SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Inequality is found in all societies, irrespective of time or place. Personal characteristics such as beauty, skill, physical strength and personality may all play a role in perpetuating inequality. However, there are also patterns of inequality associated with the social positions people occupy.
We can say that there are two types of inequality:
Natural and
Man Made
As far as the natural inequality is concerned with reference to age, sex, height, weight, etc., the man-made inequality may be horizontal or vertical e.g. different occupational groups perform different activities, but when these groups become social groups in the sense that they are placed hierarchically and they have interaction within the group and at the inter-strata level, then such type of inequality is called social inequality.
The term social inequality refers to the socially created inequalities. Stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of the power, prestige and wealth their members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interests and common identities.
They will share a similar lifestyle, distinguishing them from other social strata members. Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four Varnas and a fifth group, the outcaste or untouchables. These strata are arranged in a hierarchy with the Brahmins at the top and the untouchables at the bottom.
Such inequality has been perceived by the earlier thinkers in different terms like economic, political, religious, etc.
Plato was one of the first to acknowledge that inequality is inevitable and to suggest ways in which the distribution of money, status and power could be altered for the betterment of both the individual and the society.
The society that Plato envisioned is explicitly meant to be class-structured so that all citizens belong to one of three classes:
(a) ruling (b) non-ruling
Auxiliaries or the workers.
He eliminated inheritance of class status and provided equality of opportunities regardless of birth.
Aristotle was clearly concerned with the consequences of inequality in birth, strength and wealth. He talked about three classes: (i) Very Rich, (ii) Very Poor, and (iii) Moderate.
St. Thomas and St. Augustine made distinctions based on power, property and prestige.
Machiavelli asked who is fit to rule and what form of rule will produce order, happiness, prosperity and strength. He saw tension between elite and the masses. He preferred democratic rule. About the selection for ruling positions, he advocated inequality in situations is legitimate so long as there has been equality of opportunity to become unequal.
Thomas Hobbes saw all men as equally interested in acquiring power and privileges, which leads to chaotic conditions unless there is a set of rules by which they agree to abide. These rules constitute “Social Contract,” under which people give the right to one man to rule, who has collective desire and will. The sovereign can be removed if he fails to come up to the maintenance of equality for the safety of all men.
Weber emphasized the existence of three types of groups based on different forms of inequality and the fact that they may be independent of one another. Weber suggested three types of market situations (i) labour market, (ii) money market, and (iii) commodity market.
Weber termed the second form of inequality social honour or prestige and the third form of inequality for Weber was power.
As exemplified by caste, social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular group have common identities, like interests, and similar lifestyle. They enjoy or suffer from the unequal distribution of rewards in societies as members of different social groups.
Social stratification, however, is only one form of social inequality. Social inequality can exist without social strata. It is stated that a hierarchy of social groups has been replaced by a hierarchy of individuals. Although many sociologists use the term inequality and social stratification interchangeably, social stratification is seen as a specific form of social inequality.
Difference between Social Stratification and Social Inequality
Some writers like Tumin think there is no difference between stratification and social inequality. For them, these two terms are synonymous. But, there is a band of other scholars, like Haralambos and Holborn, who have made the distinction between these two phenomena.
For such scholars, a society can exhibit inequality without being stratified, for example, by affording equal opportunity to all but distributing rewards based on performance. Thus, social inequality can exist without social strata. Stratification is systematic and is based on identifiable social processes through which people are sorted into categories such as caste, class, race and gender.
For Haralambos, a social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of social groups ranked one above the other, usually in terms of the amount of power, prestige and wealth their members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have ‘consciousness of kind,’ a common identity, like interests and a similar lifestyle. The-Indian caste system provides the best example of the social stratification system.
On the other hand, the term ‘social inequality’ simply refers to socially created inequalities. It is not biologically based, for example, whites might claim superiority over blacks. There is probably no relationship between genetically based and socially created inequality in traditional Hindu society.
Social inequality is a condition in which members of a society have a different amounts of wealth, prestige and power. It entails unequal rewards or opportunities for different individuals within a group or groups within a society. If equality is judged in terms of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, then inequality is a constant feature of the human condition.
In a nutshell, the difference between social stratification and social inequality can be exhibited as under:
Many scholars of different political persuasions regard equality of opportunity as a pre-condition for a fair society. Of course, equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome. It simply means that people will achieve jobs suitable to their intelligence and talents, regardless of social background. Marxists want a different kind of equality from this. They want resources to be distributed in terms to need rather than competition.
Some people are influenced by both views. Perhaps, there is no issue other than inequality, its causes and consequences, particularly as they relate to social class, gender, ethnicity and locality, which has been debated hotly by social scientists in the 20th century and this debate still continues. It has become more important in the wake of liberalization and globalization.
0 Comments