SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Defining Social Stratification

Social stratification is the way society organizes people into hierarchical layers based on
various factors like wealth, education, occupation, and social status. Imagine a pyramid with
different levels—each representing a distinct group in society. At the top, we have the wealthiest
and most powerful people; at the bottom, we find those who are marginalized and face more
challenges in accessing resources or opportunities. Stratification isn't just about economic wealth
—it's also about who holds power, who has privilege, and who faces discrimination. These
divisions lead to inequalities in the distribution of life chances, such as access to education,
healthcare, and career opportunities.

In any society, social stratification is a constant feature, though the way it is structured can differ.
For instance, some societies place a heavy emphasis on social class, while others might focus on
race, ethnicity, or gender as the key factors in determining one's place within the hierarchy. The
defining element of stratification is that it is not a random or isolated phenomenon; it is systemic
and influences the way people live and interact. It also has a generational aspect: people born
into lower social strata often face challenges in climbing the social ladder, while those born into
higher strata have easier access to resources that help them maintain their status.

Social stratification often goes unnoticed because it becomes embedded in the culture and
ideology of a society. Many societies justify these divisions by promoting beliefs that certain
people are more deserving of their higher status due to their hard work, intelligence, or virtues.
But these beliefs can mask the realities of inequality and make it harder to address the structures
that perpetuate social divisions.

Characteristics of Social Stratification

Social stratification is a fundamental aspect of all societies, and understanding its characteristics
is essential to grasping how it shapes people’s lives. Stratification systems are not random or
haphazard; they possess distinct features that define their operation and impact. Let’s explore the
key characteristics of social stratification:
1. It is a Social System
Social stratification is not merely about individual wealth or status; it is a social system that
structures the way people interact and how they are categorized into different layers or strata.
The system is deeply embedded within the social fabric, affecting everything from how
individuals are treated by others to how opportunities are distributed in society. Stratification is
not something that one person can escape or change on their own—it's built into the societal
framework.

This means that social stratification influences social institutions like education, law, and
government. These institutions often mirror and reinforce the stratification system, creating
structures that privilege certain groups while disadvantaging others. For example, schools in
wealthier neighborhoods often have better resources, teachers, and opportunities compared to
schools in poorer areas, perpetuating the cycle of stratification.

2. It Involves Hierarchy and Inequality

At the heart of social stratification is inequality, with people ranked in a hierarchical system. This
ranking determines access to resources, privileges, and opportunities. People at the top of the
hierarchy—such as the wealthy, politically powerful, or those with prestigious social statuses—
have greater access to resources, like education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Those
lower down in the hierarchy, often the poor or marginalized, have less access to these resources.

The inequality in social stratification can take many forms, including economic disparity,
unequal access to education, healthcare, and political power, as well as social and cultural
capital. These inequalities are not just the result of personal differences or choices, but are
structured into the very systems of society.

Moreover, this hierarchical ranking is often deeply entrenched, making it difficult for individuals
to move up or down in the social ladder. Even when upward mobility is possible, it can be slow,
and some barriers—such as race, gender, and class—can make it more challenging for certain
groups to move beyond their designated social strata.

3. It is a Trait of Society, Not Individuals

Another critical characteristic of social stratification is that it is a societal phenomenon, not
simply an individual trait. Social stratification exists because societies organize themselves in
ways that assign people to various positions or ranks based on factors such as income, education,
and occupation.

These positions are influenced by societal values, norms, and historical practices, which shape
how people are classified and treated. For instance, in a society where education is highly valued,
people with higher educational credentials are typically placed in higher social positions. In
societies where race or ethnicity plays a significant role in stratification, individuals may be
classified based on their racial or ethnic identity, regardless of their personal achievements.

Because stratification is a feature of society, it persists even when individuals change or move
across different locations. Someone may move to a new city or country, but their social status
will still be shaped by the stratification system of the society they enter. This makes social
stratification a systemic feature that transcends individual circumstances.

4. It Is Passed from One Generation to the Next

Social stratification has a generational dimension, meaning that it tends to persist over time and
is often passed down from one generation to the next. The social position a person is born into—
whether they are born into wealth, power, or poverty—often shapes their opportunities in life.
Children born into higher-income families typically have access to better education, healthcare,
and networks, which help them maintain or increase their social position. Conversely, children
born into poverty may face barriers that limit their ability to access these same resources, making
it harder for them to escape lower social strata.

This generational transmission of social position is often referred to as the cycle of poverty or
intergenerational mobility. People from disadvantaged backgrounds may struggle to achieve
upward mobility because the resources that are available to them—such as quality education or
social connections—are limited. As a result, their children may face the same challenges and
have limited access to opportunities, perpetuating the cycle.

5. It Is Universal, but Variable

While social stratification exists in all societies, the specific systems of stratification can vary
widely between cultures and countries. For example, in capitalist societies, class-based
stratification based on wealth and occupation is prominent, while in other societies, such as in
India, the caste system historically structured society. Some societies might emphasize race or
ethnicity in determining social standing, while others might prioritize factors like age, education,
or gender.

The structure of stratification also changes over time. For example, feudal societies in medieval
Europe were primarily based on land ownership and noble birth, while modern capitalist
societies tend to focus more on wealth and access to education. The ways in which stratification
operates are influenced by historical, political, and economic contexts, and can evolve as
societies change.

Despite these variations, social stratification remains a universal feature because all societies
have some form of hierarchy that organizes people and allocates resources unequally. However,
the form, intensity, and impact of stratification can look very different depending on the society
in question.

6. It is Supported by Ideology
Social stratification is often maintained through ideology—the set of beliefs, values, and cultural
norms that justify and rationalize the inequalities in society. In many cases, stratification systems
are legitimized through ideologies that claim the status quo is natural, necessary, or even
beneficial. For example, in capitalist societies, the idea of meritocracy—that people get ahead
based on their hard work and abilities—serves to justify the inequalities inherent in the system.

These ideologies often make it difficult for individuals to recognize or challenge the inequalities
around them. When people believe that social inequality is justified, they are less likely to
question the system or seek to change it. This can make it harder to address issues like poverty,
racial discrimination, or gender inequality, as the underlying belief systems mask the structural
nature of these problems.

Perspectives on Social Stratification

To understand social stratification more deeply, sociologists have developed different
perspectives. These perspectives help us explore the reasons behind the inequalities in society
and how they affect people. Let’s take a closer look at four main sociological perspectives on
social stratification: the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, the symbolic
interactionist perspective, and the feminist perspective.
Functionalist Perspective
Imagine a big orchestra in a city. Each musician has a specific role: some play the violin, others
play the trumpet, and a few even conduct the whole group. The orchestra functions well because
each person plays their part, and each part is valued differently based on its role in the
performance. The conductor has more authority and is paid more, while the musicians in the
back rows might earn less.

The functionalist perspective sees society like this orchestra. It argues that social stratification
serves an important purpose. Each “role” in society, from doctors to street cleaners, contributes
to the social system. Higher rewards, like pay or status, are given to jobs that require more skill,
responsibility, or education. According to this view, these rewards motivate people to work hard,
study, and strive for these important roles. Social stratification, then, keeps society balanced and
functioning smoothly, just like the orchestra.

Émile Durkheim, one of the leading theorists in this tradition, suggested that social stratification
ensures that essential roles are filled. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, who further developed
this idea, argued that stratification motivates individuals to work hard and invest in their
education because the rewards—such as higher salaries and better living conditions—are linked
to the effort and abilities required for these roles.

However, critics of the functionalist perspective argue that it fails to account for the disparities in
opportunity and overlooks the ways in which privilege, inherited wealth, and social connections
can also play a role in determining one’s position in society, regardless of merit.

Conflict Perspective
The conflict perspective offers a starkly different view of social stratification. Rooted in the ideas
of Karl Marx, this perspective argues that social stratification is the result of a power struggle
between different groups in society. Instead of seeing inequality as a natural or necessary feature,
conflict theorists view it as a way for those in power to maintain control over resources and keep
others subjugated.

Imagine you’re in a village where everyone has different jobs. Some people are farmers, others
are builders, and a few own the land, businesses, and control the resources that everyone else
depends on. At first glance, it might look like everyone has their own unique role, but if we look
closer, we can see that not everyone is treated equally. Some villagers have more power and
wealth than others, and this creates a division among them.

This is where the conflict perspective on social stratification comes in. According to this
viewpoint, society is made up of different groups with unequal power and resources, and this
inequality leads to ongoing conflicts between these groups. The wealthier or more powerful
groups try to hold on to their status and control over resources, while those with less power
struggle for a fairer share.

For example, in this village, the landowners may have a big influence over the community’s
decisions, like setting the prices of food or deciding who gets to work where. Meanwhile, the
farmers and builders, who depend on these landowners for their livelihood, don’t have as much
of a say. They may feel it’s unfair that they do most of the physical work but earn less than the
landowners. As a result, these less powerful villagers may start to push for changes, wanting
better wages or a fairer distribution of resources.

In real life, we see this kind of conflict in various ways. For instance, in companies, there can be
conflicts between workers who feel they are underpaid and executives who earn much higher
salaries. Or, in the wider economy, we see people debating about wealth distribution, where
those with less wealth may argue that the rich should contribute more to society. The conflict
perspective highlights that these tensions and conflicts are not just random; they’re rooted in the
unequal structure of society.

Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

While functionalists and conflict theorists focus on the macro-level structures of society,
symbolic interactionists focus on the micro-level interactions between individuals. They explore
how people’s social status is defined and reinforced through everyday interactions, language, and
symbols.

According to this perspective, social stratification is not something that is imposed from above
but something that is continuously constructed and reinforced in our daily lives. For example, the
way people dress, speak, or behave in public can signal their social status to others. These
everyday signals reinforce the existing hierarchy by indicating who belongs to which social
group.
Now imagine a small neighborhood where everyone knows each other. In this neighborhood,
people see one another in specific ways. Let’s say that Sam works as a lawyer, while Mia is a
shop clerk. Neighbors may treat Sam with more respect or ask for his advice, while Mia might be
seen as approachable but perhaps less influential. Sam and Mia, in turn, start to see themselves
through these interactions. Sam might feel more confident or even superior, while Mia might feel
her role is less prestigious.

Symbolic interactionism focuses on these daily interactions and how people interpret each
other’s social standing. It’s all about the labels, symbols, and meanings we attach to people based
on their job, clothes, income, or behavior. Through interactions, people start to “internalize” their
place in society. So, Sam and Mia both come to view themselves—and are viewed by others—in
ways that reflect their social roles and status. Over time, these labels reinforce social
stratification because people begin to act according to how they’re perceived.

Feminist Perspective

In a nearby town, imagine there’s a workplace where men hold most of the leadership roles
while women are in lower positions. Even though some women are qualified for leadership,
they’re often passed over. When they do get promoted, they might still earn less than their male
counterparts. This inequality leads to frustration among the women and a feeling that their work
is undervalued.

The feminist perspective on social stratification points out that society has often been structured
in ways that privilege men over women. This approach looks at how gender inequality affects
people’s access to resources, power, and opportunities. In this workplace, the division isn’t based
on skills or job performance but on longstanding social patterns that favor men. Feminist
theorists argue that social stratification needs to be understood through the lens of gender,
showing how societal norms and practices can lead to unequal treatment for women. By
questioning these patterns, the feminist perspective encourages society to recognize and change
these imbalances so that women have equal opportunities in all areas of life.

The feminist perspective adds an important layer to our understanding of social stratification by
highlighting the role of gender in the inequality equation. Feminists argue that social
stratification is not just about class or race, but also about the ways that patriarchy—societies
dominated by male authority—affects the lives of women and other marginalized genders.
Feminist theorists like Patricia Hill Collins argue that gender intersects with other forms of
stratification, such as race and class, creating complex systems of inequality. For example,
women of color may face both gender and racial discrimination, while working-class women
face the added burden of economic inequality. Feminists believe that social stratification often
maintains gender-based inequalities by restricting women’s access to education, employment,
and political power.

Through this lens, the stratification system is seen as a tool that not only perpetuates class
divisions but also reinforces gender roles and inequalities that limit women’s opportunities and
freedom. Feminists advocate for structural changes that address these gendered inequalities.

In Summary
These four perspectives offer different ways of thinking about social stratification, helping us
understand its complexity and its impact on society. Each theory highlights different aspects of
the system—whether it's its function in society, its role in maintaining inequality, the daily
interactions that shape our perceptions of class, or the ways it perpetuates gender-based
disadvantages. Together, they provide a more holistic view of how social stratification works and
why it matters.

Forms of Social Stratification

Social stratification is not a one-size-fits-all concept. Across societies, different forms of
stratification arrange how people are grouped, ranked, and treated. These forms depend on
various factors, such as culture, economy, and historical context. Understanding these forms can
shed light on the various ways societies classify individuals and perpetuate inequalities. Let’s
look at some of the most common forms of social stratification: slavery, class, caste, race and
ethnicity, and gender.
1. Slavery

Slavery is an extreme form of inequality in which

some individuals are owned by others as their property. The
legal conditions of slave ownership have varied considerably
in different societies. There are different kinds of slavery.
Bonded labor is one such form of slavery. In all parts of the
world, slavery, as a form of stratification has become extinct.
 2. Caste
A ‘caste’ system is one in which
an individual’s rank and its
accompanying rights and obligations
are ascribed based on birth into a
particular group. This class structure is
‘closed’. The Indian caste system is a
classic example.
Hindu society in traditional India
was divided into five main strata: four
Varnas or caste and the outcaste,
whose members were known as
untouchables. Each class is subdivided
into sub-castes, totals to thousands.
The Brahmins or priests occupy the
highest caste, they personify purity,
sanctity, and holiness. They are the
sources of learning, wisdom, and truth.

At the lower extreme are the untouchables who are defined as unclean and impure. They
are segregated from members of other castes and live on the outskirts of the villages. In general,
the hierarchy of prestige based on notions of ritual purity is mirrored by the hierarchy of power.
The Brahmins were custodians of law and the legal system which they administer. Inequalities of
wealth were usually linked to those of prestige and power.

In present-day India, laws were introduced to make discrimination against lower castes
illegal and to improve their socioeconomic positions.

3. Estate

An estate system is a form of social hierarchy in

which a peasant or serf must work a piece of land
owned by the noble class. In return, a noble would
provide protection or any other agreed service. The
estate system is also known as feudalism and became
prominent during the Middle Ages. The Roman
Empire’s downfall decentralized much of Europe,
ushering in small kingdoms ruled by local warlords and
nobles. It was in these kingdoms where the estate
system gained a strong foothold. In a general estate
system, there are two kinds of people: the nobility who owns the land and the peasants or serfs
who work on the land to produce profit for the nobility. The peasants typically live in poverty
and perform toilsome labor with scant pay, but they are not considered slaves.

4. Class

Classes are not established by legal or religious provisions. Membership to the class is not
based on inherited position specified by law or custom. Class systems are typically more fluid
than the other types of stratification and the boundaries between classes are never clear-cut.

There are no formal restrictions on inter-marriage between people from different classes.
Some of the characteristics of the class include an individual’s achievement, social mobility,
economic status, and class consciousness. Thus, a class is a large-scale grouping of people who
share common economic resources, which strongly influence the types of lifestyles that they
lead. Ownership of wealth, together with occupation, is the chief basis of class differences.

The major classes

Social class refers to a group of people with similar levels

of wealth, influence, and status. Sociologists typically use three
methods to determine social class:

a. The lower class

The lower class is characterized by poverty, homelessness,

and unemployment. People of this class, few of whom have
finished high school, suffer from a lack of medical care,
adequate housing and food, decent clothing, safety, and
vocational training.

b. The working class

The working class is made up of minimally educated
people who engage in “manual labor” with little or no prestige.
These are the unskilled workers, dishwashers, cashiers, maids,
and waitresses, who are usually underpaid and have no
opportunity for career advancement.

They are often called the working poor. Skilled workers in

this class like carpenters, plumbers, and electricians, are often
called blue-collar workers. They may make more money than
workers in the middle class like secretaries, teachers, and
computer technicians; however, their jobs are usually more physically taxing, and in some cases
quite dangerous.

c. The middle class

The middle class is the “sandwich” class. It is made up of white-collar workers who have
more money than those below them on the “social ladder,” but less than those above them. They
are divided into two levels according to wealth, education, and prestige. The lower middle class
is often made up of less educated people with lower incomes, such as managers, small business
owners, teachers, and secretaries. The upper-middle class is often made up of highly educated
business and professional people with high incomes, such as doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, and
CEOs.

d. The upper class

This class is divided into two groups: lower‐upper and upper‐upper. The lower‐upper class
includes those with “new money,” or money made from investments, business ventures, and so
forth. The upper‐upper class includes those aristocratic and “high‐society” families with “old
money” who have been rich for generations. These extremely wealthy people live off the income
from their inherited riches. The upper‐upper class is more prestigious than the lower‐upper class.

Wherever their money comes from, both segments of the upper class are exceptionally
rich. Both groups have more money than they could spend, which leaves them with much leisure
time for cultivating a variety of interests. They live in exclusive neighbourhoods, gather at
expensive social clubs, and send their children to the finest schools. As might be expected, they
also exercise a great deal of influence and power both nationally and globally.

5. Meritocracy

Meritocracy is an ideal system based on the belief that

social stratification is the result of personal effort—or merit
—to determine social standing. High levels of effort will
lead to a high social position while low levels of effort will
lead to a lower social position. The concept of meritocracy
is ideal—because no society exists where social rank is
based purely on merit. However, meritocracies may be seen
in academic tasks and job performance and in systems
where achievements are evaluated and rewarded.
https://unsplash.com/photos/
HkN64BISuQA

6. Race and Ethnicity

Race and ethnicity are also central to understanding social stratification, particularly in societies
with histories of colonization, slavery, and racial segregation. In many societies, race—the
categorization of people based on physical characteristics, such as skin color—has been a
powerful determinant of social hierarchy. People of different races have been assigned unequal
status, with certain races historically being privileged over others.

For example, in the United States, racial stratification is deeply embedded in the country’s
history, with white people often occupying the highest social positions while people of color—
especially Black, Indigenous, and Latino groups—have faced discrimination, exclusion, and
marginalization. This has shaped social, economic, and political structures, often limiting
opportunities for people of color in areas such as education, employment, housing, and
healthcare.

Ethnicity, which refers to cultural factors such as language, traditions, and shared history, can
also contribute to social stratification. Ethnic groups may be treated differently depending on
how their cultural identity is perceived by the majority society. In some cases, dominant ethnic
groups may hold social, economic, and political power, while minority ethnic groups experience
systemic disadvantages and unequal treatment.

Racial and ethnic stratification is not only about individual prejudice but also about the systemic
and institutional structures that perpetuate inequality. These systems can be seen in everything
from hiring practices to law enforcement, where people from racial and ethnic minorities may
face discrimination or be denied equal opportunities.
7. Gender Stratification
Gender stratification is another significant form of social stratification. It refers to the unequal
distribution of resources, rights, and opportunities based on gender. Most societies are organized
around a gender binary (male and female), but these systems often privilege men over women,
and, in many cases, discriminate against people who don’t fit into traditional gender categories.

In patriarchal societies, men have historically occupied positions of power, while women have
been relegated to domestic or lower-status roles. This has meant that men have greater access to
education, career opportunities, and political power, while women often face systemic barriers in
these areas. Although many societies have made progress in promoting gender equality, women
—and, increasingly, transgender and non-binary people—still face inequalities in areas like wage
gaps, political representation, and personal safety.
Gender stratification also intersects with other forms of inequality, such as race and class. For
example, women of color often face multiple layers of disadvantage, including racism and
sexism. Similarly, gender norms and stereotypes influence how people behave and are treated.
For instance, women may be expected to take on caregiving roles, limiting their ability to pursue
careers, while men may face social pressure to suppress emotions and conform to traditional
masculine roles.

The feminist movement has played a crucial role in challenging gender stratification by
advocating for gender equality and fighting against discrimination. While there has been progress
in many areas, gender stratification remains a powerful force that continues to shape the lives of
individuals and communities.
In Summary
Each of these forms of social stratification—class, caste, race, and gender—shapes the
opportunities, roles, and challenges that individuals face in society. While some stratification
systems are more rigid and less fluid than others, all contribute to the maintenance of inequality
in different ways. These systems are interlinked, with individuals often experiencing multiple
forms of stratification simultaneously.

Understanding the various forms of social stratification is critical for recognizing the
complexities of inequality in our world. It also serves as a call to action to address these
disparities and work toward creating a more equitable society. By reflecting on these systems, we
can start to see how social structures shape our lives and the lives of those around us, and,
ultimately, how we can challenge these systems to create a fairer and more just world.

Social Mobility
Social mobility is the movement up or down the social systems. In different societies, people
have varying degrees of freedom to move within the social system, depending on the social
structure. Let’s look at three levels of mobility that illustrate the degrees of freedom people have
to move within their social structures:

High Social Mobility (Open System)

Picture a ladder where each rung is easily reachable, and there are no barriers preventing people
from climbing. This is an open social system. Here, social mobility is possible, meaning people
can move up or down based on their achievements, education, or financial success. The class
system is an example of an open social system. A child born into a poor family could, with hard
work and opportunity, become a doctor or entrepreneur. Similarly, someone who inherits wealth
but mismanages it could end up in a lower social class.

For example, there’s a young woman named Sarah. She grew up in a family that didn’t have
much money, but she worked her way through school and got a scholarship to college. She went
on to become a successful engineer, moving into a higher social class than her parents. This
upward movement reflects the openness of the system, where talent, effort, and opportunity
allow people to change their social status.

Open systems are often seen in societies that value education, merit, and personal achievement.
This flexibility creates motivation for people to work hard and develop skills, knowing that
success isn’t limited by their background.

Low Social Mobility (Moderately Open System)

Let’s meet Tom, Sarah’s childhood friend. Like Sarah, Tom grew up in a similar neighborhood
and had big dreams. He wanted to start his own business, but he faced more obstacles. Despite
working multiple jobs and saving up, he found it hard to get the resources he needed—like a loan
or investment—to start his business. Tom took on various jobs to make ends meet but couldn’t
quite break into a higher income bracket.

Tom’s story shows low social mobility. In his situation, there were fewer opportunities for
upward movement, as factors like limited access to funding and high competition made it hard
for him to rise to a higher social class. This degree of mobility is common in societies where
there are barriers, such as economic inequalities or limited educational resources, that make it
difficult for people to change their social status. Although Tom was motivated and hardworking,
the structure around him limited his chances of reaching his goals.

Limited Social Mobility (Closed System)

Finally, we have Maya, another friend from their neighborhood. Maya’s story is a bit different.
She grew up in a traditional family where roles and careers were often passed down. Her family
members were mostly artisans, and while Maya had a talent for art, she was expected to continue
in the family business. In this setting, moving into a different career or social class wasn’t
common, even though Maya had dreams of becoming a scientist.

Maya’s experience represents limited social mobility. In her community, people’s roles are
more fixed, and moving from one social class to another is rare. This often happens in societies
or communities where tradition and family roles play a big part, and expectations are set early
on. Limited social mobility can make it hard for people to pursue different career paths or
lifestyles, as cultural or structural factors keep them in similar roles across generations.

In Summary
Different systems and degrees of mobility can shape people’s lives. High social mobility creates
more opportunities for people to reach new heights, while low or limited mobility can restrict
people to a set path. Each degree impacts not just individual dreams but also how society as a
whole experiences growth, diversity, and innovation.