social inequality in stratification essay

9.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

Learning objectives.

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

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

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

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

Functionalism

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict Theory

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

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

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

Symbolic Interactionism

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

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

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

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

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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

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

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

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

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

Module 7: Stratification and Inequality

Social stratification, social inequality, and global stratification, learning objectives.

• Describe social stratification and social inequality
• Explain global stratification

Social Stratification

Figure 1.  Strata in rock illustrate social stratification. People are sorted, or layered, into social categories. Many factors determine a person’s social standing, such as income, education, occupation, geography, as well as age, race, gender, and even physical abilities. (Photo courtesy of Just a Prairie Boy/flickr)

Social stratification is a system of ranking individuals and groups within societies. It refers to a society’s ranking of its people into socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power. You may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct horizontal layers found in rock, called “strata,” are an illustrative way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. Social stratification has been a part of all societies dating from the agricultural revolution, which took place in various parts of the world between 7,000-10,000 BCE. Unlike relatively even strata in rock, though, there are not equal numbers of people in each layer of society. There are typically very few at the top and a great many at the bottom, with some variously populated layers in the middle.

Social Inequality

Social inequality  is the state of unequal distribution of valued goods and opportunities. All societies today have social inequality. Examining social stratification requires a macrosociological perspective in order to view societal systems that make inequalities visible. Although individuals may support or fight inequalities, social stratification is created and supported by society as a whole through values and norms and consistently durable systems of stratification.

Most of us are accustomed to thinking of stratification as economic inequality. For example, we can compare wages in the United States to wages in Mexico. Social inequality, however, is just as harmful as economic discrepancy. Prejudice and discrimination—whether against a certain race, ethnicity, religion, or the like—can become a causal factor by creating and aggravating conditions of economic inequality, both within and between nations.

Gender inequality is another global concern. Consider the controversy surrounding female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation or FGM). Nations favoring this practice, often through systems of patriarchal authority, defend it as a longstanding cultural tradition among certain tribes and argue that the West shouldn’t interfere. Western nations, however, decry the practice and are working to expose and stop it.

Inequalities based on sexual orientation and gender identity exist around the globe. According to Amnesty International, a range of crimes are commonly committed against individuals who do not conform to traditional gender roles or sexual orientations (however those are culturally defined). From culturally sanctioned rape to state-sanctioned executions, the abuses are serious. These legalized and culturally accepted forms of prejudice, discrimination, and punishment exist everywhere—from the United States to Somalia to Tibet—restricting the freedom of individuals and often putting their lives at risk (Amnesty International 2012).

Watch the selected first few minutes of this video to learn about stratification in general terms. You’ll learn some key principles regarding social stratification, namely that:

• Stratification is universal, but varies between societies;
• It is a characteristic of society and not a matter of individual differences; in other words, we need to use the sociological imagination to understand social stratification and see it as a social issue and not just an individual problem;
• It persists across generations, although it often allows for some degree of social mobility;
• Stratification continues because of beliefs and attitudes about social stratification

Thinking Deeply about Inequality

How do you think wealth should best be distributed in the United States? Check out this  interactive animation on economic inequality from the Economic Policy Institute .

Link to Learning

Imagine that the United States is divided into quintiles (bottom 20%, second 20%, middle 20%, fourth 20%, and top 20%).

• How do you think wealth is distributed in the United States? What percentage would you attribute to each quintile?
• What do you think is the ideal distribution?

Now watch the video “Wealth Inequality in America”  and compare your responses to the actual distribution of wealth. Keep in mind that these numbers are from 2012, but the rates of inequality have not improved since then.

Global Stratification

Figure 2. (a) A family lives in this grass hut in Ethiopia. (b) Another family lives in a single-wide trailer in a trailer park in the United States. Both families are considered poor, or lower class. With such differences in global stratification, what constitutes poverty? (Photo (a) courtesy of Canned Muffins/flickr; Photo (b) courtesy of Herb Neufeld/flickr)

While stratification in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of resources among individuals, global stratification refers to this unequal distribution among nations. There are two dimensions to this stratification: gaps between nations and gaps within nations. When it comes to global inequality, both economic inequality and social inequality may concentrate the burden of poverty among certain segments of the earth’s population (Myrdal 1970).

As mentioned earlier, one way to evaluate stratification is to consider how many people are living in poverty, and particularly extreme poverty, which is often defined as needing to survive on less than $1.90 per day. Fortunately, until the COVID-19 pandemic impacted economies in 2020, the extreme poverty rate had been on a 20-year decline. In 2015, 10.1 percent of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty; in 2017, that number had dropped an entire percentage point to 9.2 percent. While a positive, that 9.2 percent is equivalent to 689 million people living on less than $1.90 a day. The same year, 24.1 percent of the world lived on less than $3.20 per day and 43.6 percent on less than $5.50 per day in 2017 (World Bank 2020). The table below makes the differences in poverty very clear.

Global stratification compares the wealth, economic stability, status, and power of countries across the world, and also highlights worldwide patterns of social inequality within nations.

In the early years of civilization, hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies lived off the earth and rarely interacted with other societies (except during times of war). As civilizations began to grow and emerging cities developed political and economic systems, trade increased, as did military conquest. Explorers went out in search of new land and resources as well as to trade goods, ideas, and customs. They eventually took land, people, and resources from all over the world, building empires and establishing networks of colonies with imperialist policies, foundational religious ideologies, and incredible economic and military power.

In the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution created unprecedented wealth in Western Europe and North America. Due to mechanical inventions and new means of production, people began working in factories—not only men, but women and children as well. The Industrial Revolution also saw the rise of vast inequalities between countries that were industrialized and those that were not. As some nations embraced technology and saw increased wealth and goods, others maintained their ways; as the gap widened, the non-industrialized nations fell further behind. Some social researchers, such as Walt Rostow, suggest that the disparity also resulted from power differences. Applying a conflict theory perspective, he asserts that industrializing nations appropriated and took advantage of the resources of traditional nations. As industrialized nations became rich, other nations became poor (Rostow 1960).

Sociologists studying global stratification analyze economic comparisons between nations. Income, purchasing power, and investment and ownership-based wealth are used to calculate global stratification. Global stratification also compares the quality of life that individual citizens and groups within a country’s population can have.

Poverty levels have been shown to vary greatly. The poor in wealthy countries like the United States or Europe are much better off than the poor in less-industrialized countries such as Mali or India. In 2002, the UN implemented the Millennium Project, an attempt to cut poverty worldwide by the year 2015. To reach the project’s goal, planners in 2006 estimated that industrialized nations must set aside 0.7 percent of their gross national income—the total value of the nation’s good and service, plus or minus income received from and sent to other nations—to aid in developing countries (Landler and Sanger, 2009; Millennium Project 2006).

Although some successes have been realized from the Millennium Project , such as cutting the extreme global poverty rate in half, the United Nations has now moved ahead with their program of economic growth and sustainable development in their new project,  Sustainable Development Goals , adopted in September of 2015.

Think It Over

• The wealthiest 300 individuals in the world have more wealth than the poorest 3 billion individuals. Does this surprise you? Why or why not?
• Why has the wealth gap between the wealthiest countries and the poorest countries grown larger? How is this different from dominant narratives in the media?
• What changes could be made to reduce global stratification and inequality?
• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• What Is Social Stratification?. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:LYDnfp5S@3/What-Is-Social-Stratification . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Global Stratification and Classification. Provided by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:7TCPamHd@3/Global-Stratification-and-Classification . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected].
• Global Stratification and Classification. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/10-1-global-stratification-and-classification . Project : Sociology 3e. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/10-1-global-stratification-and-classification
• Global Wealth Inequality. Authored by : TheRulesOrg. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Social Stratification: Crash Course Sociology #21. Provided by : CrashCourse. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlkIKCMt-Fs . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

6 Social Stratification and Inequality

Eric grew up on a farm in rural Ohio, left home to serve in the Army, and returned to take over the family farm a few years later. He moved into the same house he had grown up in and soon married a young woman with whom he had attended high school. As they began to have children, they quickly realized that the income from the farm was no longer sufficient to meet their needs. With little experience beyond the farm, Eric accepted a job as a clerk at a local grocery store. It was there that his life and the lives of his wife and children were changed forever.

One of the managers at the store liked Eric, his attitude, and his work ethic. He took Eric under his wing and began to groom him for advancement at the store. Eric rose through the ranks with ease. Then the manager encouraged him to take a few classes at a local college. This was the first time Eric had seriously thought about college. Could he be successful, Eric wondered? Could he actually be the first to earn a degree in his family? Fortunately, his wife also believed in him and supported his decision to take his first class. Eric asked his wife and his manager to keep his college enrollment a secret. He did not want others to know about it in case he failed.

Eric was nervous on his first day of class. He was older than the other students, and he had never considered himself college material. Through hard work and determination, however, he did very well in the class. While he still doubted himself, he enrolled in another class. Again, he performed very well. As his doubt began to fade, he started to take more and more classes. Before he knew it, he was walking across the stage to receive a Bachelor’s degree with honors. The ceremony seemed surreal to Eric. He couldn’t believe he had finished college, which once seemed like an impossible feat.

Shortly after graduation, Eric was admitted into a graduate program at a well-respected university, where he earned a Master’s degree. He had not only become the first in his family to attend college but also earned a graduate degree. Inspired by Eric’s success, his wife enrolled at a technical college, obtained a degree in nursing, and became a registered nurse working in a local hospital’s labor and delivery department. Eric and his wife both worked their way up the career ladder in their respective fields and became leaders in their organizations. They epitomized the American Dream—they worked hard and it paid off.

This story may sound familiar. After all, nearly one in three first-year college students is a first-generation degree candidate, and it is well documented that many are not as successful as Eric. According to the Center for Student Opportunity, a national nonprofit, 89 percent of first-generation students will not earn an undergraduate degree within six years of starting their studies. In fact, these students “drop out of college at four times the rate of peers whose parents have postsecondary degrees” (Center for Student Opportunity quoted in Huot 2014).

Why do students with parents who have completed college tend to graduate more often than those students whose parents do not hold degrees? That question and many others will be answered as we explore social stratification.

Learning Objectives

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

Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing.  Social stratification  refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Economic Changes and U.S. Stratification

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

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

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

Systems of Stratification

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

The Caste System

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

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

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

The Class System

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

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

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

Meritocracy

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

Status Consistency

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

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

SOCIAL POLICY AND DEBATE

The Commoner Who Could Be Queen

Figure 6.6 Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, who is in line to be king of England, married Catherine Middleton, a so-called commoner, meaning she does not have royal ancestry. Prince Harry married Meghan Markle, a person of mixed race. (Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

On May 19, 2018, in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in the United Kingdom, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, married Meghan Markle, a commoner. It is rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Markle is the second American and the first person of mixed-race heritage to marry into the British royal family. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and the elder brother of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, received similar reactions to their marriage choices. Prince William, who is in line to be King of England, married Kate Middleton, who has an upper-class background but does not have royal ancestry. Her father was a former flight dispatcher and her mother was a former flight attendant and owner of Party Pieces. According to Grace Wong’s 2011 article titled “Kate Middleton: A family business that built a princess,” “[t]he business grew to the point where [her father] quit his job . . . and it’s evolved from a mom-and-pop outfit run out of a shed . . . into a venture operated out of three converted farm buildings in Berkshire.” Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (Köhler 2010).

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

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

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

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

• Understand the U.S. class structure
• Describe several types of social mobility
• Recognize characteristics that define and identify class

Most sociologists define social class as a grouping based on similar social factors like wealth, income, education, and occupation. These factors affect how much power and prestige a person has. Social stratification reflects an unequal distribution of resources. In most cases, having more money means having more power or more opportunities. Stratification can also result from physical and intellectual traits. Categories that affect social standing include family ancestry, race, ethnicity, age, and gender. In the United States, standing can also be defined by characteristics such as IQ, athletic abilities, appearance, personal skills, and achievements.

Standard of Living

In the last century, the United States has seen a steady rise in its  standard of living, the level of wealth available to a certain socioeconomic class in order to acquire the material necessities and comforts to maintain its lifestyle. The standard of living is based on factors such as income, employment, class, poverty rates, and housing affordability. Because the standard of living is closely related to the quality of life, it can represent factors such as the ability to afford a home, own a car, and take vacations.

In the United States, a small portion of the population has the means to achieve the highest standard of living. A Federal Reserve Bank study shows that a mere one percent of the population holds one-third of our nation’s wealth (Kennickell 2009). Wealthy people receive the most schooling, have better health, and consume the most goods and services. Wealthy people also wield decision-making power. Many people think of the United States as a “middle-class society.” They think a few people are rich, a few are poor, and most are fairly well off, existing in the middle of the social strata. But as the study mentioned above indicates, there is not an even distribution of wealth. Millions of women and men struggle to pay rent, buy food, find work, and afford basic medical care. Women who are single heads of households tend to have a lower income and lower standard of living than their married or male counterparts. This is a worldwide phenomenon known as the “feminization of poverty”—which acknowledges that women disproportionately make up the majority of individuals in poverty across the globe.

In the United States, as in most high-income nations, social stratifications and standards of living are in part based on occupation (Lin and Xie 1988). Aside from the obvious impact that income has on someone’s standard of living, occupations also influence social standing through the relative levels of prestige they afford. Employment in medicine, law, or engineering confers high status. Teachers and police officers are generally respected, though not considered particularly prestigious. At the other end of the scale, some of the lowest rankings apply to positions like a waitress, janitor, and bus driver.

The most significant threat to the relatively high standard of living we’re accustomed to in the United States is the decline of the middle class. The size, income, and wealth of the middle class have all been declining since the 1970s. This is occurring at a time when corporate profits have increased more than 141 percent, and CEO pay has risen by more than 298 percent (Popken 2007).

G. William Domhoff, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, reports that “In 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff 2013).

While several economic factors can be improved in the United States (inequitable distribution of income and wealth, feminization of poverty, stagnant wages for most workers while executive pay and profits soar, declining middle class), we are fortunate that the poverty experienced here is most often relative poverty and not absolute poverty. Whereas absolute poverty is deprivation so severe that it puts survival in jeopardy, relative poverty is not having the means to live the lifestyle of the average person in your country.

As a wealthy developed country, the United States has the resources to provide the basic necessities to those in need through a series of federal and state social welfare programs. The best-known of these programs is likely the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. (This used to be known as the food stamp program.)

The program began in the Great Depression when unmarketable or surplus food was distributed to the hungry. It was not until 1961 that President John F. Kennedy initiated a food stamp pilot program. His successor Lyndon B. Johnson was instrumental in the passage of the Food Stamp Act in 1964. In 1965, more than 500,000 individuals received food assistance. In March 2008, on the precipice of the Great Recession, participation hovered around 28 million people. During the recession, that number escalated to more than 40 million (USDA).

Social Classes in the United States

Does a person’s appearance indicate class? Can you tell a man’s education level based on his clothing? Do you know a woman’s income by the car she drives?

For sociologists, categorizing class is a fluid science. Sociologists generally identify three levels of class in the United States: upper, middle, and lower class. Within each class, there are many subcategories. Wealth is the most significant way of distinguishing classes because wealth can be transferred to one’s children and perpetuate the class structure. One economist, J.D. Foster, defines the 20 percent of U.S. citizens’ highest earners as “upper income,” and the lower 20 percent as “lower income.” The remaining 60 percent of the population makes up the middle class. But by that distinction, annual household incomes for the middle-class range between $25,000 and $100,000 (Mason and Sullivan 2010).

One sociological perspective distinguishes the classes, in part, according to their relative power and control over their lives. The upper class not only has power and control over their own lives but also their social status gives them power and control over others’ lives. The middle class doesn’t generally control other strata of society, but its members do exert control over their own lives. In contrast, the lower class has little control over their work or lives. Below, we will explore the major divisions of U.S. social class and their key subcategories.

The Upper Class

The upper class is considered the top, and only the powerful elite get to see the view from there. In the United States, people with extreme wealth make up 1 percent of the population, and they own one-third of the country’s wealth (Beeghley 2008).

Money provides not just access to material goods but also access to a lot of power. As corporate leaders, members of the upper class make decisions that affect the job status of millions of people. As media owners, they influence the collective identity of the nation. They run the major network television stations, radio broadcasts, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and sports franchises. As board members of the most influential colleges and universities, they influence cultural attitudes and values. As philanthropists, they establish foundations to support social causes they believe in. As campaign contributors, they sway politicians and fund campaigns, sometimes to protect their own economic interests.

U.S. society has historically distinguished between “old money” (inherited wealth passed from one generation to the next) and “new money” (wealth you have earned and built yourself). While both types may have equal net worth, they have traditionally held different social standings. People of old money, firmly situated in the upper class for generations, have held high prestige. Their families have socialized them to know the customs, norms, and expectations that come with wealth. Often, the very wealthy don’t work for wages. Some study business or become lawyers in order to manage the family fortune. Others, such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, capitalize on being a rich socialite and transform that into celebrity status, flaunting a wealthy lifestyle.

However, new-money members of the upper class are not oriented to the customs and mores of the elite. They haven’t gone to the most exclusive schools. They have not established old-money social ties. People with new money might flaunt their wealth, buying sports cars and mansions, but they might still exhibit behaviors attributed to the middle and lower classes.

The Middle Class

Many people consider themselves middle class, but there are differing ideas about what that means. People with annual incomes of $150,000 call themselves middle class, as do people who annually earn $30,000. That helps explain why, in the United States, the middle class is broken into upper and lower subcategories.

Upper-middle-class people tend to hold bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees. They’ve studied subjects such as business, management, law, and medicine. Lower-middle-class members hold bachelor’s degrees from four-year colleges or associate’s degrees from a two-year community or technical colleges.

Comfort is a key concept to the middle class. Middle-class people work hard and live fairly comfortable lives. Upper-middle-class people tend to pursue careers that earn comfortable incomes. They provide their families with large homes and nice cars. They may go skiing or boating on vacation. Their children receive high-quality education and healthcare (Gilbert 2010).

In the lower-middle class, people hold jobs supervised by members of the upper-middle class. They fill technical, lower-level management, or administrative support positions. Compared to lower-class work, lower-middle-class jobs carry more prestige and come with slightly higher paychecks. With these incomes, people can afford a decent, mainstream lifestyle, but they struggle to maintain it. They generally don’t have enough income to build significant savings. In addition, their grip on class status is more precarious than in the upper tiers of the class system. When budgets are tight, lower-middle-class people are often the ones to lose their jobs.

The Lower Class

The lower class is also referred to as the working class. Just like the middle and upper classes, the lower class can be divided into subsets: the working class, the working poor, and the underclass. Compared to the lower-middle class, lower-class people have less educational background and earn smaller incomes. They work jobs that require little prior skill or experience and often do routine tasks under close supervision.

Working-class people, the highest subcategory of the lower class, often land decent jobs in fields like custodial or food service. The work is hands-on and often physically demanding, such as landscaping, cooking, cleaning, or building.

Beneath the working class is the working poor. Like the working class, they have unskilled, low-paying employment. However, their jobs rarely offer benefits such as healthcare or retirement planning, and their positions are often seasonal or temporary. They work as sharecroppers, migrant farmworkers, housecleaners, and day laborers. Some are high school dropouts. Some are illiterate and unable to read job ads.

How can people work full-time and still be poor? Even working full-time, millions of the working poor earn incomes too meager to support a family. The minimum wage varies from state to state, but in many states, it is approaching $8.00 per hour (Department of Labor 2014). At that rate, working 40 hours a week earns $320. That comes to $16,640 a year, before tax and deductions. Even for a single person, the pay is low. A married couple with children will have a hard time covering expenses.

The underclass is the United States’ lowest tier. Members of the underclass live mainly in inner cities. Many are unemployed or underemployed. Those who do hold jobs typically perform menial tasks for little pay. Some of the underclasses are homeless. For many, welfare systems provide much-needed support through food assistance, medical care, housing, and the like.

Social Mobility

Social mobility  refers to the ability to change positions within a social stratification system. When people improve or diminish their economic status in a way that affects social class, they experience social mobility.

Individuals can experience upward or downward social mobility for a variety of reasons.  Upward mobility refers to an increase—or upward shift—in social class. In the United States, people applaud the rags-to-riches achievements of celebrities like Jennifer Lopez or Michael Jordan. Bestselling author Stephen King worked as a janitor prior to being published. Oprah Winfrey grew up in poverty in rural Mississippi before becoming a powerful media personality. There are many stories of people rising from modest beginnings to fame and fortune. But the truth is that relative to the overall population, the number of people who rise from poverty to wealth is very small. Still, upward mobility is not only about becoming rich and famous. In the United States, people who earn a college degree, get a job promotion, or marry someone with a good income may move up socially. In contrast, downward mobility  indicates a lowering of one’s social class. Some people move downward because of business setbacks, unemployment, or illness. Dropping out of school, losing a job, or getting a divorce may result in a loss of income or status and, therefore, downward social mobility.

It is not uncommon for different generations of a family to belong to varying social classes. This is known as  intergenerational mobility . For example, an upper-class executive may have parents who belonged to the middle class. In turn, those parents may have been raised in the lower class. Patterns of intergenerational mobility can reflect long-term societal changes.

Similarly,  intragenerational mobility  refers to changes in a person’s social mobility over the course of his or her lifetime. For example, the wealth and prestige experienced by one person may be quite different from that of his or her siblings.

Structural mobility  happens when societal changes enable a whole group of people to move up or down the social class ladder. Structural mobility is attributable to changes in society as a whole, not individual changes. In the first half of the twentieth century, industrialization expanded the U.S. economy, raising the standard of living and leading to upward structural mobility. In today’s work economy, the recent recession and the outsourcing of jobs overseas have contributed to high unemployment rates. Many people have experienced economic setbacks, creating a wave of downward structural mobility.

When analyzing the trends and movements in social mobility, sociologists consider all modes of mobility. Scholars recognize that mobility is not as common or easy to achieve as many people think. In fact, some consider social mobility a myth.

Class Traits

Class traits , also called class markers, are the typical behaviors, customs, and norms that define each class. Class traits indicate the level of exposure a person has to a wide range of cultures. Class traits also indicate the number of resources a person has to spend on items like hobbies, vacations, and leisure activities.

People may associate the upper class with the enjoyment of costly, refined, or highly cultivated tastes—expensive clothing, luxury cars, high-end fundraisers, and opulent vacations. People may also believe that the middle and lower classes are more likely to enjoy camping, fishing, or hunting; shopping at large retailers; and participating in community activities. While these descriptions may identify class traits, they may also simply be stereotypes. Moreover, just as class distinctions have blurred in recent decades, so too have class traits. A very wealthy person may enjoy bowling as much as opera. A factory worker could be a skilled French cook. A billionaire might dress in ripped jeans, and a low-income student might own designer shoes.

SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Turn-of-the-century “social problem novels”: sociological gold mines.

Class distinctions were sharper in the nineteenth century and earlier, in part because people easily accepted them. The ideology of social order made class structure seem natural, right, and just.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, U.S. and British novelists played a role in changing public perception. They published novels in which characters struggled to survive against a merciless class system. These dissenting authors used gender and morality to question the class system and expose its inequalities. They protested the suffering of urbanization and industrialization, drawing attention to these issues.

These “social problem novels,” sometimes called Victorian realism, forced middle-class readers into an uncomfortable position: they had to question and challenge the natural order of social class.

For speaking out so strongly about the social issues of class, authors were both praised and criticized. Most authors did not want to dissolve the class system. They wanted to bring about an awareness that would improve conditions for the lower classes while maintaining their own higher class positions (DeVine 2005).

Soon, middle-class readers were not their only audience. In 1870, Forster’s Elementary Education Act required all children ages five through twelve in England and Wales to attend school. The act increased literacy levels among the urban poor, causing a rise in sales of cheap newspapers and magazines. The increasing number of people who rode public transit systems created a demand for “railway literature,” as it was called (Williams 1984). These reading materials are credited with the move toward democratization in England. By 1900 the British middle class had established a rigid definition for itself, and England’s working-class also began to self-identify and demand a better way of life.

Many of the novels of that era are seen as sociological goldmines. They are studied as existing sources because they detail the customs and mores of the upper, middle, and lower classes of that period in history.

Examples of “social problem” novels include Charles Dickens’s  The Adventures of Oliver Twist  (1838), which shocked readers with its brutal portrayal of the realities of poverty, vice, and crime. Thomas Hardy’s  Tess of the d’Urbervilles  (1891) was considered revolutionary by critics for its depiction of working-class women (DeVine 2005), and U.S. novelist Theodore Dreiser’s  Sister Carrie (1900) portrayed an accurate and detailed description of early Chicago.

• Define global stratification
• Describe different sociological models for understanding global stratification
• Understand how studies of global stratification identify worldwide inequalities

Global stratification  compares the wealth, economic stability, status, and power of countries across the world. Global stratification highlights worldwide patterns of social inequality.

In the early years of civilization, hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies lived off the earth and rarely interacted with other societies. When explorers began traveling, societies began trading goods, as well as ideas and customs.

In the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution created unprecedented wealth in Western Europe and North America. Due to mechanical inventions and new means of production, people began working in factories—not only men but women and children as well. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, industrial technology had gradually raised the standard of living for many people in the United States and Europe.

The Industrial Revolution also saw the rise of vast inequalities between countries that were industrialized and those that were not. As some nations embraced technology and saw increased wealth and goods, others maintained their ways; as the gap widened, the nonindustrialized nations fell further behind. Some social researchers, such as Walt Rostow, suggest that the disparity also resulted from power differences. Applying a conflict theory perspective, he asserts that industrializing nations took advantage of the resources of traditional nations. As industrialized nations became rich, other nations became poor (Rostow 1960).

Sociologists studying global stratification analyze economic comparisons between nations. Income, purchasing power, and wealth are used to calculate global stratification. Global stratification also compares the quality of life that a country’s population can have.

Poverty levels have been shown to vary greatly. The poor in wealthy countries like the United States or Europe are much better off than the poor in less-industrialized countries such as Mali or India. In 2002, the UN implemented the Millennium Project, an attempt to cut poverty worldwide by the year 2015. To reach the project’s goal, planners in 2006 estimated that industrialized nations must set aside 0.7 percent of their gross national income—the total value of the nation’s goods and services, plus or minus income received from and sent to other nations—to aid in developing countries (Landler and Sanger, 2009; Millennium Project 2006).

Models of Global Stratification

Various models of global stratification all have one thing in common: they rank countries according to their relative economic status, or gross national product (GNP). Traditional models, now considered outdated, used labels to describe the stratification of the different areas of the world. Simply put, they were named “first world,” “second world,” and “third world.” The first and second world described industrialized nations, while the third world referred to “undeveloped” countries (Henslin 2004). When researching existing historical sources, you may still encounter these terms, and even today people still refer to some nations as the “third world.”

Another model separates countries into two groups: more developed and less developed. More-developed nations have higher wealth, such as Canada, Japan, and Australia. Less-developed nations have less wealth to distribute among higher populations, including many countries in central Africa, South America, and some island nations.

Yet another system of global classification defines countries based on the per capita gross domestic product (GDP), a country’s average national wealth per person. The GDP is calculated (usually annually) in one of two ways: by totaling either the income of all citizens or the value of all goods and services produced in the country during the year. It also includes government spending. Because the GDP indicates a country’s productivity and performance, comparing GDP rates helps establish a country’s economic health in relation to other countries.

The figures also establish a country’s standard of living. According to this analysis, the GDP standard of a middle-income nation represents a global average. In low-income countries, most people are poor relative to people in other countries. Citizens have little access to amenities such as electricity, plumbing, and clean water. People in low-income countries are not guaranteed education, and many are illiterate. The life expectancy of citizens is lower than in high-income countries.

BIG PICTURE

Calculating global stratification.

A few organizations take on the job of comparing the wealth of nations. The Population Reference Bureau (PRB) is one of them. Besides having a focus on population data, the PRB publishes an annual report that measures the relative economic well-being of all the world’s countries. It’s called the Gross National Income (GNI) and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

The GNI measures the current value of goods and services produced by a country. The PPP measures the relative power a country has to purchase those same goods and services. So, GNI refers to productive output and PPP refers to buying power. The total figure is divided by the number of residents living in a country to establish the average income of a resident of that country.

Because the costs of goods and services vary from one country to the next, the GNI PPP converts figures into a relative international unit. Calculating GNI PPP figures helps researchers accurately compare countries’ standards of living. They allow the United Nations and Population Reference Bureau to compare and rank the wealth of all countries and consider international stratification issues (nationsonline.org).

• Understand and apply functionalist, conflict theory, and interactionist perspectives on social stratification

Basketball is one of the highest-paying professional sports. There is stratification even among teams. For example, the Minnesota Timberwolves hand out the lowest annual payroll, while the Los Angeles Lakers reportedly pay the highest. Kobe Bryant, a former Lakers shooting guard, was one of the highest-paid athletes in the NBA, earning around $30.5 million a year (Forbes 2014). Even within specific fields, layers are stratified and members are ranked.

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

Functionalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict Theory

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

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

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

Symbolic Interactionism

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

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

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

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

Introduction to Global Inequality

The April 24, 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh which killed over 1,100 people, was the deadliest garment factory accident in history, and it was preventable (International Labour Organization, Department of Communication 2014).

In addition to garment factories employing about 5,000 people, the building contained a bank, apartments, childcare facilities, and a variety of shops. Many of these closed the day before the collapse when cracks were discovered in the building walls. When some of the garment workers refused to enter the building, they were threatened with the loss of a month’s pay. Most were young women, aged twenty or younger. They typically worked over thirteen hours a day, with two days off each month. For this work, they took home between twelve and twenty-two cents an hour, or $10.56 to $12.48 a week. Without that pay, most would have been unable to feed their children. In contrast, the U.S. federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, and workers receive wages at time-and-a-half rates for work in excess of forty hours a week.

Did you buy clothes from Walmart in 2012? What about at The Children’s Place? Did you ever think about where those clothes came from? Of the outsourced garments made in the garment factories, 32 percent were intended for U.S., Canadian, and European stores. In the aftermath of the collapse, it was revealed that Walmart jeans were made in the Ether Tex garment factory on the fifth floor of the Rana Plaza building, while 120,000 pounds of clothing for The Children’s Place were produced in the New Wave Style Factory, also located in the building. Afterward, Walmart and The Children’s Place pledged $1 million and $450,000 (respectively) to the Rana Plaza Trust Fund, but fifteen other companies with clothing made in the building have contributed nothing, including U.S. companies Cato and J.C. Penney (Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights 2014).

While you read this chapter, think about the global system that allows U.S. companies to outsource their manufacturing to peripheral nations, where many women and children work in conditions that some characterize as slave labor. Do people in the United States have a responsibility to foreign workers? Should U.S. corporations be held accountable for what happens to garment factory workers who make their clothing? What can you do as a consumer to help such workers?

• Describe global stratification
• Understand how different classification systems have developed
• Use terminology from Wallerstein’s world-systems approach
• Explain the World Bank’s classification of economies

Just as the United States’ wealth is increasingly concentrated among its richest citizens while the middle class slowly disappears,  global inequality  is concentrating resources in certain nations and is significantly affecting the opportunities of individuals in poorer and less powerful countries. In fact, a recent Oxfam (2014) report that suggested the richest eighty-five people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion combined. The  Gini coefficient measures income inequality between countries using a 100-point scale on which 1 represents complete equality and 100 represents the highest possible inequality. In 2007, the global Gini coefficient that measured the wealth gap between the core nations in the northern part of the world and the most peripheral nations in the southern part of the world was 75.5 percent (Korseniewicz and Moran 2009). But before we delve into the complexities of global inequality, let’s consider how the three major sociological perspectives might contribute to our understanding of it.

The functionalist perspective is a macro analytical view that focuses on the way that all aspects of society are integral to the continued health and viability of the whole. A functionalist might focus on why we have global inequality and what social purposes it serves. This view might assert, for example, that we have global inequality because some nations are better than others at adapting to new technologies and profiting from a globalized economy, and that when core nation companies locate in peripheral nations, they expand the local economy and benefit the workers.

Conflict theory focuses on the creation and reproduction of inequality. A conflict theorist would likely address the systematic inequality created when core nations exploit the resources of peripheral nations. For example, how many U.S. companies take advantage of overseas workers who lack the constitutional protection and guaranteed minimum wages that exist in the United States? Doing so allows them to maximize profits, but at what cost?

The symbolic interaction perspective studies the day-to-day impact of global inequality, the meanings individuals attach to global stratification, and the subjective nature of poverty. Someone applying this view to global inequality would probably focus on understanding the difference between what someone living in a core nation defines as poverty (relative poverty, defined as being unable to live the lifestyle of the average person in your country) and what someone living in a peripheral nation defines as poverty (absolute poverty, defined as being barely able, or unable, to afford basic necessities, such as food).

Global Stratification

While stratification in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of resources among individuals,  global stratification  refers to this unequal distribution among nations. There are two dimensions to this stratification: gaps between nations and gaps within nations. When it comes to global inequality, both economic inequality and social inequality may concentrate the burden of poverty among certain segments of the earth’s population (Myrdal 1970). As the chart below illustrates, people’s life expectancy depends heavily on where they happen to be born.

Most of us are accustomed to thinking of global stratification as economic inequality. For example, we can compare the United States’ average worker’s wage to America’s average wage. Social inequality, however, is just as harmful as economic discrepancies. Prejudice and discrimination—whether against a certain race, ethnicity, religion, or the like—can create and aggravate conditions of economic equality, both within and between nations. Think about the inequity that existed for decades within the nation of South Africa. Apartheid, one of the most extreme cases of institutionalized and legal racism, created a social inequality that earned it the world’s condemnation.

Gender inequity is another global concern. Consider the controversy surrounding female genital mutilation. Nations that practice this female circumcision procedure defend it as a longstanding cultural tradition in certain tribes and argue that the West shouldn’t interfere. Western nations, however, decry the practice and are working to stop it.

Inequalities based on sexual orientation and gender identity exist around the globe. According to Amnesty International, a number of crimes are committed against individuals who do not conform to traditional gender roles or sexual orientations (however those are culturally defined). From culturally sanctioned rape to state-sanctioned executions, the abuses are serious. These legalized and culturally accepted forms of prejudice and discrimination exist everywhere—from the United States to Somalia to Tibet—restricting the freedom of individuals and often putting their lives at risk (Amnesty International 2012).

Global Classification

A major concern when discussing global inequality is how to avoid an ethnocentric bias implying that less-developed nations want to be like those who’ve attained post-industrial global power. Terms such as developing (nonindustrialized) and developed (industrialized) imply that unindustrialized countries are somehow inferior and must improve to participate successfully in the global economy, a label indicating all aspects of the economy across national borders. We must take care in how we delineate different countries. Over time, the terminology has shifted to make way for a more inclusive view of the world.

Cold War Terminology

Cold War terminology was developed during the Cold War era (1945–1980). Familiar and still used by many, it classifies countries as first-world, second-world, and third-world nations based on their respective economic development and standards of living. When this nomenclature was developed, capitalistic democracies such as the United States and Japan were considered part of the first world . The poorest, most undeveloped countries were referred to as the  third world  and included most of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The  second world was the in-between category: nations not as limited in development as the third world but not as well off as the first world, having moderate economies and standards of living, such as China or Cuba. Later, sociologist Manual Castells (1998) added the term fourth world  to refer to stigmatized minority groups that were denied a political voice all over the globe (indigenous minority populations, prisoners, and the homeless, for example).

Also during the Cold War, global inequality was described in terms of economic development. Along with developing and developed nations, the terms less-developed nation and underdeveloped nation were used. This was the era when the idea of  noblesse oblige  (first-world responsibility) took root, suggesting that the so-termed developed nations should provide foreign aid to the less-developed and underdeveloped nations in order to raise their standard of living.

Immanuel Wallerstein: World Systems Approach

Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1979) world systems approach uses an economic basis to understand global inequality. Wallerstein conceived of the global economy as a complex system that supports an economic hierarchy that places some nations in positions of power with numerous resources and other nations in a state of economic subordination. Those that are in a state of subordination face significant obstacles to mobilization.

Core nations  are dominant capitalist countries, highly industrialized, technological, and urbanized. For example, Wallerstein contends that the United States is an economic powerhouse that can support or deny support to important economic legislation with far-reaching implications, thus exerting control over every aspect of the global economy and exploiting both semi-peripheral and peripheral nations. We can look at free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as an example of how a core nation is able to leverage its power to gain the most advantageous position in the matter of global trade.

Peripheral nations have very little industrialization; what they do have often represents the outdated castoffs of core nations or the factories and means of production owned by core nations. They typically have unstable governments and inadequate social programs, and they are economically dependent on core nations for jobs and aid. There are abundant examples of countries in this category, such as Vietnam and Cuba. We can be sure the workers in a Cuban cigar factory, for example, which is owned or leased by global core nation companies, are not enjoying the same privileges and rights as U.S. workers.

Semi-peripheral nations are in-between nations, not powerful enough to dictate policy but nevertheless acting as a major source of raw material and an expanding middle-class marketplace for core nations, while also exploiting peripheral nations. Mexico is an example, providing abundant cheap agricultural labor to the U.S. and supplying goods to the United States market at a rate dictated by the U.S. without the constitutional protections offered to United States workers.

World Bank Economic Classification by Income

While the World Bank is often criticized, both for its policies and its method of calculating data, it is still a common source of global economic data. Along with tracking the economy, the World Bank tracks demographics and environmental health to provide a complete picture of whether a nation is high income, middle income, or low income.

High-Income Nations

The World Bank defines high-income nations as having a gross national income of at least $12,746 per capita. The OECD (Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development) countries make up a group of thirty-four nations whose governments work together to promote economic growth and sustainability. According to the World Bank (2014b), in 2013, the average  gross national income (GNI) per capita (or the mean income of the people in a nation, found by dividing the total GNI by the total population) of a high-income nation belonging to the OECD was $43,903 per capita and the total population was over one billion (1.045 billion); on average, 81 percent of the population in these nations was urban. Some of these countries include the United States, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom (World Bank 2014b).

High-income countries face two major issues: capital flight and deindustrialization. Capital flight  refers to the movement (flight) of capital from one nation to another, as when General Motors automotive company closed U.S. factories in Michigan and opened factories in Mexico.  Deindustrialization , a related issue, occurs as a consequence of capital flight, as no new companies open to replace jobs lost to foreign nations. As expected, global companies move their industrial processes to the places where they can get the most production with the least cost, including the building of infrastructure, training of workers, shipping of goods, and, of course, paying employee wages. This means that as emerging economies create their own industrial zones, global companies see the opportunity for existing infrastructure and much lower costs. Those opportunities lead to businesses closing the factories that provide jobs to the middle class within core nations and moving their industrial production to peripheral and semi-peripheral nations.

Capital Flight, Outsourcing, and Jobs in the United States

Capital flight describes jobs and infrastructure moving from one nation to another. Look at the U.S. automobile industry. In the early twentieth century, the cars driven in the United States were made here, employing thousands of workers in Detroit and in the companies that produced everything that made building cars possible. However, once the fuel crisis of the 1970s hit and people in the United States increasingly looked to imported cars with better gas mileage, U.S. auto manufacturing began to decline. During the 2007–2009 recession, the U.S. government bailed out the three main auto companies, underscoring their vulnerability. At the same time, Japanese-owned Toyota and Honda and South Korean Kia maintained stable sales levels.

Capital flight also occurs when services (as opposed to manufacturing) are relocated. Chances are if you have called the tech support line for your cell phone or Internet provider, you’ve spoken to someone halfway across the globe. This professional might tell you her name is Susan or Joan, but her accent makes it clear that her real name might be Parvati or Indira. It might be the middle of the night in that country, yet these service providers pick up the line saying, “Good morning,” as though they are in the next town over. They know everything about your phone or your modem, often using a remote server to log in to your home computer to accomplish what is needed. These are the workers of the twenty-first century. They are not on factory floors or in traditional sweatshops; they are educated, speak at least two languages, and usually have significant technical skills. They are skilled workers, but they are paid a fraction of what similar workers are paid in the United States. For U.S. and multinational companies, the equation makes sense. India and other semi-peripheral countries have emerging infrastructures and education systems to fill their needs, without core nation costs.

As services are relocated, so are jobs. In the United States, unemployment is high. Many college-educated people are unable to find work, and those with only a high school diploma are in even worse shape. We have, as a country, outsourced ourselves out of jobs, and not just menial jobs, but white-collar work as well. But before we complain too bitterly, we must look at the culture of consumerism that we embrace. A flat-screen television that might have cost $1,000 a few years ago is now $350. That cost-saving has to come from somewhere. When consumers seek the lowest possible price, shop at big box stores for the biggest discount they can get, and generally ignore other factors in exchange for low cost, they are building the market for outsourcing. And as the demand is built, the market will ensure it is met, even at the expense of the people who wanted it in the first place.

Middle-Income Nations

The World Bank defines middle-income economies as those with a GNI per capita of more than $1,045 but less than $12,746. According to the World Bank (2014), in 2013, the average GNI per capita of an upper-middle-income nation was $7,594 per capita with a total population of 2.049 billion, of which 62 percent was urban. Thailand, China, and Namibia are examples of middle-income nations (World Bank 2014a).

Perhaps the most pressing issue for middle-income nations is the problem of debt accumulation. As the name suggests,  debt accumulation  is the buildup of external debt, wherein countries borrow money from other nations to fund their expansion or growth goals. As the uncertainties of the global economy make repaying these debts, or even paying the interest on them, more challenging, nations can find themselves in trouble. Once global markets have reduced the value of a country’s goods, it can be very difficult to ever manage the debt burden. Such issues have plagued middle-income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as East Asian and Pacific nations (Dogruel and Dogruel 2007). By way of example, even in the European Union, which is composed of more core nations than semi-peripheral nations, the semi-peripheral nations of Italy and Greece face increasing debt burdens. The economic downturns in both Greece and Italy still threaten the economy of the entire European Union.

Low-Income Nations

The World Bank defines low-income countries as nations whose per capita GNI was $1,045 per capita or less in 2013. According to the World Bank (2014a), in 2013, the average per capita GNI of a low-income nation was $528 per capita and the total population was 796,261,360, with 28 percent located in urban areas. For example, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Somalia are considered low-income countries. Low-income economies are primarily found in Asia and Africa (World Bank 2014a), where most of the world’s population lives. There are two major challenges that these countries face: women are disproportionately affected by poverty (in a trend toward a global feminization of poverty), and much of the population lives in absolute poverty.

• Understand the differences between relative, absolute, and subjective poverty
• Describe the economic situation of some of the world’s most impoverished areas
• Explain the cyclical impact of the consequences of poverty

What does it mean to be poor? Does it mean being a single mother with two kids in New York City, waiting for the next paycheck in order to buy groceries? Does it mean living with almost no furniture in your apartment because your income doesn’t allow for extras like beds or chairs? Or does it mean having to live with the distended bellies of the chronically malnourished throughout the peripheral nations of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia? Poverty has a thousand faces and a thousand gradations; there is no single definition that pulls together every part of the spectrum. You might feel you are poor if you can’t afford cable television or buy your own car. Every time you see a fellow student with a new laptop and smartphone you might feel that you, with your ten-year-old desktop computer, are barely keeping up. However, someone else might look at the clothes you wear and the calories you consume and consider you rich.

Types of Poverty

Social scientists define global poverty in different ways and take into account the complexities and the issues of relativism described above.  Relative poverty is a state of living where people can afford necessities but are unable to meet their society’s average standard of living. People often disparage “keeping up with the Joneses”—the idea that you must keep up with the neighbors’ standard of living to not feel deprived. But it is true that you might feel “poor” if you are living without a car to drive to and from work, without any money for a safety net should a family member fall ill, and without any “extras” beyond just making ends meet.

Contrary to relative poverty, people who live in  absolute poverty  lack even the basic necessities, which typically include adequate food, clean water, safe housing, and access to healthcare. Absolute poverty is defined by the World Bank (2014a) as when someone lives on less than $1.25 a day. According to the most recent estimates, in 2011, about 17 percent of people in the developing world lived at or below $1.25 a day, a decrease of 26 percent compared to ten years ago, and an overall decrease of 35 percent compared to twenty years ago. A shocking number of people––88 million––live in absolute poverty, and close to 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day (Shah 2011). If you were forced to live on $2.50 a day, how would you do it? What would you deem worthy of spending money on, and what could you do without? How would you manage the necessities—and how would you make up the gap between what you need to live and what you can afford?

Subjective poverty describes poverty that is composed of many dimensions; it is subjectively present when your actual income does not meet your expectations and perceptions. With the concept of subjective poverty, the poor themselves have a greater say in recognizing when it is present. In short, subjective poverty has more to do with how a person or a family defines themselves. This means that a family subsisting on a few dollars a day in Nepal might think of themselves as doing well, within their perception of normal. However, a westerner traveling to Nepal might visit the same family and see an extreme need.

The Underground Economy Around the World

What do the driver of an unlicensed hack cab in New York, a piecework seamstress working from her home in Mumbai, and a street tortilla vendor in Mexico City have in common? They are all members of the  underground economy , a loosely defined unregulated market unhindered by taxes, government permits, or human protections. Official statistics before the worldwide recession posit that the underground economy accounted for over 50 percent of nonagricultural work in Latin America; the figure went as high as 80 percent in parts of Asia and Africa (Chen 2001). A recent article in the  Wall Street Journal  discusses the challenges, parameters, and surprising benefits of this informal marketplace. The wages earned in most underground economy jobs, especially in peripheral nations, are a pittance––a few rupees for a handmade bracelet at a market, or maybe 250 rupees ($5 U.S.) for a day’s worth of fruit and vegetable sales (Barta 2009). But these tiny sums mark the difference between survival and extinction for the world’s poor.

The underground economy has never been viewed very positively by global economists. After all, its members don’t pay taxes, don’t take out loans to grow their businesses, and rarely earn enough to put money back into the economy in the form of consumer spending. But according to the International Labor Organization (an agency of the United Nations), some 52 million people worldwide will lose their jobs due to the ongoing worldwide recession. And while those in core nations know that high unemployment rates and limited government safety nets can be frightening, their situation is nothing compared to the loss of a job for those barely eking out an existence. Once that job disappears, the chance of staying afloat is very slim.

Within the context of this recession, some see the underground economy as a key player in keeping people alive. Indeed, an economist at the World Bank credits jobs created by the informal economy as a primary reason why peripheral nations are not in worse shape during this recession. Women in particular benefit from the informal sector. The majority of economically active women in peripheral nations are engaged in the informal sector, which is somewhat buffered from the economic downturn. The flip side, of course, is that it is equally buffered by the possibility of economic growth.

Even in the United States, the informal economy exists, although not on the same scale as in peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. It might include under-the-table nannies, gardeners, and housecleaners, as well as unlicensed street vendors and taxi drivers. There are also those who run informal businesses, like daycares or salons, from their houses. Analysts estimate that this type of labor may make up 10 percent of the overall U.S. economy, a number that will likely grow as companies reduce headcounts, leaving more workers to seek other options. In the end, the article suggests that, whether selling medicinal wines in Thailand or woven bracelets in India, the workers of the underground economy at least have what most people want most of all: a chance to stay afloat (Barta 2009).

Who Are the Impoverished?

Who are the impoverished? Who is living in absolute poverty? The truth that most of us would guess is that the richest countries are often those with the least people. Compare the United States, which possesses a relatively small slice of the population pie and owns by far the largest slice of the wealth pie, with India. These disparities have the expected consequence. The poorest people in the world are women and those in peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. For women, the rate of poverty is particularly worsened by the pressure on their time. In general, time is one of the few luxuries the very poor have, but study after study has shown that women in poverty, who are responsible for all family comforts as well as any earnings they can make, have less of it. The result is that while men and women may have the same rate of economic poverty, women are suffering more in terms of overall wellbeing (Buvinic 1997). It is harder for females to get credit to expand businesses, to take the time to learn a new skill, or to spend extra hours improving their craft so as to be able to earn at a higher rate.

Global Feminization of Poverty

In some ways, the phrase “global feminization of poverty” says it all: around the world, women are bearing a disproportionate percentage of the burden of poverty. This means more women live in poor conditions, receive inadequate healthcare, bear the brunt of malnutrition and inadequate drinking water, and so on. Throughout the 1990s, data indicated that while overall poverty rates were rising, especially in peripheral nations, the rates of impoverishment increased for women by nearly 20 percent more than for men (Mogadham 2005).

Why is this happening? While myriad variables affect women’s poverty, research specializing in this issue identifies three causes (Mogadham 2005):

• The expansion in the number of female-headed households
• The persistence and consequences of intra-household inequalities and biases against women
• The implementation of neoliberal economic policies around the world

While women are living longer and healthier lives today compared to ten years ago, around the world many women are denied basic rights, particularly in the workplace. In peripheral nations, they accumulate fewer assets, farm less land, make less money, and face restricted civil rights and liberties. Women can stimulate the economic growth of peripheral nations, but they are often undereducated and lack access to the credit needed to start small businesses.

In 2013, the United Nations assessed its progress toward achieving its Millennium Development Goals. Goal 3 was to promote gender equality and empower women, and there were encouraging advances in this area. While women’s employment outside the agricultural sector remains under 20 percent in Western Asia, Northern Africa, and Southern Asia, worldwide it increased from 35 percent to 40 percent over the twenty-year period ending in 2010 (United Nations 2013).

The majority of the poorest countries in the world are in Africa. That is not to say there is no diversity within the countries of that continent; countries like South Africa and Egypt have much lower rates of poverty than Angola and Ethiopia, for instance. Overall, African income levels have been dropping relative to the rest of the world, meaning that Africa as a whole is getting relatively poorer. Making the problem worse, 2014 saw an outbreak of the Ebola virus in western Africa, leading to a public health crisis and an economic downturn due to the loss of workers and tourist dollars.

Why is Africa in such dire straits? Much of the continent’s poverty can be traced to the availability of land, especially arable land (land that can be farmed). Centuries of struggle over land ownership have meant that much useable land has been ruined or left unfarmed, while many countries with inadequate rainfall have never set up an infrastructure to irrigate. Many of Africa’s natural resources were long ago taken by colonial forces, leaving little agricultural and mineral wealth on the continent.

Further, African poverty is worsened by civil wars and inadequate governance that are the result of a continent re-imagined with artificial colonial borders and leaders. Consider the example of Rwanda. There, two ethnic groups cohabitated with their own system of hierarchy and management until Belgians took control of the country in 1915 and rigidly confined members of the population into two unequal ethnic groups. While, historically, members of the Tutsi group held positions of power, the involvement of Belgians led to the Hutu seizing power during a 1960s revolt. This ultimately led to a repressive government and genocide against Tutsis that left hundreds of thousands of Rwandans dead or living in diaspora (U.S. Department of State 2011c). The painful rebirth of a self-ruled Africa has meant many countries bear ongoing scars as they try to see their way toward the future (World Poverty 2012a).

While the majority of the world’s poorest countries are in Africa, the majority of the world’s poorest people are in Asia. As in Africa, Asia finds itself with a disparity in the distribution of poverty, with Japan and South Korea holding much more wealth than India and Cambodia. In fact, most poverty is concentrated in South Asia. One of the most pressing causes of poverty in Asia is simply the pressure that the size of the population puts on its resources. In fact, many believe that China’s success in recent times has much to do with its draconian population control rules. According to the U.S. State Department, China’s market-oriented reforms have contributed to its significant reduction of poverty and the speed at which it has experienced an increase in income levels (U.S. Department of State 2011b). However, every part of Asia is feeling the current global recession, from the poorest countries whose aid packages will be hit to the more industrialized ones whose own industries are slowing down. These factors make poverty on the ground unlikely to improve any time soon (World Poverty 2012b).

The Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) includes oil-rich countries in the Gulf, such as Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait, but also countries that are relatively resource-poor in relationship to their populations, such as Morocco and Yemen. These countries are predominately Islamic. For the last quarter-century, economic growth has been slower in MENA than in other developing economies, and almost a quarter of the 300 million people who make up the population live on less than $2.00 a day (World Bank 2013).

The International Labour Organization tracks the way income inequality influences social unrest. The two regions with the highest risk of social unrest are Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa region (International Labour Organization 2012). Increasing unemployment and high socioeconomic inequality in MENA were major factors in the Arab Spring, which—beginning in 2010—toppled dictatorships throughout the Middle East in favor of democratically elected governments. Unemployment and income inequalities are still being blamed on immigrants, foreign nationals, and ethnic/religious minorities.

SOCIOLOGY IN THE REAL WORLD

Sweatshops and student protests: who’s making your team spirit.

Most of us don’t pay too much attention to where our favorite products are made. And certainly, when you’re shopping for a college sweatshirt or ball cap to wear to a school football game, you probably don’t turn over the label, check who produced the item, and then research whether or not the company has fair labor practices. But for the members of USAS––United Students Against Sweatshops––that’s exactly what they do. The organization, which was founded in 1997, has waged countless battles against both apparel makers and other multinational corporations that do not meet what USAS considers fair working conditions and wages (USAS 2009).

Sometimes their demonstrations take on a sensationalist tone, as in 2006 when twenty Penn State students protested while naked or nearly naked, in order to draw attention to the issue of sweatshop labor. The school is actually already a member of an independent monitoring organization called the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), which monitors working conditions and works to assist colleges and universities in maintaining compliance with their labor code. But the students were protesting in order to have the same code of conduct applied to the factories that provide materials for the goods, not just where the final product is assembled (Chronicle of Higher Education 2006).

The USAS organization has chapters on over 250 campuses in the United States and Canada and has waged countless campaigns against companies like Nike and Forever 21 apparel, Taco Bell restaurants, and Sodexo food service. In 2000, members of USAS helped to create the WRC. Schools that affiliate with the WRC pay annual fees that help offset the organization’s costs. Over 180 schools are affiliated with the organization. Yet, USAS still sees signs of inequality everywhere. And its members feel that, as current and future workers, they are responsible for ensuring that workers of the world are treated fairly. For them, at least, the global inequality we see everywhere should not be ignored for a team spirit sweatshirt.

Consequences of Poverty

Not surprisingly, the consequences of poverty are often also causes. The poor often experience inadequate healthcare, limited education, and the inaccessibility of birth control. But those born into these conditions are incredibly challenged in their efforts to break out since these consequences of poverty are also causes of poverty, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage.

According to sociologists Neckerman and Torche (2007) in their analysis of global inequality studies, the consequences of poverty are many. Neckerman and Torche have divided them into three areas. The first, termed “the sedimentation of global inequality,” relates to the fact that once poverty becomes entrenched in an area, it is typically very difficult to reverse. As mentioned above, poverty exists in a cycle where the consequences and causes are intertwined. The second consequence of poverty is its effect on physical and mental health. Poor people face physical health challenges, including malnutrition and high infant mortality rates. Mental health is also detrimentally affected by the emotional stresses of poverty, with relative deprivation carrying the most robust effect. Again, as with the ongoing inequality, the effects of poverty on mental and physical health become more entrenched as time goes on. Neckerman and Torche’s third consequence of poverty is the prevalence of crime. Cross-nationally, crime rates are higher, particularly for violent crime, in countries with higher levels of income inequality (Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza 2002).

While most of us are accustomed to thinking of slavery in terms of the antebellum South, modern-day slavery goes hand-in-hand with global inequality. In short, slavery refers to any situation in which people are sold, treated as property, or forced to work for little or no pay. Just as in the pre–Civil War United States, these humans are at the mercy of their employers. Chattel slavery , the form of slavery once practiced in the American South, occurs when one person owns another as property. Child slavery, which may include child prostitution, is a form of chattel slavery. In  debt bondage  or bonded labor, the poor pledge themselves as servants in exchange for the cost of basic necessities like transportation, room, and board. In this scenario, people are paid less than they are charged for room and board. When travel is required, they can arrive in debt for their travel expenses and be unable to work their way free, since their wages do not allow them to ever get ahead.

The global watchdog group Anti-Slavery International recognizes other forms of slavery: human trafficking (in which people are moved away from their communities and forced to work against their will), child domestic work and child labor, and certain forms of servile marriage, in which women are little more than chattel slaves (Anti-Slavery International 2012).

• Describe the modernization and dependency theory perspectives on global stratification

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

Modernization Theory

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

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

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

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

Dependency Theory

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

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

Factory Girls

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

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

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

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

Section Quiz

6.1   what is social stratification.

1 . What factor makes caste systems closed?

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

2 . What factor makes class systems open?

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

3 . Which of these systems allows for the most social mobility?

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

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

5 . Which statement illustrates low-status consistency?

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

6 . Based on meritocracy, a physician’s assistant would:

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

6.2   Social Stratification and Mobility in the United States

7 . In the United States, most people define themselves as:

• middle class
• upper class
• lower class
• no specific class

8 . Structural mobility occurs when:

• an individual moves up the class ladder
• an individual moves down the class ladder
• a large group moves up or down the class ladder due to societal changes
• a member of a family belongs to a different class than his or her siblings

9 . The behaviors, customs, and norms associated with a class are known as:

• class traits

10 . Which of the following scenarios is an example of intragenerational mobility?

• A janitor belongs to the same social class as his grandmother did.
• An executive belongs to a different class than her parents.
• An editor shares the same social class as his cousin.
• A lawyer belongs to a different class than her sister.

11 . Occupational prestige means that jobs are:

• all equal in status
• not equally valued
• assigned to a person for life
• not part of a person’s self-identity

6.3   Global Stratification and Inequality

12 . Social stratification is a system that:

• ranks society members into categories
• destroys competition between society members
• allows society members to choose their social standing
• reflects personal choices of society members

13 . Which graphic concept best illustrates the concept of social stratification?

• Planetary movement

14 . The GNI PPP figure represents:

• a country’s total accumulated wealth
• annual government spending
• the average annual income of a country’s citizens
• a country’s debt

6.4   Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 . Conflict theorists view capitalists as those who:

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

6.5   Global Stratification and Classification

20 . A sociologist who focuses on the way that multinational corporations headquartered in core nations exploit the local workers in their peripheral nation factories is using a _________ perspective to understand the global economy.

• conflict theory
• symbolic interactionist

21. . A ____________ perspective theorist might find it particularly noteworthy that wealthy corporations improve the quality of life in peripheral nations by providing workers with jobs, pumping money into the local economy, and improving transportation infrastructure.

22.   A sociologist working from a symbolic interaction perspective would:

• study how inequality is created and reproduced
• study how corporations can improve the lives of their low-income workers
• try to understand how companies provide an advantage to high-income nations compared to low-income nations
• want to interview women working in factories to understand how they manage the expectations of their supervisors, make ends meet, and support their households on a day-to-day basis

23.   France might be classified as which kind of nation?

• Semi-peripheral

24.   In the past, the United States manufactured clothes. Many clothing corporations have shut down their U.S. factories and relocated to China. This is an example of:

• global inequality
• capital flight

6.6   Global Wealth and Poverty

25.   Slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. South most closely resembled

• chattel slavery
• debt bondage
• relative poverty

26. Maya is a twelve-year-old girl living in Thailand. She is homeless and often does not know where she will sleep or when she will eat. We might say that Maya lives in _________ poverty.

27. Mike, a college student, rents a studio apartment. He cannot afford television and lives on cheap groceries like dried beans and ramen noodles. Since he does not have a regular job, he does not own a car. Mike is living in:

• global poverty
• absolute poverty
• subjective poverty

28 . Faith has a full-time job and two children. She has enough money for the basics and can pay her rent each month, but she feels that, with her education and experience, her income should be enough for her family to live much better than they do. Faith is experiencing:

29 . In a U.S. town, a mining company owns all the stores and most of the houses. It sells goods to the workers at inflated prices, offers house rentals for twice what a mortgage would be, and makes sure to always pay the workers less than needed to cover food and rent. Once the workers are in debt, they have no choice but to continue working for the company, since their skills will not transfer to a new position. This situation most closely resembles:

• child slavery
• debt slavery
• servile marriage

6.7   Theoretical Perspectives on Global Stratification

30 . One flaw in dependency theory is the unwillingness to recognize _______.

• that previously low-income nations such as China have successfully developed their economies and can no longer be classified as dependent on core nations
• that previously high-income nations such as China have been economically overpowered by low-income nations entering the global marketplace
• that countries such as China are growing more dependent on core nations
• that countries such as China do not necessarily want to be more like core nations

31 . One flaw in modernization theory is the unwillingness to recognize _________.

• that semi-peripheral nations are incapable of industrializing
• that peripheral nations prevent semi-peripheral nations from entering the global market
• its inherent ethnocentric bias
• the importance of semi-peripheral nations industrializing

32 . If a sociologist says that nations evolve toward more advanced technology and more complex industry as their citizens learn cultural values that celebrate hard work and success, she is using _______ theory to study the global economy.

• modernization theory
• dependency theory
• modern dependency theory
• evolutionary dependency theory

33 . If a sociologist points out that core nations dominate the global economy, in part by creating global interest rates and international tariffs that will inevitably favor high-income nations over low-income nations, he is a:

• functionalist
• dependency theorist
• modernization theorist

34 . Dependency theorists explain global inequality and global stratification by focusing on the way that:

• core nations and peripheral nations exploit semi-peripheral nations
• semi-peripheral nations exploit core nations
• peripheral nations exploit core nations
• core nations exploit peripheral nations

Short Answer

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

PBS made a documentary about social class called “People Like Us: Social Class in America.” The filmmakers interviewed people who lived in Park Avenue penthouses and Appalachian trailer parks. The accompanying website is full of information, interactive games, and life stories from those who participated. Read about it at http://openstax.org/l/social_class_in_America

Nations Online refer to itself as “among other things, a more or less objective guide to the world, a statement for the peaceful, nonviolent coexistence of nations.” The website provides a variety of cultural, financial, historical, and ethnic information on countries and peoples throughout the world: http://openstax.org/l/Nations_Online .

To learn more about the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, look here:  http://openstax.org/l/UN_development_goals

To learn more about the existence and impact of global poverty, peruse the data here:  http://openstax.org/l/poverty_data

Students often think that the United States is immune to the atrocity of human trafficking. Check out the following link to learn more about trafficking in the United States:  http://openstax.org/l/human_trafficking_in_US

For more information about the ongoing practices of slavery in the modern world click here:  http://openstax.org/l/anti-slavery

For more information about economic modernization, check out the Hudson Institute at  http://openstax.org/l/Hudson_Institute

Learn more about economic dependency at the University of Texas Inequality Project:  http://openstax.org/l/Texas_inequality_project

Section Summary

6.1 what is social stratification.

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

There are three main classes in the United States: upper, middle, and lower class. Social mobility describes a shift from one social class to another. Class traits, also called class markers, are the typical behaviors, customs, and norms that define each class.

Global stratification compares the wealth, economic stability, status, and power of countries as a whole. By comparing income and productivity between nations, researchers can better identify global inequalities.

Social stratification can be examined from different sociological perspectives—functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. The functionalist perspective states that systems exist in society for good reasons. Conflict theorists observe that stratification promotes inequality, such as between rich business owners and poor workers. Symbolic interactionists examine stratification from a micro-level perspective. They observe how social standing affects people’s everyday interactions and how the concept of “social class” is constructed and maintained through everyday interactions.

Stratification refers to the gaps in resources both between nations and within nations. While economic equality is of great concern, so is social equality, like the discrimination stemming from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and/or sexual orientation. While global inequality is nothing new, several factors make it more relevant than ever, like the global marketplace and the pace of information sharing. Researchers try to understand global inequality by classifying it according to factors such as how industrialized a nation is, whether a country serves as a means of production or as an owner, and what income a nation produces.

When looking at the world’s poor, we first have to define the difference between relative poverty, absolute poverty, and subjective poverty. While those in relative poverty might not have enough to live at their country’s standard of living, those in absolute poverty do not have, or barely have, basic necessities such as food. Subjective poverty has more to do with one’s perception of one’s situation. North America and Europe are home to fewer of the world’s poor than Africa, which has the poorest countries, or Asia, which has the most people living in poverty. Poverty has numerous negative consequences, from increased crime rates to a detrimental impact on physical and mental health.

Modernization theory and dependency theory are two of the most common lenses sociologists use when looking at the issues of global inequality. Modernization theory posits that countries go through evolutionary stages and that industrialization and improved technology are the keys to forward movement. Dependency theory, on the other hand, sees modernization theory as Eurocentric and patronizing. With this theory, global inequality is the result of core nations creating a cycle of dependence by exploiting resources and labor in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries.

Introduction to Social Stratification in the United States

Huot, Anne E. 2014. “A Commitment to Making College Accessible to First-Generation College Students.”  Huffington Post . Retrieved December 22, 2014 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-e-huot/first-generation-college-students_b_6081958.html).

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

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

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

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

Beeghley, Leonard. 2008.  The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

DeVine, Christine. 2005.  Class in Turn-of-the-Century Novels of Gissing, James, Hardy and Wells . London: Ashgate Publishing Co.

Domhoff, G. William. 2013. “Wealth, Income, and Power.” Retrieved December 22, 2014 (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html).

Gilbert, Dennis. 2010.  The American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality . Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Kennickell, Arthur B. 2009.  Ponds and Streams: Wealth and Income in the U.S., 1989 to 2007 . January 7. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200913/200913pap.pdf).

Lin, Nan, and Wen Xie. 1988. “Occupational Prestige in Urban China.”  American Journal of Sociology  93(4):793–832.

Mason, Jeff, and Andy Sullivan. 2010. “Factbox: What Is Middle Class in the United States?”  Reuters , September 14. Retrieved August 29, 2011 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/us-usa-taxes-middleclass-idUSTRE68D3QD20100914).

Popken, Ben. “CEO Pay Up 298%, Average Worker’s? 4.3% (1995–2005),” 2007,  The Consumerist . Retrieved on December 31, 2014 (http://consumerist.com/2007/04/09/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995-2005/)

United States Department of Labor. 2014. “Wage and Hour Division: Minimum Wage Laws in the States—September 1, 2014.” Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm).

United States Department of Agriculture, 2013, “Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Database: Overview.” Retrieved December 31, 2014 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-and-nutrition-assistance-research-database/ridge-project-summaries.aspx?type=2&summaryId=233)

Williams, Raymond. 1984 [1976].  Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society . New York: Oxford University Press.

Millennium Project. 2006. “Expanding the financial envelope to achieve the Goals.” Millennium Project Official Website. Retrieved January 9, 2012 (http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/costs_benefits2.htm).

Nationsonline.org. “Countries by Gross National Income (GNI).” Retrieved January 9, 2012 (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/GNI_PPP_of_countries.htm).

PRB.org. “GNI PPP Per Capita (US$).”  PRB 2011 World Population Data Sheet . 2011 Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=61).

Rostow, Walt W. 1960.  The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Landler, Mark, and David E. Sanger. 2009. “World Leaders Pledge $1.1 Trillion for Crisis.”  New York Times , April 3. Retrieved January 9, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html).

Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert E. Moore. “Some Principles of Stratification.”  American Sociological Review  10(2):242–249. Retrieved January 9, 2012 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2085643).

Forbes.com LLC. 2014. “#15 Kobe Bryant.” Retrieved December 22, 2014 (http://www.forbes.com/profile/kobe-bryant/).

Marx, Karl. 1848.  Manifesto of the Communist Party . Retrieved January 9, 2012 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/).

Tumin, Melvin M. 1953. “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.”  American Sociological Review  18(4):387–394.

Butler, Sarah. 2013. “Bangladeshi Factory Deaths Spark Action among High-Street Clothing Chains.”  The Guardian . Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primark).

Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights. 2014. “Rana Plaza: A Look Back and Forward.”  Global Labour Rights . Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.globallabourrights.org/campaigns/factory-collapse-in-bangladesh).

International Labour Organization, Department of Communication. 2014. “Post Rana Plaza: A Vision for the Future.”  Working Conditions: International Labour Organization . Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/who-we-are/ilo-director-general/statements-and-speeches/WCMS_240382/lang–en/index.htm).

Korzeniewicz, Robert, and Timothy Patrick Moran. 2009.  Unveiling Inequality: A World-Historical Perspective . New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Amnesty International. 2012. “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” Retrieved January 3, 2012 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity).

Castells, Manuel. 1998.  End of Millennium . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Central Intelligence Agency. 2012. “The World Factbook.” Retrieved January 5, 2012 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_noa.html).

Central Intelligence Agency. 2014. “Country Comparison: Infant Mortality Rate.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/rankorder/2091rank.html?countryname=Canada&countrycode=ca&regionCode=noa&rank=182#ca).

Dogruel, Fatma, and A. Suut Dogruel. 2007. “Foreign Debt Dynamics in Middle-Income Countries.” Paper presented January 4, 2007, at Middle East Economic Association Meeting, Allied Social Science Associations, Chicago, IL.

Moghadam, Valentine M. 2005. “The Feminization of Poverty and Women’s Human Rights.” Gender Equality and Development Section UNESCO, July. Paris, France.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1970.  The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-Poverty Program in Outline . New York: Pantheon.

Oxfam. 2014. “Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality.” Oxfam.org. Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf).

United Nations. 2013. “Millennium Development Goals.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml).

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979.  The Capitalist World Economy . Cambridge, England: Cambridge World Press.

World Bank. 2014a. “Gender Overview.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/gender/overview#1). World Bank. 2014b. “High Income: OECD: Data.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/OEC). World Bank. 2014c. “Low Income: Data.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/LIC). World Bank. 2014d. “Upper Middle Income: Data.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/UMC).

Anti-Slavery International. 2012. “What Is Modern Slavery?” Retrieved January 1, 2012 (http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx).

Barta, Patrick. 2009. “The Rise of the Underground.”  Wall Street Journal , March 14. Retrieved January 1, 2012 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698646833925567.html).

Buvinić, M. 1997. “Women in Poverty: A New Global Underclass.”  Foreign Policy , Fall (108):1–7.

Chen, Martha. 2001. “Women in the Informal Sector: A Global Picture, the Global Movement.”  The SAIS Review  21:71–82

Chronicle of Higher Education. 2006. “Nearly Nude Penn State Students Protest Sweatshop Labor.” March 26. Retrieved January 4, 2012 (http://chronicle.com/article/Nearly-Nude-Penn-Staters/36772).

Fajnzylber, Pablo, Daniel Lederman, and Norman Loayza. 2002. “Inequality and Violent Crime.”  Journal of Law and Economics  45:1–40.

International Labour Organization. 2012. “High Unemployment and Growing Inequality Fuel Social Unrest around the World.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/comment-analysis/WCMS_179430/lang–en/index.htm).

Neckerman, Kathryn, and Florencia Torche. 2007. “Inequality: Causes and Consequences.”  Annual Review of Sociology  33:335–357.

Shah, Anup. 2011. “Poverty around the World.” Global Issues. Retrieved January 17, 2012 (http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/4).

U.S. Department of State. 2011a. “Background Note: Argentina.” Retrieved January 3, 2012 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26516.htm).

U.S. Department of State. 2011b. “Background Note: China.” Retrieved January 3, 2012 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm#econ).

U.S. Department of State. 2011c. “Background Note: Rwanda.” Retrieved January 3, 2012 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2861.htm#econ).

USAS. 2009. “Mission, Vision and Organizing Philosophy.” August. Retrieved January 2, 2012 (http://usas.org).

World Bank. 2013. “Middle East and North Africa.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/0,,menuPK:247619~pagePK:146748~piPK:146812~theSitePK:256299,00.html).

World Bank. 2014e. “Poverty Overview.” Retrieved November 7, 2014 (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview).

World Poverty. 2012a. “Poverty in Africa, Famine and Disease.” Retrieved January 2, 2012 (http://world-poverty.org/povertyinafrica.aspx).

World Poverty. 2012b “Poverty in Asia, Caste and Progress.” Retrieved January 2, 2012 (http://world-poverty.org/povertyinasia.aspx).

World Poverty. 2012c. “Poverty in Latin America, Foreign Aid Debt Burdens.” Retrieved January 2, 2012 (http://world-poverty.org/povertyinlatinamerica.aspx).

Armer, J. Michael, and John Katsillis. 2010. “Modernization Theory.”  Encyclopedia of Sociology , edited by E. F. Borgatta. Retrieved January 5, 2012 (http://edu.learnsoc.org/Chapters/3%20theories%20of%20sociology/11%20modernization%20theory.htm).

Caniels, Marjolein, C.J. Roeleveld, and Adriaan Roeleveld. 2009. “Power and Dependence Perspectives on Outsourcing Decisions.”  European Management Journal  27:402–417. Retrieved January 4, 2012 (http://ou-nl.academia.edu/MarjoleinCaniels/Papers/645947/Power_and_dependence_perspectives_on_outsourcing_decisions).

Chang, Leslie T. 2008.  Factory Girls: From Village to City in Changing China . New York: Random House.

Hendricks, John. 2010. “Dependency Theory.”  Encyclopedia of Sociology , edited by E.F. Borgatta. Retrieved January 5, 2012 (http://edu.learnsoc.org/Chapters/3%20theories%20of%20sociology/5%20dependency%20theory.htm).

Media Attributions

• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_171_Image_0001 © Atwater Village Newbie/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_173_Image_0001 © Alex Proimos/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_174_Image_0001 © Prairie Boy/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_175_Image_0001 © Orin Zebest/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_176_Image_0001 © Elessar/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_181_Image_0001 © Kelly Bailey/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_182_Image_0001 © PrimeImageMedia.com/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_183_Image_0001 © United Way Canada-Centraide Canada/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_184_Image_0001 © Frederick Md Publicity/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_189_Image_0001 © gailf548/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_192_Image_0001 © Brian Stansberry/Wikimedia Commons is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_194_Image_0001 © Alicia Nijdam/Wikimedia Commons is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_199_Image_0001 © CIA World Factbook/Wikimedia Commons is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_200_Image_0001 © Bob Jagendorf/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_201_Image_0001 © Vilma.com/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_202_Image_0001 © Augapfel/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_203_Image_0001 © Emmanuelle Dyan/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_207_Image_0001 © Ohio AFL-CIO Labor 2008/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_208_Image_0001 © DFID - UK Department for International Development/flickr is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

Introduction to Sociology Copyright © 2022 by LOUIS: The Louisiana Library Network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.2A: Global Stratification and Inequality

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 8161

Stratification results in inequality when resources, opportunities, and privileges are distributed based on position in social hierarchy.

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the three dominant theories of global inequality
• Society is stratified into social classes based on an individual’s socioeconomic status, gender, and race.
• Stratification and inequality can be analyzed as micro-, meso-, and macro-level phenomena, as they are produced in small group interactions, through organizations and institutions, and through global economic structures.
• Sociologists use three primary theories to analyze macro-level stratification and inequality: development and modernization theory, dependency theory, and world systems theory.
• Macro-Level Stratification : The role of international economic systems in shaping individuals’ resources and opportunities by privileging certain social stratas.
• Global Stratification : The hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in societies around the world.
• Modernization Theory : Argues that poor nations remain poor because they hold onto traditional attitudes, beliefs, technologies, and institutions.

Global stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in societies around the world.

Global inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources among individuals and groups based on their position in the social hierarchy. Classic sociologist Max Weber analyzed three dimensions of stratification: class, status, and party. Modern sociologists, however, generally speak of stratification in terms of socioeconomic status (SES). A person’s SES is usually determined by their income, occupational prestige, wealth, and educational attainment, though other variables are sometimes considered.

Stratification and Inequality

Stratification refers to the range of social classes that result from variations in socioeconomic status. Significantly, because SES measures a range of variables, it does not merely measure economic inequality. For example, despite earning equal salaries, two persons may have differences in power, property, and prestige. These three indicators can indicate someone’s social position; however, they are not always consistent.

Inequality occurs when a person’s position in the social hierarchy is tied to different access to resources, and it largely depends on differences in wealth. For example, a wealthy person may receive higher quality medical care than a poor person, have greater access to nutritional foods, and be able to attend higher caliber schools. Material resources are not distributed equally to people of all economic statuses.

While stratification is most commonly associated with socioeconomic status, society is also stratified by statuses such as race and gender. Together with SES, these shape the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges among individuals. For example, within a given social class, women are less likely to receive job promotions than men. Similarly, within American cities with heavily racially-segregated neighborhoods, racial minorities are less likely to have access to high quality schools than white people.

Perspectives Towards Stratification

Stratification is generally analyzed from three different perspectives: micro, meso, and macro. Micro-level analysis focuses on how prestige and personal influence create inequality through face-to-face and small group interactions. Meso-level analysis focuses on how connections to organizations and institutions produce inequality. Macro-level analysis considers the role of economic systems in shaping individuals’ resources and opportunities.

Macro-level analyses of stratification can include global analyses of how positions in the international economic system shape access to resources and opportunities. For example, the small African nation of Cape Verde is significantly indebted to European nations and the U.S., and the majority of its industry is controlled by foreign investors. As the nation’s economy has ceded control of once-public services, such as electricity, its citizens have lost jobs and the price of electricity has increased. Thus, the nation’s position in the world economy has resulted in poverty for many of its citizens.

A global structure, or a macro-level phenomenon, produces unequal distribution of resources for people living in various nations.

Theories of Macro-Level Inequality

There are three dominant theories that sociologists use to consider why inequality exists on a global scale.

Global Social Stratification : People in countries around the world experience different access to resources and opportunities and different standards of living, based on their position in the global hierarchy.

Firstly, some sociologists use a theory of development and modernization to argue that poor nations remain poor because they hold onto traditional attitudes and beliefs, technologies and institutions, such as traditional economic systems and forms of government. Modernists believe large economic growth is the key to reducing poverty in poor countries.

Secondly, dependency theory blames colonialism and neocolonialism (continuing economic dependence on former colonial countries) for global poverty. Countries have developed at an uneven rate because wealthy countries have exploited poor countries in the past and today through foreign debt and transnational corporations (TNCs). According to dependency theory, wealthy countries would not be as rich as they are today if they did not have these materials, and the key to reversing inequality is to relieve former colonies of their debts so that they can benefit from their own industry and resources.

Lastly, world systems theory suggests that all countries are divided into a three-tier hierarchy based on their relationship to the global economy, and that a country’s position in this hierarchy determines its own economic development.

According to world systems theory as articulated by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, core countries are at the top of the global hierarchy as they can extract material resources and labor from less developed countries. These core countries own most of the world’s capital and technology, and have great control over world trade and economic agreements. Semiperipheral countries generally provide labor and materials to core countries, which benefits core countries but also increases income within the semiperipheral country. Peripheral countries are generally indebted to wealthy nations, and their land and populations are often exploited for the gain of other countries.

Because of this hierarchy, individuals living in core countries generally have higher standards of living than those in semiperipheral or peripheral countries.

Industrialized Countries Industrialized countries have greater levels of wealth and economic development than less-industrialized countries. Learning Objectives Describe the characteristics of industrialized countries

• Industrialized countries are at the top of the global socioeconomic hierarchy, and their populations generally enjoy a high standard of living.
• Most commonly, the criteria used to evaluate a country’s level of development is its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.
• One measure of a nation’s level of development is the Human Development Index (HDI), a statistical measure developed by the United Nations that gauges a country’s level of human development.
• Developed Country : A sovereign state with a highly developed economy relative to other nations.
• Industrialized Country : A sovereign state with a highly developed economy relative to other nations.
• Human Development Index (HDI) : A composite statistic used to rank countries by level of “human development,” taken as a synonym of the older term “standard of living. “
• gross domestic product : (GDP) The market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a year, or over a given period of time; often used as an indicator of a country’s material standard of living.

An industrialized country, also commonly referred to as a developed country, is a sovereign state with a highly developed economy relative to other nations. Most commonly, the criteria used to evaluate a country’s level of development is its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. However, many other variables are frequently taken into account. Factors used to measure a country’s development can include: per capita income, level of industrialization, extent of infrastructure, life expectancy, literacy rate, and general standard of living. The criteria to use and the countries to classify as developed are contentious issues, as discussed below.

Characteristics of Industrialized Countries

In terms of global stratification, industrialized countries are at the top of the global hierarchy. Developed countries, which include such nations as the United States, France, and Japan, have higher GDPs, per-capita incomes, levels of industrialization, breadth of infrastructure, and general standards of living than less developed nations. Consequently, people living in developed countries have greater access to such resources as food, education, roads, and electricity than their counterparts in less developed nations.

Human Development Index

One measure of a nation’s level of development is the Human Development Index (HDI), a statistical measure developed by the United Nations that gauges a country’s level of development. Often, national income or gross domestic product (GDP) are used alone to measure how prosperous a nation’s economy is. HDI considers these factors, but also accounts for how income is invested in healthcare, education, and other infrastructure. Thus, HDI is often used to predict trends in a nation’s development.

The Human Development Index, along with the entire concept of “developing” and “developed” countries, has been criticized on a number of grounds. The term “developing” implies inferiority compared to a developed country, and it also assumes a desire to develop along the traditional Western model of economic development. Critics argue that this is a rather Western-centric perspective. Critics also argue that it does take into account any ecological considerations and focuses almost exclusively on national performance and ranking.

Social Stratification and Inequality

Cite this chapter.

• Jane D. McLeod 4 &
• James M. Nonnemaker 5  

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

2068 Accesses

27 Citations

1 Altmetric

Social stratification refers to differential access to resources, power, autonomy, and status across social groups. Social stratification implies social inequality; if some groups have access to more resources than others, the distribution of those resources is inherently unequal. Societies can be stratified on any number of dimensions. In the United States, the most widely recognized stratification systems are based on race, social class, and gender.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 87 , 49–74.

Google Scholar  

Amaro, H., Russo, N. F., & Johnson, J. (1987). Family and work predictors of psychological well-being among Hispanic women professionals. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 11 , 505–521.

Amato, P. R., & Zuo, J. (1992). Rural poverty, urban poverty, and psychological well-being. Sociological Quarterly , 33 , 229–240.

Aneshensel, C. S. (1992). Social stress: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology , 18 , 15–38.

Aneshensel, C. S., Frerichs, R. R., & Huba, G. J. (1984). Depression and physical illness: A multiwave, nonrecursive causal model. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 25 , 350–371.

Aneshensel, C. S., & Pearlin, L. I. (1987). Structural contexts of sex differences in stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 75–95 ). New York: Free Press.

Aneshensel, C. S., Rutter, C. M., & Lachenbruch, P. A. (1991). Social structure, stress, and mental health: Competing conceptual and analytic models. American Sociological Review , 56 , 166–178.

Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 37 , 293–310.

Avison, W. R., & Turner, R. J. (1988). Stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Disaggregating the effects of acute stressors and chronic strains. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 29 , 253–264.

Barone, C., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., Voyce, C. K., Arthur, M. W., & Shriver, T. P. (1995). Involvement in multiple problem behaviors of young urban adolescents. Journal of Primary Prevention , 15 , 261–283.

Belle, D. (1982). The stress of caring: Women as providers of social support. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 496–505 ). New York: Free Press.

Belle, D. (1990). Poverty and women’s mental health. American Psychologist , 45 , 385–389.

Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure . New York: Free Press.

Blendon, R., Aiken, L., Freeman, H., & Corey, C. (1989). Access to medical care for black and white Americans. Journal of the American Medical Association , 261 , 278–281.

Blum, H. M., Boyle, M. H., & Offord, D. R. (1988). Single-parent families: Child psychiatric disorder and school performance. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 27 , 214–219.

Boisjoly, J., Duncan, G.J., & Hofferth, S. (1995). Access to social capital. Journal of Family Issues , 16 , 609–631.

Burke, A. W. (1984). Racism and psychological disturbance among West Indians in Britain. International Journal of Social Psychiatry , 30 , 50–68.

Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review , 56 , 836–849.

Cahill, J. (1983). Structural characteristics of the macroeconomy and mental health: Implications for primary prevention research. American Journal of Community Psychology , 11 , 553–571.

Calnan, M., & Johnson, B. (1985). Health, health risks and inequalities. Sociology of Health and Illness , 7 , 55–75.

Caspi, A., Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1987). Linking person and context in the daily stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52 , 184–195.

Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem behaviour and relationships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 218–240 ). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent games . New York: Free Press.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development , 63 , 526–541.

Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., Elder, G. H., Jr., Simons, R. L., & Ge, X. (1993). Husband and wife differences in response to undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 34 , 71–88.

Danziger, S., & Wheeler, D. (1975). The economics of crime: Punishment or income redistribution. Review of Social Economy , 33 , 113–131.

Dohrenwend, B. P., & Dohrenwend, B. S. (1969). Social status and psychological disorder: A causal inquiry . New York: Wiley Interscience.

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (1979). Economic, life, and disorder changes: Time-series analyses. American Journal of Community Psychology , 7, 381–396.

Dressler, W. W. (1988). Social consistency and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 29 , 79–91.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of black folk: Essays and sketches . Chicago: McClurg.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125 ). New York: Academic Press.

Eberts, P., & Schwirian, K. P. (1968). Metropolitan crime rates and relative deprivation. Criminologica , 5 , 43–57.

Eckenrode, J. (1984). Impact of chronic and acute stressors on daily reports of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 , 907–918.

Elder, G. H., Jr.,Van Nguyen, T., & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children’s lives. Child Development , 56 , 361–375.

Ensminger, M. E. (1995). Welfare and psychological distress: A longitudinal study of African-American urban mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 36 , 346–359.

Faris, R., & Dunham, H. W. (1939). Mental disorders in urban areas: An ecological study of schizophrenia and other psychoses . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farley, R., & Allen, W. R. (1987). The color line and the quality of life in America . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fenwick, R., & Tausig, M. (1994). The macroeconomic context of job stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 35 , 266–282.

Fernando, S. (1984). Racism as a cause of depression. International Journal of Social Psychiatry , 30 , 41–49.

Finch, M. D., Shanahan, M. J., Mortimer, J. T., & Ryu, S. (1991). Work experience and control orientation in adolescence. American Sociological Review , 56 , 597–611.

Furstenberg, E F., Jr. (1992). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In W. R. Heinz (Ed.), Institutions and gatekeeping in the life course (pp. 121–149 ). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly , 46 , 77–88.

Gecas, V., & Seff, M. A. (1990). Social class and self-esteem: Psychological centrality, compensation, and the relative effects of work and home. Social Psychological Quarterly , 53 , 165–173.

Gibbs, J. T., & Fuery, D. (1994). Mental health and well-being of black women: Toward strategies of empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology , 22 , 559–582.

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Pugh, M. D. (1986). Friendships and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology , 91 , 1170–1202.

Golding, J. J., Potts. M. K., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1991). Stress exposure among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Journal of Community Psychology , 19 , 37–59.

Goodban, N. (1985, September). The psychological impact of being on welfare. Social Service Review , 403–422.

Gougis, R. A. (1986). The effects of prejudice and stress on the academic performance of black Americans. In Ulric Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 145–158 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grant, P. R., & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly , 58 , 195–211.

Hagan, J. (1991). Destiny and drift: Subcultural preferences, status attainments, and the risks and rewards of youth. American Sociological Review , 56 , 567–582.

Halpern, R. (1993). Poverty and infant development. In C. H. Zeanah, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 73–86 ). New York: Guilford.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin , 111 , 127–155.

Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1994). The relationship of self-esteem to selected personal and environmental resources of adolescents. Adolescence , 29, 345–360.

Homel, R., & Burns, A. (1989). Environmental quality and the well-being of children. Social Indicators Research , 21 , 133–158.

Horan, P. M., & Gray, B. (1974). Status inconsistency, mobility, and coronary heart disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 15 , 300–310.

Hornung, C. A. (1977). Social status, status inconsistency and psychological stress. American Sociological Review , 42 , 623–638.

Horwitz, A. V. (1984). The economy and social pathology. Annual Review of Sociology , 10 , 95–119.

House, J. S., & Harkins, E. B. (1975). Why and when is status inconsistency stressful? American Journal of Sociology , 81 , 395–412.

Howard, J. A. (1995). Social cognition. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 90–117 ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Huber, J. (1990). Macro-micro links in gender stratification. American Sociological Review , 55 , 1–10.

Hughes, E. C. (1944). Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology , 50 , 353–359.

Hughes, M., & Demo, D. H. (1989). Self-perceptions of black Americans: Self-esteem and personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology , 95, 139–159.

Jackson, E. F. (1962). Status consistency and symptoms of stress. American Sociological Review , 27, 469–480.

Jackson, E. F., & Curtis, R. F. (1972). Effects of vertical mobility and status inconsistency: A body of negative evidence. American Sociological Review , 37 , 701–713.

Jarrett, R. L. (1995). Growing up poor: The family experiences of socially mobile youth in low income African-American neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research , 10 , 111–135.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life . New York: Basic Books.

Kessler, R. C. (1979). Stress, social status, and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 259–272.

Kessler, R. C. (1982). A disaggregation of the relationship between socioeconomic status and psychological distress. American Sociological Review , 47 , 752–764.

Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. American Sociological Review , 49 , 620–631.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Lund, M. (1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 19 , 473–492.

Langner, T. S., & Michael, S. T. (1963). Life stress and mental health . New York: Free Press.

Lempers, J. D., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. L. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development , 60 , 25–39.

Lennon, M. C. (1987). Sex differences in distress: The impact of gender and work roles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 28 , 290–305.

Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1992). Women and mental health: The interaction of job and family conditions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 33 , 316–327.

Lenski, G. E. (1954). Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. American Sociological Review , 19 , 405–413.

Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Liem, R., & Liem, J. (1978). Social class and mental illness reconsidered: The role of economic stress and social support. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 19 , 139–156.

Link, B. G., Lennon, M. C., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1993). Socioeconomic status and depression: The role of occupations involving direction, control, and planning. American Journal of Sociology , 98 , 1351–1387.

Loring, M., & Powell, B. (1988). Gender, race, and DSM-III: A study of the objectivity of psychiatric diagnostic behavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 29, 1–22.

Maclver, R. M. (1950). The ramparts we guard . New York: Macmillan.

Maly, M. T. (1992). Socioeconomic status and early adolescent self-esteem. Sociological Inquiry , 62 , 375–382.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review , 98 , 224–253.

Massey, D. S., Condran, G. A., & Denton, N. A. (1987). The effect of residential segregation on black social and economic well-being. Social Forces , 66 , 29–56.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1987). Trends in the residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970–1980. American Sociological Review , 52 , 802–825.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mattlin, J. A., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Situational determinants of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 31 , 103–122.

McCarthy, J. D., & Yancey, W. L. (1971). Uncle Tom and Mr. Charlie: Metaphysical pathos in the study of racism and personal disorganization. American Journal of Sociology , 76 , 648–672.

McGuire, J. S., & Austin, J. F. (1987). Beyond survival: Children’s growth for national development. Assignment Children , 2, 1–51.

McLeod, J. D., & Edwards, K. (1995). Contextual determinants of children’s responses to poverty. Social Forces , 73 , 1487–1516.

McLeod, J. D., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Socioeconomic status differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 31 , 162–172.

McLeod, J. D., & Nonnemaker, J. M. ( 1997, August). Explaining children’s responses to poverty . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American Sociological Review , 58, 351–366.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 37 , 207–220.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development , 61 , 311–346.

Menaghan, E. G. (1983). Individual coping efforts: Moderators of the relationship between life stress and mental health outcomes. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 157–191 ). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review , 3 , 672–682.

Messner, S. F. (1989). Economic discrimination and societal homicide rates: Further evidence on the cost of inequality. American Sociological Review , 54 , 597–611.

Mintz, N. L., & Schwartz, D. T. (1964). Urban ecology and psychosis: Community factors in the incidence of schizophrenia and manic depression among Italians in Greater Boston. International Journal of Social Psychiatry , 10 , 101–118.

Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and marital power. American Journal of Sociology , 91 , 557–592.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1983). Paranoia and the structure of powerlessness. American Sociological Review , 48 , 228–239.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1986). Social patterns of distress. Annual Review of Sociology , 12 , 23–45.

Mirowsky, J., Ross, C. E., & Van Willigen, M. (1996). Instrumentalism in the land of opportunity: Socioeconomic causes and emotional consequences. Social Psychology Quarterly , 59 , 322–337.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review , 100 , 674–701.

Mohutsica-Makhudu, Y. N. K. (1989). The psychological effects of apartheid on the mental health of black South African women domestics. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development , 17 , 134–142.

Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review , 55, 726–735.

Moritsugu, J., & Sue, S. (1983). Minority status as a stressor. In R. Feiner, L. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. Faber (Eds.), Preventive psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 162–174). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Neff, J. A. (1983). Urbanicity and depression reconsidered: The evidence regarding depressive symptomatology. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 171 , 546–552.

Neighbors, H. W., Jackson, J. S., Campbell, L., & Williams, D. (1989). The influence of racial factors on psychiatric diagnosis: A review and suggestions for research. Community Mental Health Journal , 25, 301–311.

Newacheck, P. W., Butler, L. H., Harper, A. K., Prontkowski, D. L., & Franks, P. E. (1980). Income and illness. Medical Care , 18 , 1165–1176.

Ogbu, J. U. (1986). The consequences of the American caste system. In Ulric Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 19–56 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olson, S. L., & Banyard, V. (1993). Stop the world so I can get off for a while. Family Relations , 42 , 50–56.

Parks, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology , 33, 881–893.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). Developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist , 44 , 329–335.

Pearlin, L. I. (1991). The study of coping: An overview of problems and directions. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 261–276 ). New York: Plenum Press.

Pearlin, L. I. (1992). Structure and meaning in medical sociology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 33 , 1–9.

Pearlin, L. I., & Lieberman, M. A. (1979). Social sources of emotional distress. Research in Community and Mental Health , 1, 217–248.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The stress of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 19 , 2–21.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1967). Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 241–311 ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Pollitt, E. (1987). Effects of iron deficiency in mental development: Methodological considerations and substantive findings. In F. Johnson (Ed.) Nutritional anthropology (pp. 225–254 ). New York: Alan R. Liss.

Pollitt, E. (1994). Poverty and child development: Relevance of research in developing countries to the United States. Child Development , 65 , 283–295.

Popkin, S. J. (1990). Welfare: Views from the bottom. Social Problems , 37 , 64–79.

Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1979). Black identity and self-esteem: A review of studies of black self-concept: 1968–1978. Annual Review of Sociology , 5 , 53–74.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pugliesi, K. (1995). Work and well-being: Gender differences in the psychological consequences of employment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 36 , 57–71.

Riesman, D. (1950). The lonely crowd . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review , 15 , 351–357.

Rosenberg, M. (1962). The dissonant religious context and emotional disturbance. American Journal of Sociology , 68 , 1–10.

Rosenberg, M. (1977). Contextual dissonance effects: Nature and causes. Psychiatry , 40 , 205–217.

Rosenberg, M. (1981). The self-concept: Social product and social force. In M. Rosenberg, & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 593–624 ). New York: Basic Books.

Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. I. (1978). Social class and self-esteem among children and adults. American Journal of Sociology , 84 , 53–77.

Rosenfield, S. (1989). The effects of women’s employment: Personal control and sex differences in mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 30 , 77–91.

Roxburgh, S. (1996). Gender differences in work and well-being: Effects of exposure and vulnerability. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 37 , 265–277.

Rushing, W. A. (1971). Class, culture, and “social structure and anomie”. American Journal of Sociology , 76 , 857–872.

Ryff, C. D. (1987). The place of personality and social structure research in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 , 1192–1202.

Salgado de Snyder, V. N. (1987). Factors associated with acculturative stress and depressive symptomatology among married Mexican immigrant women. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 11 , 475–488.

Schroeder, C. W. (1943). Mental disorders in cities. American Journal of Sociology , 48 , 40–47.

Schwalbe, M. L. (1985). Autonomy in work and self-esteem. Sociological Quarterly , 26, 519–535.

Seff, M. (1992, August). Welfare, work status, and women’s self evaluations . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh.

Seidman, E., & Rapkin, B. (1983). Economics and psychosocial dysfunction: Toward a conceptual framework and prevention strategies. In R. Feiner, L. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive psychology: Theory, research and practice (pp. 175–198). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology , 22 , 299–322.

Simon, R. W. (1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 36 , 182–194.

Singer, E. (1981). Reference groups and social evaluations. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 66–93 ). New York: Basic Books.

Spenner, K. I. (1988). Social stratification, work, and personality. Annual Review of Sociology , 14 , 69–97.

Thoits, P. A. (1987). Gender and marital status differences in control and distress: Common stress versus unique stress explanations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 28 , 7–22.

Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly , 54 , 101–112.

Thompson, V. L. S. (1996). Perceived experiences of racism as stressful life events. Community Mental Health Journal , 32 , 223–233.

Turner, R. J., & Avison, W. R. (1989). Gender and depression: Assessing exposure and vulnerability to life events in a chronically strained population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 177 , 443–455.

Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 35 , 193–212.

Turner, R. J., Wheaton, B., & Lloyd, D. A. (1995). The epidemiology of social stress. American Sociological Review , 60 , 104–125.

Tweed, D. L., Goldsmith, H. F., Jackson, D. J., Stiles, D., Rae, D. S., & Kramer, M. (1990). Racial congruity as a contextual correlate of mental disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 60 , 392–403.

Ulbrich, P. M., Warheit, G. J., & Zimmerman, R. S. (1989). Race, socioeconomic status, and psychological distress: An examination of differential vulnerability. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 30 , 131–146.

Umberson, D. (1993). Sociodemographic position, world views, and psychological distress. Social Science Quarterly , 74 , 575–589.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1985). Statistical abstract of the United States 1986 (106th Ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Money income and poverty status of families and persons in the U.S. : 1989 (Current Population Reports, Series P-60). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Waters, M.C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wheaton, B. (1983). Stress, personal coping resources, and psychiatric symptoms: An investigation of interactive models. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 24 , 208–229.

Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health. American Sociological Review , 55 , 209–223.

White, M., Kasl, S. V., Zahner, G. E. P., & Will, J. C. (1987). Perceived crime in the neighborhood and mental health of women and children. Environment and Behavior , 19 , 588–613.

Williams, D. R. (1990). Socioeconomic differentials in health: A review and redirection. Social Psychology Quarterly , 53 , 81–99.

Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socioeconomic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology , 2 , 335–351.

Williams, R. M., Jr. (1975). Relative deprivation. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp. 355–378 ). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Willie, C. V. (1978). The president’s commission on mental health: A minority report on minorities. New England Sociologist , 1 , 13–22.

Wilson, W. J. (1991). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public agenda research. American Sociological Review , 56 , 1–14.

Wiltfang, G. L., & Scarbecz, M. (1990). Social class and adolescents’ self-esteem: Another look. Social Psychology Quarterly , 53 , 174–183.

Woodward, A. M., Dwinnel, A. D., & Arons, B. S. (1992). Barriers to mental health care for Hispanic Ameri- cans: A literature review and discussion. Journal of Mental Health Administration , 19 , 224–236.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 47405, USA

Jane D. McLeod

Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455, USA

James M. Nonnemaker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, 90095-1772, Los Angeles, California, USA

Carol S. Aneshensel

Division of Sociomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, Columbia University, 10032, New York, New York, USA

Jo C. Phelan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

McLeod, J.D., Nonnemaker, J.M. (1999). Social Stratification and Inequality. In: Aneshensel, C.S., Phelan, J.C. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36223-1_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36223-1_16

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-32516-3

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-36223-6

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Sociology of Social Inequality

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

Social inequality results from a society organized by hierarchies of class, race, and gender that unequally distributes access to resources and rights.

It can manifest in a variety of ways, like income and wealth inequality, unequal access to education and cultural resources, and differential treatment by the police and judicial system, among others. Social inequality goes hand in hand with social stratification .

Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. It contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments.

Racism , for example, is understood to be a phenomenon whereby access to rights and resources is unfairly distributed across racial lines. In the context of the United States, people of color typically experience racism, which benefits white people by conferring on them white privilege , which allows them greater access to rights and resources than other Americans.

There are two main ways to measure social inequality:

• Inequality of conditions
• Inequality of opportunities

Inequality of conditions refers to the unequal distribution of income, wealth, and material goods. Housing, for example, is inequality of conditions with the homeless and those living in housing projects sitting at the bottom of the hierarchy while those living in multi-million dollar mansions sit at the top.

Another example is at the level of whole communities, where some are poor, unstable, and plagued by violence, while others are invested in by businesses and government so that they thrive and provide safe, secure, and happy conditions for their inhabitants.

Inequality of opportunities refers to the unequal distribution of life chances across individuals. This is reflected in measures such as level of education, health status, and treatment by the criminal justice system.

For example, studies have shown that college and university professors are more likely to ignore emails from women and people of color than they are to ignore those from white men,   which privileges the educational outcomes of white men by channeling a biased amount of mentoring and educational resources to them.

Discrimination of an individual, community, and institutional levels is a major part of the process of reproducing social inequalities of race, class, gender , and sexuality. For example, women are systematically paid less than men for doing the same work.  

2 Main Theories

There are two main views of social inequality within sociology. One view aligns with the functionalist theory, and the other aligns with conflict theory.

• Functionalist theorists believe that inequality is inevitable and desirable and plays an important function in society. Important positions in society require more training and thus should receive more rewards. Social inequality and social stratification, according to this view, lead to a meritocracy based on ability.
• Conflict theorists, on the other hand, view inequality as resulting from groups with power dominating less powerful groups. They believe that social inequality prevents and hinders societal progress as those in power repress the powerless people to maintain the status quo. In today's world, this work of domination is achieved primarily through the power of ideology, our thoughts, values, beliefs, worldviews, norms, and expectations, through a process known as cultural hegemony .

How It's Studied

Sociologically, social inequality can be studied as a social problem that encompasses three dimensions: structural conditions, ideological supports, and social reforms.

Structural conditions include things that can be objectively measured and that contribute to social inequality. Sociologists study how things like educational attainment, wealth, poverty, occupations, and power lead to social inequality between individuals and groups of people.

Ideological supports include ideas and assumptions that support the social inequality present in a society. Sociologists examine how things such as formal laws, public policies, and dominant values both lead to social inequality, and help sustain it. For example, consider this discussion of the role that words and the ideas attached to them play in this process.

Social reforms are things such as organized resistance, protest groups, and social movements. Sociologists study how these social reforms help shape or change social inequality that exists in a society, as well as their origins, impact, and long-term effects.

Today, social media plays a large role in social reform campaigns and was harnessed in 2014 by British actress Emma Watson , on behalf of the United Nations, to launch a campaign for gender equality called #HeForShe.

Milkman, Katherine L., et al. “ What Happens before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations. ”  Journal of Applied Psychology , vol. 100, no. 6, 2015, pp. 1678–1712., 2015, doi:10.1037/apl0000022

“ Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2017 .”  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , Aug. 2018.

• What Is Social Stratification, and Why Does It Matter?
• Introduction to Sociology
• What You Need to Know About Economic Inequality
• The Sociology of Education
• Visualizing Social Stratification in the U.S.
• How Expectation States Theory Explains Social Inequality
• What Is Social Oppression?
• What's the Difference Between Prejudice and Racism?
• Theories of Ideology
• The Sociology of Gender
• The Sociology of Consumption
• Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge
• Sociology Of Religion
• Understanding Poverty and Its Various Types
• What Is Distributive Justice?
• The Concept of Social Structure in Sociology

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Social inequality and social stratification in US society

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

2 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station44.cebu on July 11, 2022

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Suggestions

• A Streetcar Named Desire
• A Tale of Two Cities
• Great Expectations
• The Handmaid's Tale
• The Outsiders

Please wait while we process your payment

Reset Password

Your password reset email should arrive shortly..

If you don't see it, please check your spam folder. Sometimes it can end up there.

Something went wrong

Log in or create account.

•   Be between 8-15 characters.
•   Contain at least one capital letter.
•   Contain at least one number.
•   Be different from your email address.

By signing up you agree to our terms and privacy policy .

Don’t have an account? Subscribe now

Create Your Account

Sign up for your FREE 7-day trial

• Ad-free experience
• Note-taking
• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AP® English Test Prep
• Plus much more

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Already have an account? Log in

Choose Your Plan

Group Discount

$4.99 /month + tax

$24.99 /year + tax

Save over 50% with a SparkNotes PLUS Annual Plan!

Purchasing SparkNotes PLUS for a group?

Get Annual Plans at a discount when you buy 2 or more!

$24.99 $18.74   / subscription + tax

Subtotal $37.48 + tax

Save 25% on 2-49 accounts

Save 30% on 50-99 accounts

Want 100 or more? Contact us for a customized plan.

Payment Details

Payment Summary

SparkNotes Plus

 Change

You'll be billed after your free trial ends.

7-Day Free Trial

Not Applicable

Renews May 17, 2024 May 10, 2024

Discounts (applied to next billing)

SNPLUSROCKS20  |  20% Discount

This is not a valid promo code.

Discount Code (one code per order)

SparkNotes PLUS Annual Plan - Group Discount

SparkNotes Plus subscription is $4.99/month or $24.99/year as selected above. The free trial period is the first 7 days of your subscription. TO CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION AND AVOID BEING CHARGED, YOU MUST CANCEL BEFORE THE END OF THE FREE TRIAL PERIOD. You may cancel your subscription on your Subscription and Billing page or contact Customer Support at [email protected] . Your subscription will continue automatically once the free trial period is over. Free trial is available to new customers only.

For the next 7 days, you'll have access to awesome PLUS stuff like AP English test prep, No Fear Shakespeare translations and audio, a note-taking tool, personalized dashboard, & much more!

You’ve successfully purchased a group discount. Your group members can use the joining link below to redeem their group membership. You'll also receive an email with the link.

Members will be prompted to log in or create an account to redeem their group membership.

Thanks for creating a SparkNotes account! Continue to start your free trial.

We're sorry, we could not create your account. SparkNotes PLUS is not available in your country. See what countries we’re in.

There was an error creating your account. Please check your payment details and try again.

Your PLUS subscription has expired

• We’d love to have you back! Renew your subscription to regain access to all of our exclusive, ad-free study tools.
• Renew your subscription to regain access to all of our exclusive, ad-free study tools.
• Go ad-free AND get instant access to grade-boosting study tools!
• Start the school year strong with SparkNotes PLUS!
• Start the school year strong with PLUS!

Social Stratification and Inequality

• Study Guide

Unlock your FREE SparkNotes PLUS trial!

Unlock your free trial.

• Ad-Free experience
• Easy-to-access study notes
• AP® English test prep

Study Questions

Compare and contrast the estate system and the caste system.

Both systems stratify society based on ascribed status, although the estate system is a bit more flexible. Both systems use religious or spiritual ideology to justify stratification. Both dictate occupation, marriage, and relationship options. In the estate system, the nobles are born into that class. They claim their authority through the divine right of kings. Members of the clergy are born into nobility and then become priests, while commoners rarely move out of their position. Unlike the caste system, the estate system no longer exists. The caste system, though no longer legal, still exists in places such as India. Hindus based the caste system on the religious ideology of reincarnation. Indians cannot change castes.

How does disparity in public schools contribute to the culture of poverty in the United States?

Education remains an important avenue to success in the United States. Without quality education, poor children are unlikely to learn how to rise out of poverty. Schools in poor areas lack the resources to train students adequately, and the students do not learn enough in high school to be accepted into college. Even if they do aspire to attend college, they may not learn how to navigate the college-application process, since poor schools often lack counselors dedicated to helping students get into college. Students who don’t attend college generally work at lower-paying jobs and can’t afford to leave poor areas. As a result, their kids will attend the same school they did, and the cycle of poverty will continue.

Is the American Dream available to all people? Why or why not?

Theoretically, the American Dream is available to all people living in the United States—native-born Americans as well as immigrants. However, the dream is easier for some to attain than others. White people, particularly men, have the easiest time attaining the American Dream. White men have more institutional support for their ambitions, and society expects more from them than from others. They are more likely to receive help from people who want them to succeed. For women and minorities, policies such as affirmative action and anti- discrimination legislation are in place to help them succeed. Policies cannot, however, overcome all resistance. For women, glass ceilings prevent them from reaching the highest echelons of business, and racism and a racist caste system often prevent ethnic minorities from reaching their potential. Still, women and minorities have achieved success in many areas of American life. If it’s possible for some, it is possible for others—even if some people face greater difficulties.

Is it easier to attain wealth when you have prestige or to attain prestige when you have wealth?

In the United States, money begets prestige and power. It is easier to attain prestige when you have wealth. Americans often have greater respect for a person who is very wealthy than for someone who is a great humanitarian but has little money. Prestige does not always correlate with wealth, however. Some people gain prestige as a result of their professions, not as a result of the salary they receive. Supreme Court justices receive salaries of less than $200,000 a year but are esteemed members of society. Third-string players in the NBA receive higher salaries than the justices but probably have less prestige. In another example, a lottery winner can be a person of average intelligence and charisma, but when he becomes wealthy, he gains prestige.

How can you explain the feminization of poverty?

Several factors have combined to explain the increased number of women and children living at or below the poverty level in the United States. First, more women are choosing to live alone, whereas in the past, such a choice was considered deviant. Women in abusive situations used to have few choices other than staying in the abusive relationship. Today, however, single motherhood is no longer considered deviant, so more women opt for it if they are in an abusive relationship. Divorce for reasons other than abuse is also more common today. After a divorce, a woman’s standard of living is likely to decline, since women still only make about three-quarters of what men make.

Popular pages: Social Stratification and Inequality

Review quiz further study, take a study break.

Every Literary Reference Found in Taylor Swift's Lyrics

The 7 Most Messed-Up Short Stories We All Had to Read in School

QUIZ: Which Greek God Are You?

Every Book on Your English Syllabus, Summed Up in John Mulaney Quotes

Inequality and Social Stratification

This essay will explore the concepts of inequality and social stratification. It will analyze how societal structures create and perpetuate inequalities and discuss the implications for individuals and communities. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Gender Inequality.

How it works

Inequality and social stratification is global. Gender stratification, in economic situations, places men, even when doing a more feminine job, more important. In the work environment, universities and places of learning, organizations, even home life, men are perceived to be more important, have more power and authority and more respect simply because of gender. Even though, with more gender-neutral attitudes and reversal of roles, masculinity and femininity are still based on social interpretations based on culture, economics and status, or intersection theory.

As long as we as a people, a culture and society look at others through our own eyes and belief system, many biases will be present. Depending on the culture or society, the idea that there are some people more deserving then others will promote sexism and racism.

• 1 Gender Relations
• 2 REFERENCES

Gender Relations

We have come a long way since the days of slavery or women wearing an apron, barefoot, and pregnant. Although the majority of today’s women work outside the home, and over the past 50 years have had a huge raise in pay, women are still considered inferior to men. Gender inequality, “ acknowledges that men and women are not equal and that gender affects an individual’s lived experience”. (Wikipedia). How do ideologies and institutions reproduce and maintain gender inequality? Ideologies strengthen society by the use of symbolic interactionism of systems for domination and subordination. (Rice University, 2016) Dominant ideology is believed to be one of the reasons for inequality in labor market in the United States. (Cech and Blair-Loy 2010). In education, the averages of women to men rank higher in grades but in the workplace a man ranks higher in pay than a woman. Why is this? The question may never be fully answered because the fact will always remain, women can birth a child. In many studies, men said they felt inferior to women because women can go through carrying and birthing babies. Yet, There is not any reasoning as to why a woman is considered beneath a man because she can create another human, it just is. This difference is just one of the causes that set men and women apart. In todays world, a larger percentage of women spend time keeping up the household activities. Women, even those who work outside the home, still carry the majority of the household workload. This makes women in a subservient role in the family, “84 percent of women vs. 67 percent of men spend time doing household management activities”. (Rice 2016). The equality of woman has definitely improved, though. In the United States a “women makes about 80 cents to a man’s dollar”. This is about a 20% rise over the last 30 years.

Part of the reason men get higher pay is because of the types of jobs they work compared to women (Table 2). This is what leads us into traits of masculinity and femininity. “Contemporary norms associated with femininity are: dependent, emotional, passive, sensitive, quiet, graceful, innocent, weak, flirtatious, nurturing, self-critical, soft, sexually submissive, accepting. Contemporary norms associated with masculinity are: independent, non-emotional, aggressive, tough-skinned, competitive, clumsy, experienced, strong, active, confident, hard, sexually aggressive, rebellious.” (Zevallos). Even though, each gender has stereotypes, in today’s society more and more lines are being crossed. In work, home life, child care and places of employment and the jobs held. Social stratification is one reason for gender inequality. Unequal access to social resources has been around throughout the ages. Women used to be considered property, children went to school seasonally working in the fields and factories, poorer people, people of color, gender, all provide social stratification and inequality to those of privilege and means.

In society a person’s sex determines whether someone is male or female, their biological right. Gender is what society or an individual “perceives “ himself or herself or someone else to be, “social institution of gender insists only that what they do is perceived as different”. (Budgeon, 2014). Sexuality is how someone feels about someone, whom they are attracted to.

It’s crazy to think that where we are in today’s world, with the advancement of technology and the ability to freely speak out on any issue, that we still have racial issues. The black man and black women still come in behind the white population due to inequalities in the system. Table 3 shows the earning gap of all races compared with White men.

Education and poverty is the biggest cause of the lag for the black community. The rates for drop outs and incarceration is at a high for black men, “The persistent disadvantage of low-education African Americans is, however, usually linked to the penal system but to large-scale social forces like urban deindustrialization, residential segregation, or wealth inequality”. (Pettit and Western. 2015). The high rate of incarceration for the African American is due to the “low wages, unemployment, family instability, recidivism, and restrictions on political and social rights”. (Pettit and Western. 2015).

To live in a society that is not biased or prejudiced would mean that each person would consider the intersection of all identifying markers to each individual Identifying markers include: race, ethnicity, religion, education, sexual orientation, status, money and more. The problem is, this will never happen because we have our own set of factors that determine how we look at people and the world. For example, if given a description of two people and a narrative, but little information, we imagine the people a certain way so the outcome of our judgment or interpretation is biased by our belief. However, given more information, the entire concept can change on the changed perceptions.

The way each class, race or just groups of people consider the other is part of what continues the inequality. Intersection theory, developed by Patricia Hill Collins, “suggests we cannot separate the effects of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and other attributes. Privilege and/or hardships experienced by different populations are often determined by socioeconomic factors. Poorer communities will have more hardships, incarceration and problems. The position in there world is defined by the intersection of their identity markers. Where as, a person of wealth or means, will have less problems, unlikely time spent incarcerated and more privilege. When you tie in race, sexual orientation and the other factors, you have intersection theory.

Throughout history men and women have been unequal in respect, compensation, status and many other factors. The gap is not as great as it once was but it may never disappear. Gender inequality is further advanced by institutions, the work place, our own belief system, economics and so many other factors. This inequality is socially acceptable while still archaic. Men make more money, do less around the house, can’t bear children, get more respect than women even with gender neutral attitudes. Gender inequality is still better than racial inequality. A black man or woman will usually make less than their white counterpart. Inequality, based on the intersection theory of identifying markers, makes the problem seem insurmountable. How do we change a culture or society? How do we make it better? How do we change basic cultural views of the world? Realization and determination is the only answer, individuals changing society, one idea or family at a time.

• Ariane Hegewisch, M.Phil., Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D. The Gender Wage Gap: 2018 Earnigns Differneces by Race and Ethnicity. Table 3. March 7, 2019. https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-2018/
• Becky Pettit and Bruce Western. 2015. Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality in U.S. Incarceration. American Sociological Review. https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.utpb.edu/doi/10.1177/000312240406900201
• Erin A. Cech and Mary Blair-Loy. 2010 Perceiving Glass Ceilings? Meritocratic vs. Structural Explanations of Gender Inequality among Women in Science and Technology. Social Problems Vol. 57, No.3. Pg 27
• Rice University. 2016. Introduction to Sociology 2e. OpenStax Pg. 259
• Shelley Budgeon. The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change. Sociology Vol. 48, No. 2.. April 2014. Pp317-334 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.utpb.edu/stable/24433249
• Stanford Center on Poverty & Inequality. Table1&2. 2011. https://inequality.stanford.edu/
• Zuleyka Zevallos. Study of how Society influences understandings & differences between masculinity & femininity. Sociology of Gender. https://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-gender/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality
• *CharitiXan Nichols can be reached at [email protected]

Cite this page

Inequality And Social Stratification. (2021, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/

"Inequality And Social Stratification." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Inequality And Social Stratification . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/ [Accessed: 10 May. 2024]

"Inequality And Social Stratification." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2021. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/

"Inequality And Social Stratification," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/. [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Inequality And Social Stratification . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/inequality-and-social-stratification/ [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories Essay

Introduction, conflict and functionalism theories, challenge to social equality.

There is no question that inequality is prevalent in all sorts of human society. No matter the level of human development, inequality seems to be existent. It is even present in simple cultures where there is minimal variation in wealth.

Some individuals in such cultures may have privilege because of their prowess in certain skills such as hunting, medicine or access to ancestral power. In modern societies, inequality manifests in social and economic classes, power, income, access to health facilities, academic, gender and other forms. Social economical classes are the most common in most societies and have attracted attention from many sociologists. Many societies try to address the class issue but with little success.

Even socialist and communist governments that try to eliminate social economic classes fail to achieve equality. In Canada today, inequality is evident in various forms. Social economic classes, income variation, health, academic, ethnic, gender and other forms of inequality are obvious in the country. In the essay, I will join other sociologists in trying to address the persistent question “why inequality exist?”

Inequality, also referred to as social stratification, has been a core subject to sociologists for many years (Macionis and Linda 2010). Sociologists try to understand, explain and prescribe solutions to the issue of inequality. Despite of major sociologists such as Max Weber, Karl Marx and others trying to prescribe solution to inequality, the issue continues to persist. Marx was critical of capitalism and accused it of existence of social classes.

On the other hand, Weber agreed with Marx that economic interests led to social classes but viewed social stratification in terms of class, prestige and power. There are mainly two schools of thought to the issue of inequality: conflict and functional theories. To understand why inequality exists, it is helpful to review the divergent positions presented by the two theories and try to come up with a reconciling position.

Conflict and functionalism theories are the main theories trying to provide answers to why inequality exists in the society. The two theories take fundamentally different approaches to explain the issue. Functionalism theory views inequality as unavoidable and important to the society while conflict theory considers inequality to result from conflict and coercion in the social system (Andersen and Taylor 2006).

To functionalism sociologists, society is a system of parts with each part having useful contribution to the system. According to the theory, society can be compared to human body where various parts such as lungs, hands, heart, and eyes contribute to functionality of the body as a whole.

The way the social system maintains itself is of more interest to functionalist sociologists than specific interactions between the different parts of the system. To functionalists, inequality is unavoidable and leads to some good to the society. The theory assumes that any pattern in social system has its good purposes. Considering occupations, functionalists justify inequality in rewards by asserting that the rewards reflect the importance of the different occupations to the system.

For instance, functionalists would explain the high rewards and respect given to some occupations such as doctors, scientists and judges as compared to other occupations such farming and garbage collections, by saying that the former occupations are more important to the society as a whole. In addition, they would claim that such occupations require much talent, effort and education. Therefore, the high reward is meant to encourage individuals to take the pain to occupy such important positions.

Conflict theory provides the other extreme explanation to inequality in society. Unlike functionalism theory, conflict theory compares society to war. Conflict theory sociologists consider the society to be held together by conflict and coercion among members of the society.

According to Ridney (2001), conflict theory likens society to battlefield where members compete for control of limited resources and power. Unlike functionalists that stratify the society to functional parts that cooperate for the good of the society, conflict theory views society as consisting of competing parts (Rigney 2001).

The theorists, led by Karl Marx, consider social classes to result from blocked opportunities rather than talent and effort. While functionalists justify unequal rewards for different occupations as a way to utilize important talents and abilities, conflict theorists consider stratification in the society to limit utilization of talents from lower class. To conflict theorists, stratification in the society does not have positive contribution to the society.

Conflict and functionality theories on inequality shed light into causes of social stratification but do not completely explain the situation. The society can be viewed both as functional parts and as competing parts. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, carpenters, farmers, garbage collectors, cooks and other occupations are important to the society.

As functionalists argue, some occupations such as medicine require more effort and many years of preparation. It is therefore reasonable to reward doctors, judges and other such occupations highly to motivate individuals to occupy them. It is also natural to give respect and honor to individuals with unique and important skills. For instance, if a country has a single neurosurgeon, the surgeon would be valued and respected without asking for it.

However, it should be appreciated that other occupations that are considered less important, such as farming, are vital to sustainability of a society. Functionalism therefore makes sense when the society is considered as a system without deep consideration of individual members of the system. For instance, the theory cannot provide a convincing explanation to why some individual strive for wealth and power, since amassing wealth and power is not always good for the society.

Conflict theory provides a more practical explanation to inequality. Competition is a central thing in the society. Individuals compete for scarce resource, recognition, power and prestige (Macionis 2001). Considering scenario of a school, students compete for attention from their teacher, to be included in their school’s base-ball team, to top their class academically, to win scholarship for high education and many other things.

At individual lever, a student chooses an occupation mostly not by its contribution to the society but by reward and prestige that would come with it. In business, an individual is mostly motivated by the power and prestige that go along with wealth rather than importance of their service to the society. Conflict theory can explain competition in school, business, politics, and other occupation and social stratification that result. Bottom-line to stratified society, in fact, is the human propensity to gain dominion over others.

Attaining social equality is a major objective for human right bodies across the globe. However, that objective is not easy to achieve considering various manifestation of inequality in the world. In Canada, despite of various steps taken to ensure equality in various forms, inequality persists.

Social equality implies all people in a society having equal status. At minimum social equality implies equal rights to all individual in a society. The state however is not easy to achieve mostly because of historic inequality that already exist. For instance, although Canadian constitution guarantees equal rights to quality health and education, there is evident inequality in health and education.

Individuals in upper social economic classes have resources to access high standard of health services and afford quality education for themselves and for their children. Limited interaction between individuals from different social class makes it hard to achieve equality.

Individuals in upper social class tend to relate more with individuals in the same social class while individuals in other social classes do the same. Therefore, there is little chance for an individual to cross over from on social class to another (Horowitz 1997). In addition, individuals in privileged social class have resources, power and influence to maintain the status quo of inequality.

Division of labor has high contribution to inequality. Different occupations attract varying rewards and therefore contribute to inequality. Occupations such as medicine, engineering and law tend to attract high rewards as compared to other occupations as gardening. Even in occupations requiring relatively equal years of training, rewards seem to vary (Loseke 1999).

For example, despite of going through almost equal years of training, a teacher is likely to earn less as compared to an engineer. In addition, division of labor leads to some occupations being considered superior to others therefore promoting social stratification.

Individuals from different social economic classes may understand inequality differently. A wealthy individual can consider social inequality proportional to creativity and effort that an individual exerts in his endeavors. The rich may consider their fortune to result from their hard work and consider poverty to result from laziness and lack of initiative. On the other hand, a poor person can view social stratification to result from social injustice.

In conclusion, there is no obvious answer to why inequality exists in society. Inequality continues to exist even in countries with high level of human development as Canada. Functionalism and conflict theories can however help understand social stratification. To functionalists, social stratification is not necessarily evil but serves an important function in the society. On the other hand, conflict theory explains inequality to result from competition in society.

Without regard to how inequality comes about, it is obvious that high level of inequality is dehumanizing and can lead to social evils such as crime. It is therefore important to minimize inequality as much as possible. To promote social equality, an enabling environment that exposes all individuals to equal opportunities is necessary.

Andersen, Margaret and Howard Taylor. 2006. Sociology: the essentials . New York: Cengage Learning.

Horowitz, Ruth.1997. “Barriers and Bridges to Class Mobility and Formation: Ethnographies of Stratification”. Sociological Methods and Research 25 (1):495-538.

Loseke, Donileen. 1999. Thinking about Social Problems: An Introduction to Constructionist Perspectives . New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Macionis, John and Linda Gerber. 2010. Sociology, 7 th Canadian edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.

Macionis, John. 2001. Sociology , 8 th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rigney, Daniel. 2001. The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, November 27). Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories. https://ivypanda.com/essays/inequality-in-society/

"Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories." IvyPanda , 27 Nov. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/inequality-in-society/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories'. 27 November.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories." November 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/inequality-in-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories." November 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/inequality-in-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Inequality in Society: Conflict and Functionalism Theories." November 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/inequality-in-society/.

• The Functionalist Perspective and Functionalisms
• Sociological Theories and the Process of Aging
• Durkheim's Functionalism and Marx's Conflict Theory
• The Sociology of Religion: Childhood Indoctrination
• Sociology of Religion: Beliefs in Society
• Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously
• The Role of Family in Political Socialization
• Consumerism Is Beneficial to U.S. Society

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

Chapter 9. Social Inequality

9.1. What Is Social Inequality?

Sociologists use the term social inequality to describe the unequal distribution of valued resources, rewards, and social positions in a society. Key to the concept are the notions of social differentiation and social stratification . The question for sociologists is: how are systems of stratification formed? What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Social differentiation refers to the social characteristics — social differences, identities, and roles — used to differentiate people and divide them into different categories, such as race, gender, age, class, occupation, and education. These social categories have implications for social inequality. Social differentiation by itself does not necessarily imply a division of individuals into a hierarchy of rank, privilege, and power. However, when a social category like class, occupation, gender, or race puts people in a position where they can claim a greater share of resources or rewards, then social differentiation becomes the basis of social inequality.

The term social stratification refers to an institutionalized system of social inequality. It refers to a situation in which social inequality has solidified into an ongoing system that determines and reinforces who gets what, when, and why. Social differentiation based on different characteristics becomes the basis for social inequality.

Students may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct horizontal layers found in rock, called “strata,” are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The people with the most resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers of society. Social stratification assigns people to socio-economic strata based on a process of social differentiation — “these type of people go here, and those type of people go there.” The outcome is differences in wealth, income and power. Again, the question for sociologists is how systems of stratification are formed. What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Equality of Condition and Equality of Opportunity

In Canada, the dominant ideological presumption about social inequality is that everyone has an equal chance at success. This is the belief in equality of opportunity , which can be contrasted with the concept of equality of condition . Equality of opportunity is the idea that everyone has an equal possibility of becoming successful. It exists when people have the same chance to pursue economic or social rewards. This is often seen as a function of equal access to education, meritocracy (where individual merit determines social standing), and formal or informal measures to eliminate social discrimination.

Equality of condition is the situation in which everyone in a society has a similar actual level of wealth, status, and power. Although degrees of equality of condition vary markedly in modern societies, it is clear that even the most egalitarian societies today have considerable degrees of inequality of condition. Ultimately, equality of opportunity means that inequalities of condition are not so great that they greatly hamper a person’s opportunities or life chances. Whether Canada is a society characterized by equality of opportunity, or not, is a subject of considerable sociological debate.

To a certain extent, Ted Rogers’ story illustrates the idea of equality of opportunity. His personal narrative is one in which hard work and talent — not inherent privilege, birthright, prejudicial treatment, or societal values — determined his social rank. This emphasis on individual effort is based on the belief that people individually control where they end up in the social hierarchy, which is a key piece in the idea of equality of opportunity. Most people connect inequalities of wealth, status, and power to the individual characteristics of those who succeed or fail. The story of the Aboriginal gang members, although it is also a story of personal choices, casts that belief into doubt. It is clear that the type of choices available to the Aboriginal gang members are of a different range and quality than those available to the Rogers family. The available choices and opportunities are a product of habitus and location within the system of social stratification .

While there are always inequalities between individuals in terms of talent, skill, drive, chance, and so on, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Social inequality is not about individual qualities and differences, but about systematic inequalities based on group membership, class, gender, ethnicity, and other variables that structure access to rewards and status. In other words, sociologists are interested in examining the structural conditions of social inequality. There are of course differences in individuals’ abilities and talents that will affect their life chances. The larger question, however, is how inequality becomes systematically structured in economic, social, and political life. In terms of individual ability: Who gets the opportunities to develop their abilities and talents, and who does not? Where does “ability” or “talent” come from? As Canadians live in a society that emphasizes the individual (individual effort, individual morality, individual choice, individual responsibility, individual talent, etc.) it is often difficult to see the way in which life chances are socially structured.

Wealth, Income, Power and Status

Factors that define the layers of stratification vary in different societies. In most modern societies, stratification is indicated by differences in wealth , the net value of money and assets a person has, and income , a person’s wages, salary, or investment dividends. It can also be defined by differences in power (e.g., how many people a person must take orders from versus how many people a person can give orders to, or how many people are affected by one’s orders) and status (the degree of honour or prestige one has in the eyes of others). These four factors create a complex amalgam that defines an individual’s social standing within a hierarchy.

Usually the four factors coincide, as in the case of corporate CEOs, like Ted Rogers, at the top of the hierarchy — wealthy, powerful, and prestigious — and the Aboriginal offenders at the bottom — poor, powerless, and abject. Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency of an individual’s rank across these factors.

Students can also think of someone like the Canadian Prime Minister — who ranks high in power, but with a salary of approximately $320,000 — earns much less than comparable executives in the private sector (albeit eight times the average Canadian salary). The Prime Minister’s status or prestige also rises and falls with the fluctuations of politics and public opinion. The Nam-Boyd scale of status, based on education and income, ranks politicians (legislators) at 66/100, the same status as cable TV technicians (Boyd, 2008). There is status inconsistency in the prime minister’s position.

Teachers often have high levels of education, which give them high status (92/100 according to the Nam-Boyd scale), but they receive relatively low pay. Many believe that teaching is a noble profession, so teachers should do their jobs for the love of their profession and the good of their students, not for money. Yet no successful executive or entrepreneur would embrace that attitude in the business world, where profits are valued as a driving force. Cultural attitudes and beliefs like these support and perpetuate social inequalities.

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists distinguish between two types of stratification systems. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relations between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. The different systems also produce and foster different cultural values, like the values of loyalty and traditions versus the values of innovation and individualism. The difference in stratification systems can be examined by the comparison between class systems and caste systems.

The Caste System

Caste systems are closed stratification systems in which people can do little or nothing to change their social standing. A caste system is one in which people are born into their social standing and remain in it their whole lives. It is based on fixed or rigid status distinctions, rather than economic classes per se.

As noted above, status is defined by the level of honour or prestige one receives by virtue of membership in a group. Sociologists make a distinction between ascribed status: a status one receives by virtue of being born into a category or group (e.g., caste, hereditary position, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.), and achieved status:   a status one receives through individual effort or merits (e.g., occupation, educational level, moral character, etc.). Caste systems are based on a hierarchy of ascribed statuses, because people are born into fixed caste groups. A person’s occupation and opportunity for education follow from their caste position.

In a caste system, people are assigned roles regardless of their individual talents, interests, or potential. Marriage is endogamous (from endo- ‘within’ and  Greek gamos ‘marriage’) which means marriage between castes is forbidden, whereas exogamous marriage is a marriage union between people from different social groups. There are virtually no opportunities to improve one’s social position. Instead, the relationship between castes is bound by institutionalized rules, and highly ritualistic procedures come into play when people from different castes come into contact. People value traditions and often devote considerable time to perfecting the details of ritualistic procedures.

The feudal systems of Europe and Japan can, in some ways, be seen as caste systems in that the statuses of positions in the social stratification systems were fixed, and there was little or no opportunity for movement through marriage or economic opportunities. In Europe, the feudal estate system divided the population into clergy (first estate), nobility (second estate), and commoners (third estate), which included artisans, merchants, and peasants. In early European feudalism, it was still possible for a peasant or a warrior to achieve a high position in the clergy or nobility, but later the divisions became more rigid. In Japan, between 1603 and 1867, the mibunsei system divided society into five rigid strata in which social standing was inherited. At the top was the Emperor, then court nobles ( kuge ), military commander-in-chief ( shogun ), and land-owning lords ( daimyo ). Beneath them were four classes or castes: the military nobility ( samurai ), peasants, craftsmen, and merchants. The merchants were considered the lowest class because they did not produce anything with their own hands. There was also an outcast or untouchable caste known as the burakumin, who were considered impure or defiled because of their association with death: executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, tanners, and butchers (Kerbo, 2006).

The caste system in India from 4,000 years ago until the 20th century probably best typifies the system of stratification. In the Hindu caste tradition, people were expected to work in the occupation of their caste and enter into marriage according to their caste. Originally there were four castes: Brahmans (priests), Kshatriyas (military), Vaisyas (merchants), and Sudras (artisans, farmers). There were also the Dalits or Harijans (“untouchables”). Hindu scripture said, “In order to preserve the universe, Brahma (the Supreme) caused the Brahmin to proceed from his mouth, the Kshatriya to proceed from his arm, the Vaishya to proceed from his thigh, and the Shudra to proceed from his foot” (Kashmeri, 1990).

Accepting this social standing was considered a moral duty. Cultural values and economic restrictions reinforced the system. Caste systems promote beliefs in fate, destiny, and the will of a higher power, rather than promoting individual freedom as a value. A person who lives in a caste society is socialized to accept their social standing, and this is reinforced by the society’s dominant norms and values.

Although the caste system in India has been officially dismantled, its residual presence in Indian society is deeply embedded. In rural areas, aspects of the tradition are more likely to remain, while urban centres show less evidence of this past. In India’s larger cities, people now have opportunities to choose their own career paths and marriage partners. As a global centre of employment, corporations have introduced merit-based hiring and employment to the nation. The caste system has been largely replaced by a class system of structured inequality. Nevertheless, Dalits continue to experience violence and discrimination in hiring or obtaining business loans (Jodhka, 2018).

The Class System

A class system is based on both socio-economic factors and individual achievement. It is at least a partially open system. A class consists of a set of people who have the same relationship to the means of production or productive property — that is, to the things used to produce the goods and services needed for survival, such as tools, technologies, resources, land, workplaces, etc. In Karl Marx’s (1848) analysis, class systems form around the institution of private property, dividing those who own or control productive property from those who do not, who survive on the basis of selling their labour. In capitalist societies, for example, the dominant classes are the capitalist class and the working class.

In a class system, social inequality is structural , meaning it is built into the organization of the economy. The relationship to the means of production (i.e., ownership/non-ownership) defines a persistent, objective pattern of social relationships that exists independently of individuals’ personal or voluntary choices and motives.

Unlike caste systems, however, class systems are open in the sense that individuals are able to change class position. Individuals are at least formally free to gain a different level of education or occupation than their parents. They can move up and down within the stratification system. They can also socialize with and marry members of other classes, allowing people to move from one class to another. In other words, individuals can move up and down the class hierarchy, even while the class categories and the class hierarchy itself remain relatively stable. It is not impossible for individuals to pass back and forth between classes through social mobility , but the class structure itself remains intact, structuring people’s lives, privileges, wealth, and social possibilities.

In a class system, one’s occupation is not fixed at birth. Though family background tends to predict where one ends up in the stratification system, personal factors play a role. For example, Ted Rogers Jr. chose a career in media like his father but managed to move upward from a position of modest wealth and privilege in the petite bourgeoisie, to being the fifth-wealthiest bourgeois in the country. On the other hand, his father Ted Sr. chose a career in radio based on individual interests that differed from his own father’s. Ted Sr.’s father, Albert Rogers, held a position as a director of Imperial Oil. Ted Sr. therefore moved downward from the class of the bourgeoisie to the class of the petite bourgeoisie.

Making Connections: Case Study

The commoner who could be queen.

On April 29, 2011, in London, England, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, married Catherine (“Kate”) Middleton, a commoner. Throughout its history, it has been rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Kate Middleton had an upper-middle-class upbringing. Her father was a former flight dispatcher, and her mother was a former flight attendant. The family then formed a lucrative mail order business for party accessories. William was the elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (Köhler, 2010).

The rules regarding the marriage of royals trace their history to Britain’s formal feudal monarchy, which arose with William of Normandy’s conquest in 1066. Feudal social hierarchy was originally based on landholding. The monarch’s family (royalty) was at the top, vassals, nobles and knights (landholders) below the king, and commoners or serfs on the bottom. This was generally a closed system, with people born into positions of nobility or serfdom. Wealth was passed from generation to generation through primogeniture , a law stating that all property was to be inherited by the firstborn son. If the family had no son, the land went to the next closest male relation. Women could not inherit property, and their social standing was primarily determined through marriage. From the late feudal era onward, a royal marrying a commoner was a scandal. In 1937, the British parliament obliged Edward VIII to abdicate his succession to King of the United Kingdom, so he could marry the American divorcée, Wallis Simpson. Not only was she a commoner, but she was also divorced , which contradicted the Church of England doctrine.

The rise of capitalism changed Britain’s class structure. The feudal commoner class generated both the new dominant class of the bourgeoisie or capitalists and the new subordinate class of the proletariat or wage labourers. The aristocracy and the royals continued as a class through their wealth and property, but their position in society became increasingly based on status and tradition alone. Today, the British government is a constitutional monarchy, with the prime minister and other ministers elected to their positions.  The royal family’s role is largely ceremonial. The historical differences between nobility and commoners have blurred, and the modern class system in Britain is similar to Canada. Since Edward VIII’s abdication in 1937, Queen Elizabeth II’s sister and several of her children and grandchildren have married commoners.

Today, the royal family still commands wealth, power, and a great deal of attention. In 2017, Forbes estimated the total wealth of the royal family to be $88 billion (Rodriguez, 2017). Since Queen Elizabeth II passed away in September 2022, Prince Charles has ascended the throne as king. His wife Camille Parker-Bowles, also a commoner and divorcée, is expected to become “Princess Consort.” If Charles had abdicated (chosen not to become king) or died, the position would go to Prince William. If that happened, Kate Middleton would be called Queen Catherine and hold the position of Queen Consort. She would be one of the few queens in history to have earned a university degree (Marquand, 2011). Of note here is, of course, Prince Harry, who married the commoner and divorcée Meghan Markle. Prince Harry is currently 6th in line for the British throne, after Prince William’s children. If she succeeded to Queen Consort, Meghan Markle would be the first queen with African heritage.

Initially there was a great deal of social pressure on Kate Middleton not only to behave as a royal, but to bear children. The royal family recently changed its succession laws to allow daughters, not just sons, to ascend the throne. Her firstborn son, Prince George, was born on July 22, 2013, so the new succession law is not likely to be tested in the near future. However, behind George is Princess Charlotte (b. 2015) and Prince Louis (b. 2018). Kate’s experience — from commoner to possible queen — demonstrates the fluidity of social class position in modern society.

Social Class

Social class is both obvious and not so obvious in Canadian society. It is based on subjective impressions, outward symbols, and less visible structural determinants. Can one tell a person’s education level based on clothing? Is opening an $80 bottle of wine for dinner normal, an exceptional occasion, or an insane waste of money? Can one guess a person’s income by the car they drive? There was a time in Canada when people’s class was more visibly apparent. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, class differences can still be gauged by differences in schooling, lifestyle, and even accent. In Canada, however, it is harder to determine class from outward appearances.

For sociologists, too, categorizing class is a fluid science. One debate in the discipline is between Marxist and Weberian approaches to social class (Abercrombie & Urry, 1983).

Marx’s analysis emphasizes a historical materialist approach to the underlying structures of the capitalist economy. Classes are historical formations that distribute people into categories based on the organization and structure of the economy. Marx’s definition of social class rests essentially on one materialist variable: a group’s relation to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership of productive property or capital). Therefore, in Marxist class analysis, there are two dominant classes in capitalism — the working class and the owning class — and any divisions within the classes based on occupation, status, education, etc. are less important than the tendency toward increasing separation and polarization of these two classes.

Marx referred to these two classes as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat . The capitalist class (bourgeoisie) lives from the proceeds of owning or controlling productive property (capital assets like factories, technology, software platforms or machinery, or capital itself in the form of investments, stocks, and bonds).  The working class (proletariat) live from selling their labour to the capitalists for a wage or salary.  Their interests are in conflict, as higher profits depend on lower wages, which accounts for the characteristic power dynamics, conflicts, instabilities and periodic crises of capitalist societies.

In addition, he described the classes of the petite bourgeoisie (the little bourgeoisie) and the lumpenproletariat (the sub-proletariat). The petite bourgeoisie are those like small business owners, farmers, and contractors who own some property and perhaps employ a few workers, but still rely on their own labour to survive. The lumpenproletariat are the chronically unemployed or irregularly employed, who are in and out of the workforce. They are what Marx referred to as the “reserve army of labour,” a pool of potential labourers who are surplus to the needs of production at any particular time.

Weber defined social class slightly differently, as the life chances one shares in common with others by virtue of possession of property, goods, skills or opportunities for income (1969). Life chances refer to the ability or probability of an individual to act on opportunities and attain a certain standard of living. Owning property or capital, or not owning property or capital, is still the basic variable that defines a person’s class situation or life chances. However, class position is defined with respect to markets rather than the process of production . It is the value of one’s capital, products or skills in the commodity or labour markets at any particular time that determines whether one has greater or fewer life chances.

This yields a model of class hierarchy based on multiple gradations of socio-economic status, instead of a division between two principle classes. Analyses of class inspired by Weber tend to emphasize gradations of status relating to several variables like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Class stratification is not just determined by a group’s economic position, but by the prestige of the group’s occupation, education level, consumption, and lifestyle. It is a matter of status — the level of honour or prestige one holds in the community by virtue of one’s social position — as much as a matter of class.

Based on the Weberian approach, some sociologists talk about upper, middle, and lower classes (with many subcategories within them) in a way that mixes status categories with class categories. These gradations are often referred to as a group’s socio-economic status ( SES ): their social position relative to others based on income, education, and prestige of occupation . For example, although plumbers might earn more than high school teachers and have greater “life chances” in a particular economy, the status division between blue-collar work (people who “work with their hands”) and white-collar work (people who “work with their minds”) means the plumbers might be characterized as lower class but teachers as middle class.

There is a randomness in the division of classes into upper, middle, and lower in the Weberian model. However, this manner of classification based on status distinctions captures something about the subjective experience of class and the shared lifestyle and consumption patterns of class that Marx’s categories often do not. An NHL hockey player receiving a salary of $6 million a year is a member of the working class, strictly speaking. He might even go on strike or get locked out according to the dynamic of capital and labour conflict described by Marx. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see what the life chances of the hockey player have in common with a landscaper or receptionist, despite the fact that they might share a common working-class background.

Class: Materialist and Interpretive Factors

Social class is a complex category to analyze. It has both a strictly materialist quality relating to a group’s structural position within the economic system, and an interpretive quality relating to the formation of status gradations, common subjective perceptions of class, differences of power in society, and class-based lifestyles and consumption patterns. Considering both the Marxist and Weberian models, social class has at least three objective components: a group’s position in the occupational structure (i.e., the status and salary of one’s job), a group’s position in the power structure (i.e., who has authority over whom), and a group’s position in the property structure (i.e., ownership or non-ownership of capital). It also has an important subjective component that relates to recognitions of status, distinctions of lifestyle, and ultimately how people perceive their place in the class hierarchy.

Making Connections: Classic Sociologists

Marx and weber on social class: how do they differ.

Often, Marx and Weber are perceived as at odds in their approaches to class and social inequality, but it is perhaps better to see them as articulating different styles of analysis.

Weber’s analysis presents a more complex model of the social hierarchy of capitalist society than Marx. Weber’s model goes beyond the economic structural class position to include the variables of status (degree of social prestige or honour) and power (degree of political influence). Thus, Weber provides a multi-dimensional model of social hierarchy. As a result, although individuals might be from the same objective class, their position in the social hierarchy might differ according to their status and political influence. For example, women and men might be equal in terms of their class position, but because of the inequality in the status of the genders within each class, women (as a group) remain lower in the social hierarchy.

With respect to class specifically, Weber also relies on a different definition than Marx. As noted above, Weber (1969) defines class as the “life chances” one shares in common with others by virtue of one’s possession of goods or opportunities for income. Class is defined with respect to markets, rather than the process of production. As in Marx’s analysis, the economic position that stems from owning property and capital, or not owning property and capital, is still the basic variable that defines one’s class situation or life chances. However, as the value of different types of capital or property (e.g., industrial, real estate, financial, etc.), or the value of different types of opportunity for income (i.e., different types of marketable skills), varies according to changes in the commodity or labour markets, Weber can provide a more nuanced description of an individual’s class position than Marx. A skilled tradesman like a pipe welder might enjoy a higher class position and greater life chances in Northern Alberta where such skills are in demand, than a high school teacher in Vancouver or Victoria where the number of qualified teachers exceeds the number of positions available. If one adds the element of status into the picture, the situation becomes even more complex, as the educational requirements and social responsibilities of the high school teacher usually confer more social prestige than the requirements and responsibilities of the pipe welder.

Nevertheless, Weber’s analysis is descriptive rather than analytical . It can provide a useful description of differences between the levels or “strata” in a social hierarchy or stratification system but does not provide an analysis of the formation of classes themselves.

On the other hand, Marx’s analysis of class is essentially one-dimensional. It has one variable: the relationship to the means of production. If one is a professional hockey player, a doctor in a hospital, or a clerk in a supermarket, one works for a wage and is therefore a member of the working class. In this regard, his analysis challenges common sense, as the difference between these different “fragments” of the working class seems paramount — at least from the point of view of the subjective experience of class. It would seem that hockey players, doctors, lawyers, professors, and business executives have very little in common with grocery clerks, factory or agricultural workers, tradespeople, or low level administrative staff, despite the fact that they all depend on being paid wages by someone.

However, the key point of Marx’s analysis is not to ignore the existence of status distinctions within classes, but to examine class structure dialectically in order to provide a more comprehensive and historical picture of class dynamics.

The four components of dialectical analysis were described in Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology : (1) Everything in society is related; (2) everything is caught up in a process of change; (3) change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative; and (4) change is the product of oppositions and struggles in society. These dialectical qualities are also central to Marx’s account of the hierarchical structure of classes in capitalist society.

With regard to the first point — everything in society is related — the main point of the dialectical analysis of class is that the working class and the owning class have to be understood in a structural relationship to one another. They emerged together out of the old class structure of feudalism. More significantly for Marx, each exists only because the other exists. The wages that define the wage labourer are paid by the capitalist; the profit and capital accumulated by the capitalist are products of the workers’ labour.

In Marx’s dialectical model, “everything is caught up in a process of change” occurs because the system is characterized by the struggle of opposites.  The classes are structurally in conflict because the contradiction in their class interests is built into the economic system. The bourgeoisie as a class is defined by the economic drive to accumulate capital and increase profit. The key means to achieve this in a competitive marketplace is by reducing the cost of production by lowering the cost of labour (by reducing wages, moving production to lower wage areas, or replacing workers with labour-saving technologies). This conflicts with the interests of the proletariat who seek to establish a sustainable standard of living by maintaining their level of wages and employment in society. While individual capitalists and individual workers might not see it this way, structurally, their class interests clash and define a persistent pattern of management-labour conflict and political cleavage in modern, capitalist societies.

So, from the dialectical model, Marx can predict that the composition of classes changes over time: the statuses of different occupations vary, the proportions between workers’ income and capitalists’ profit change, and the types of production and the means of production change (through the introduction of labour-saving technologies, globalization, new products and consumption patterns, etc.). In addition, change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative, in the sense that the multiplicity of changes in purely quantitative variables like salary, working conditions, unemployment levels, rates of profitability, product sales, supply and demand, etc., lead to changes in qualitative variables like the subjective experience of inequality and injustice, the political divisions of “left” and “right,” the formation of class-consciousness, and eventually change in the entire economic system through new models of capital accumulation or even revolution.

The strength of Marx’s analysis is its ability to go beyond a description of where different groups fit within the class structure at a given moment in time to an analysis of why those groups and their relative positions change with respect to one another. The dialectical approach reveals the underlying logic of class structure as a dynamic system, and the potential commonality of interests and subjective experiences that define class-consciousness. As a result, in an era in which the precariousness of many high status “middle class” jobs has become clearer, the divisions of economic and political interests between the different segments of the working class becomes less so.

Media Attributions

• Figure 9.3 Office Politics: A Rise to the Top by Alex Proimos, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.4 Strata in the Badlands by Just a Prairie Boy, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.5 Fort Mason Neighborhood by Orin Zebest, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.6  Woman, construction, worker, temple, india, manual, poor, labourer, labour , via PxHere, is used under a CC0 Public Domain licence. 
• Figure 9.7 Royal wedding Kate & William by Gerard Stolk, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0  licence. 
• Figure 9.8 Item B-03624 – Group of Nanaimo coal miners at the pithead by unknown photographer, [ca. 1870]  (Creation) via the Royal BC Museum/ British Columbia Archives Collection (Item B-03624), is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.9 James and Laura Dunsmuir in Italian Garden at Hatley Park, by unknown photographer, 1912-1920  (Creation), courtesy of Craigdarroch Castle Society,  is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.10 File:MAX WEBER.jpg  by Power Renegadas, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
• Figure 9.11   Karl Marx by John Mayall, via Wikimedia Commons, is in the public domain .

Introduction to Sociology – 3rd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2023 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — In Pursuit of Happiness — Social Stratification and Inequality in ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’

Social Stratification and Inequality in 'The Pursuit of Happyness'

• Categories: In Pursuit of Happiness

About this sample

Words: 809 |

Published: Apr 8, 2022

Words: 809 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7.5 pages / 3441 words

5.5 pages / 2615 words

10.5 pages / 4766 words

5 pages / 2217 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on In Pursuit of Happiness

University of Zurich. (2019, March 18). People who feel fulfilled in their lives are happier. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 13, 2021 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190318093210.htmUniversity of Michigan. (2021). [...]

Pursuit of Happiness is about a family living check by check, just trying to get by. The husband Chris, that sells bone scanner machines. He had bought into these machines, thinking they would be a big hit, but not knowing that [...]

Life is a struggle for single father Chris Gardner in 1981, San Francisco. Evicted from their apartment, he and his young son find themselves with no place to go. Jumping around town, barely surviving by selling a 40-pound [...]

The film “The Pursuit of Happyness”, directed by Gabrielle Muccino, tells the true-life experiences of Chris Gardner who faces many hard obstacles. He struggles to overcome these obstacles in order to create a better life for [...]

In ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ I believe Will Smith did an exceptional performance in his performing abilities. The movie exceeded the action and romantic films Will Smith is known for. He illustrated the position of Chris [...]

The American Dream varies for individuals, but for most it includes providing a stable home for their children and ensuring future generations will have more opportunities to become successful. In the play, A Raisin in the Sun [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free