engineer and
occupies a respectable position in the
society because of his occupational
position, education and may be caste.
If he is caught for accepting bribe or has
committed a sin or has done something
wrong, he may be sentenced to jail or
members of his caste may outcaste him
and as a criminal or as an outcaste he
may occupy a lower position vis-a-vis
position he was occupying earlier.
Under the traditional Indian system if a
lady of higher Brahmin caste married a
man of Sudra caste, not only the man
and woman were out casted but their
children were declared as ‘chandals.’
Downward Mobility is more stressful for
persons who suffer a drastic decline in
station position. Men who enjoy orderly -
and consistent career tend to make a
stable personal, family and community
adjustment. Men who are unable to do
so are more vulnerable to the most
extreme form of personal
disorganization – namely suicide.
The Downward Mobility is an indicator of
the extent to which a society
institutionalizes the value of equal
opportunity through the creation of
structure which supports and facilitates
it. Lipset and Zetterberg are of the
opinion that this type of mobility is due
to interchange of ranks i.e. mobility
arising from implementation of equality
of opportunity.

5. Inter-Generational Mobility:
This type of mobility means that one
generation changes its social status in
contrast to preceding generation.
However, this mobility may be upward or
downward e.g. people of lower caste or
class may provide facilities to their
children to get higher education, training
and skills.
With the help of these skills the younger
generation may get employment in
higher position. If the father is a
shoemaker but his son after acquiring
education becomes a clerk or a doctor
or an engineer, this would be called
upward inter- generational mobility.
Similarly, a family of Brahmins may be
engaged on traditional occupation of
teaching and performing rituals but its
younger generation is neither intelligent
nor follows the family occupation. They
become daily wagers then the younger
generation has downward inter-
generational mobility.
With the improvement in economic
position, people start changing their
style of living by discarding the old
practices and adopting the practices of
those who are high in social ladder.
After two or three generations their new
position may be recognized. This
process of social mobility, according to
Srinivas is a process of Sanskritizon.

Conditions for Inter-generational

Mobility:

According to Sorokin, the following

conditions affect rates of mobility
between generations:
(a) Differences between Parents and
Offspring’s:
If a parent occupies an important
position requiring high capacity, his
children who are less capable are likely
to be downward mobile. Conversely,
children who are more capable than
their parents are likely to be upwardly
mobile, especially open-class societies.
(b) Population Change:

In developed and developing countries,

greater population expansion at the
lower than at the higher levels
contribute to upward mobility. Overall
population growth creates new positions
in the upper and middle levels, where
growth is not great enough to fill the
vacancies.
(c) Changes in Occupational Structure:
With the changing times many
occupations have been upgraded and
downgraded because their socially
defined importance has changed. Some
occupations have moved up or down
because of changes in the scarcity of
workers willing and able to perform their
tasks. Such changes in occupational
structure has also effected the rates of
mobility between generations.

6. Intra-Generational Mobility:
This type of mobility takes place in life
span of one generation. This can be
further divided into two:
(a) Change in the position of one
individual in his life span
(b) Change in the position of one brother
but no change in the position of another
brother.
A person may start his career as a clerk.
He acquires more education and skills.
Over a period of time, he becomes an
IAS officer or a Professor. In this way he
moves up and occupies a higher social
position than the one with which he had
started his career.
His brother may have also started his
career as a clerk but did not occupy
higher position in his life span and
continued to remain at the same
position. Hence, within the same
generation we find that one brother
changes his position and other brother
does not.

7. Occupational Mobility:

Occupational mobility means change

from one occupation to another.
Different occupations’ are hierarchically
arranged because the incumbent of
these occupations gets different
economic rewards and enjoys different
power, prestige and privileges based on
the economic returns, authority and
prestige.
These occupations are stratified or
hierarchically arranged. When a person
or a group of persons move from
occupations of lower prestige to
occupations of higher prestige, this is
called Upward Vertical Mobility. Similarly
if an individual or a group of individuals
from occupations of higher prestige take
up occupations of lower prestige, then
this occupational mobility is called
Downward Vertical Mobility.
From a clerk to an officer is upward
vertical occupational mobility; from a
clerk to a peon or a smuggler is
downward vertical occupational
mobility. We must keep in mind that
society grants recognition, prestige and
power not only based on economic
returns from a occupation or profession
but according to the skills of the
individual which are valued most in the
society. A smuggler may be earning
more than a clerk but his means of
livelihood are not recognized in the
society.
Hence, he is placed lower in the social
ladder. Now-a-days politicians with their
political power occupy higher position
irrespective of the means adopted.
Hence, people aspire to occupy
positions. Occupational mobility, in
short, stands for change of occupation
of lower prestige to higher and vice-
versa.
-The above noted forms of mobility are
not comprehensive and do not include
other types of mobility
like accretive status achieved and vice-
versa or spatial mobility or mobility
under caste system.

However, the above forms explain the

major trends of mobility i.e. upward or
downward, vertical and horizontal.
Mobility has to be seen in temporal
sense i.e. over a period of time. We
cannot think of mobility in the absence
of time and space.
There are many factors which facilitate
social mobility. These factors may be
attributed to individual motivation and
efforts to improve or the institutions
may work out new mechanism or the
society at large may bring about drastic
changes in the system of evaluation. Let
us take these factors individually to find
out how they help in social mobility.