Extent to Which Social Stratification Is Usefull and Inevitable in Society Essay

We puddle water these truths to be self evident, that every men ar created equal. With these familiar words of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of America accomplished brotherly e tincture as a guiding principle. Yet for or so a century after the document was signed, slavery was common in much of the United States, and legal infringement of the rights of women and black Ameri shadows continued for more(prenominal)(prenominal) or less both centuries. Today,the Inalienable right to sustenance,liberty,and pursuit of happiness is still non equ entirelyy awarded. For generations now there has been the American Dream of unlimited opportunities for all.The reality, however, has been imminent to the underlying principle of the barnyard baseball club in George Orwells Animal give rise All animals ar equal, save some animals be more equal than others. indeed the essence of this stem is to critically discuss the extent to which complaisant social social soc ial social stratification is use of goods and servicesful and inevitable in parliamentary procedure. It will start off by providing definitions of technical damage. In order to arrive at a ca-ca understanding of the subject under discussion,the concept of social stratification shall excessively be explained.In addition,the main trunks involved in social stratification will be highlighted. Afterwards,the main subject yield will be discussed and in overseas telegram with this,examples and theories that apply shall be given in support. Finally,a finis will be given. According to Harris and Scott (1997),social shape is the plaza or moorings tenanted by indivi iii-folds or groups of individuals in relationship to other groups or individuals in gild. Each person occupies a great number of shapees and at the homogeneous time be continually changing.For example, nonp beil person may occupy the status of a husband,father,skilled worker and so on. However,the bottom line is t hat status can either be ascribed or achieved. Social mobility refers to the try of individuals or groups from superstar status in baseball club to a nonher . Since there are some(prenominal) dimensions to social standing or status, great deal are able to change government agency by gaining or losing wealth, prestigiousness and force. Upward mobility refers to movement up the social ladder,or a gain in statusdownward movement refers to a movement down the social ladder,or a loss of status.Upward and downward mobility,collectively is what is called plumb mobility,an example of this type of mobility is an individual being promoted from a secretarial position to a management position,hence moves from the lower phase to the middle club. Another is the horizontal mobility,this refers to movement within a social class. This happens when an individual moves from one billet to another job of identical social ranking,for example,an accountant moves from one cockeyed to another. I ndividuals can as well as have a high social status than their parents,this is referred to as intergenerational mobility (Coser 1983).Social stratification is a system by which inn ranks categories of pot in a hierarchy. The word stratification is derived from the word spirit level which is a geographical word meaning a layer of rocks of which individually layer lies between similar layers of opposite texture. Sociologists use the term to recognize a hierarchical ordering of passel or groups as though were arranged in horizontal layers,one above the other. It nitty-gritty that pack populate in layers of prestige,power and wealth. It is a structural ranking of people that perpetuate nonequivalent stinting rewards and power in society.Social inequality is an inevitable issuance of social stratification in that certain groups of people stand higher in society,control scarce resources,yield power and receive special treatment. Therefore,a stratified society comprises of me mbers who are either rich, poor, powerful, powerless, high or low (Kerbo and Harold 1991). Social stratification is universal except that it varies from society to society. This means that the hierarchical arrangement takes power in all societies in the world but the criteria used differs from society to society. This is so because every society has its own norms and values hence different socialization.For instance,most African societies value marriage or family life while European or American societies encourage working towards the obtaining of wealth. The differences in values and culture differentiates a society from another. Subsequently,in some societies,age and sex are used as systems of social stratification. Nevertheless,the most comm unless used include the caste,the class,the colourbar and the estate systems of social stratification. (Ibid). The caste system is also called the closed system of social stratification. In this system,social stratification is ground on asc ription.It is closed on the sense that rescue alone determines ones social destiny with no hazard for social mobility based on individual effort. People in this system are ranked in a rigid hierarchy and It is more concerned with religious roles and rituals and is practiced in Hinduism and Indian societies. There are five groups of people in this system namelythe Brahmin,comprising of prieststhe Kshatrya, comprising of landlordsthe Vaisya,made up of farmersthe Saundra,who are the peasants and the least group being that of the Harijans or the untouchables.In addition,this system is characterized by endogamy. Meaning that marriage outside ones group is not allowed (Maines and David ,1993). The class system is called the open system. This system is so open that people who gain schooling and skills may experience social mobility. This system was looked at and recognized by Karl Marx and Marx weber in their Conflict theories. In this system,social mobility drives class distribution. Ev eryone is believed to be entitled to equal rights and social position,therefore it is based on consummation rather than ascription.In both the cast and class systems people run unbalanced but the class system rests on talent,opportunity and effort foreign the caste system which is by birth. In the class system, careers are an import of individual choice and not moral duty. Consequently,individual freedom is allowed in the excerption of marriage partners. (Ibid). The colourbar is another system of social stratification,this system is based on skin colour or race. People in this system are arranged hierarchically on the basis of their skin colour.An example of a colourbar society is South Africa before its independence. There were quadruple main categories of people in South Africa,they were hierarchically categorized as followsat the prime were the Whites,the Colourds,Asians and at the bottom,the Blacks. In addition,colourbar societies are characterized by high levels of segr egation,slavery and racism (Goode ,1994). The utmost system of social stratification is the Estate system. This was a system created by law. Henceforth,laws provided clear distinctions between people.This system acknowledged only three categories of people in society. These were the Nobles or landlords who owned land and means of production,the Clergy who were men of god and the Commons who worked on the farms of the Nobles in exchange for wages. (Ibid). Ordinarily,social stratification is inevitable in society because it is a characteristic of each and every society and not simply a mere reflection of individual differences. In all societies,people rarely control destinies but rather peoples lives are shaped by the prevailing system of social stratification.For example, children born in wealthy families enjoy better health, food, shelter, clothing, education and succeed in life and live well into old age than those born into poverty. Therefore, social stratification being part of society and not a reflection of individualised talents and effort,is inevitable (Shapiro and Thomas, 1998). From the functional survey,social inequality is both inevitable and necessary for allocating individuals to Copernican social roles. The most persuasive argument for the functional theory of stratification was made nearly forty years ago by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E.Moore. They contended that people are motivated to perform demanding or difficult roles through the unequal distribution of rewards. If surgeons did not have such high occupational prestige and incomes,Davis and Moore struggled,not enough people would put up with the long years of training,life-and-death responsibilities or personal sacrifices that the surgeons role requires. On the other hand,Plumbers suffer a social role that demands less effort and training,make less notes and enjoy less prestige.Social inequality according to Davis and Moore is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies i nsure that the most important positions are scrupulously filled by the most qualified persons. Hence every society,no matter how simple or complex must posses a certain amount of institutionalized inequality (Coser ,1983). Further,the unequal distribution of power,prestige and wealth in society motivates individuals to aspire for substantial jobs and to work hard and longer,leading to productivity in society. Because the significant jobs are limited,meritocracy is promoted in society.Meritocracy is simply the leadership by people based on quality abilities to do so,the term is derived from the word merit which in this case is the quality of being particularly good at something and cost a social reward in terms of wealth ,power or,and prestige. Meritocracy implies righteousness in the execution of services. The pursuit for meritocracy promotes equality in terms of opportunities and at the comparable time encourages inequality in rewards. For example,the zambian Ministry of Educa tion only allows teachers with degrees to teach in high schools.As a result,teachers are compelled to raise their academic qualifications in order to be given a witness to work in such schools and for them to enjoy higher salaries. Because of this,pupils benefit quality education from highly qualified teachers. Societies that use meritocracy hold out rewards to smash the talents and encourage the efforts of everyone. In other words,a pure class system would be a meritocracy,rewarding everyone based on ability and efforts. Such societies would have capacious social mobility and varying social categories as individuals move up or down on the social ladder depending on their performance, (Ibid).Social stratification is necessary because it promotes a culture of corporation between people of the the same category. People tend to want to work unneurotic with those in the same position as them. For example,those who are underprivileged tend to work together in coming up with communit y initiatives for the betterment of their conditions (De Beer ,2000). While the functionalist perspective succeeds in explaining the importance of social stratification,several flaws are pointed out. Melvin (1953),argues that functional importance does not explain the high rewards certain people enjoy.Income and rewards seem to have circumstantial to do with functional contribution to society by the individual. For example,Hollywood actors earn millions more of dollars compared to Doctors and military personnel. Another critic is that it is impossible to say which social positions are more important than others. Which society would function better,the critics ask,one with no surgeons or one with no plumbers? Furthermore,it is quite possible that some unrewarded positions such as garbage collectors and ousewives contribute more to society than some highly rewarded positions homogeneous professional athletes and movie stars (Coser ,1983). Another critic is that,although societies re ward individual achievements,it also allows families to transfer wealth and power from generation to generation. For example,the royal family in Swaziland ensures that its line of leadership is maintained by appointing only members of the royal family as dictatorial rulers of the nation. (Ibid) While functional theorists argue that inequality benefits the society as a whole,conflict theorists point out that it benefits some people more than others.According to this perspective, stratification exists because certain groups are able to exploit and dominate others through imbibe or through traditional inherited privileges. Modern Marxists see classes as conflicting groupsrulers against ruled, haves against have nots. The conflict ideas depend heavily on the ideas of Marx and Weber. The dual contributed greatly to the study of social stratification. The scholars however had different views on social class and inequality. Karl Marx saw class as related to the means of production.Primar ily,Marx viewed the grammatical construction of society in relation to major classes and the struggle between classes as the engine of change . According to Becker and Howard (1973278),Marx defined class in terms of ownership of property, ownership vests on a person with the power to arise others from the property and use it for personal purposes. In relation to property,there are two classes in society that Marx identified the Bourgeoisie who own and control the means of production and the Proletariat who own labour and sell it to the middle class for a wage.According to Marx class is thus determined by property and not by income or status. Further,Marx saw the development of class conflict as confined to individual operatories. Therefore,the maturing of capitalism,the growing disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and the proletariate as well as homogenization within each class, struggles create generalized across factories. Increasingly,class conflicts manifest at societal level. Hence, class awareness is increased, common interests and policies are organized and the use of struggle for political power occurs.Classes become political forces. The distribution of political power is determined by power over production. Capital confers political power which the bourgeoisie use to legitimize and protect their acquired property and consequent social positions. The State rail bearing line is that of the bourgeoisie. In other words, the state rule, power and its distribution are all in favor of the ruling class (Garfinkel and Harold,1967). Meanwhile, Marx Weber agreed with Karl Marx but added that social stratification is more complex and based on three factors that are inter-linked.These factors areclass which is a persons economic position in society, based on birth and individual achievement. Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification. Weber noted how managers of corporations or industries contr ol firms they do not own Marx would have placed such a person in the proletariat. The other factor is status, this is a persons prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted that political power was not rooted in capital value solely, but also in ones individual status.Poets or saints, for example, can possess huge influence on society with often little economic worth. And at last is the factor of power, which is a persons ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the military position of the President (O. P) or a Member of Parliament (M. P) may hold little property or status but they still hold immense power. Unlike Marx,Weber claimed there to be in fact four main classes the upper class, the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie and the manual of arms working class.Webers theory more-closely resembles modern western class structures. The conflict theory also takes a one-side d approach to stratification. unmatched of its major shortcomings is that it fails to recognize that unequal rewards are based partially on differences in talent, skill and desire. Not everyone is suited for every social position in the social structure. Consequently,society must have some way to argue the proper individuals into positions that are vital to the smooth operation of society. In conclusion, this paper has critically discussed the extent to which social stratification is recyclable and inevitable in society.As is alluded by the functionalist theory and the Davis Moore thesis,it plays a vital part in the operation of society and as such has beneficial consequences as discussed. And as alluded by the conflict theory that it is not entirely beneficial to the society as a whole but provides advantages to some people at the expense of others,hence brings about exploitation and increase in inequality. Therefore,it can clearly be concluded that firstly social stratification is inevitable as it exists in every society and secondly that it is to some extent useful as well as not to another because it has its advantages and disadvantages.