LECTURE NOTE: Social Stratification and Mobility

Course Code: SOC 3207

Credit Units: 2
Semester: First Semester
Instructor: [Dr Adam Gana Bawa/SOCIOLOGY]

Course Description

This course provides a systematic analysis of the structures of social inequality. We will explore
the causes, consequences, and purported justifications for social stratification. The course
examines theoretical perspectives, systems of stratification, the primary dimensions of inequality
(class, status, power, race, gender), and the processes and patterns of social mobility, both within
and across generations. Special attention is given to contemporary debates on global inequality,
the "new" gilded age, and the role of institutions in perpetuating or alleviating inequality.

Unit 1: Foundations – What is Social Stratification?

1.1 Defining Stratification

Social Stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a

hierarchy. It is the structured inequality of entire categories of people who have different access
to social rewards, resources, and power.

• Key Characteristics:
1. Social, not biological: It is a trait of society, not a reflection of individual
differences.
2. Persistent across generations: It carries over from one generation to the next
(social reproduction).
3. Universal but variable: It exists everywhere, but what is unequal and how
unequal varies.
4. Involves beliefs: It is often justified by a system of cultural beliefs (ideology) that
defines certain people as more deserving than others.

1.2 Core Concepts

• Social Differentiation: The process by which social distinctions are made. Not all
differentiation leads to stratification (e.g., different hobbies).
• Social Inequality: The unequal distribution of valued goods, opportunities, and life
chances.
• Life Chances (Max Weber): The opportunities an individual has to achieve desired
outcomes (e.g., good health, long life, education) based on their socioeconomic position.
• Life Styles (Max Weber): Distinctive patterns of consumption, cultural taste, and social
interaction that signify status.
1.3 Key Theoretical Perspectives

Key
Theory Core Argument Critique
Proponents
Stratification is necessary and
Ignores how ascribed status
inevitable. It ensures the most
(birth) overrides merit.
qualified individuals fill the
Davis & Circular logic: it assumes
Functionalism most important roles. Social
Moore (1945) important jobs are highly
inequality motivates people to
rewarded, rather than proving
undergo the training required for
it. Justifies the status quo.
complex jobs.
Stratification is a source of
social division and conflict. It
Overemphasizes economic
arises from the exploitation of Karl Marx,
Conflict conflict, underestimates the
one class by another. The elite Antonio
Theory role of shared values and
use power and ideology Gramsci
consensus in social order.
(hegemony) to maintain their
advantage.
A multi-dimensional approach.
Stratification is based on three Can become overly complex
Weberian interconnected but distinct in empirical analysis, making
Max Weber
Theory spheres: Class (economic), it difficult to determine which
Status (social honor/prestige), dimension is most causal.
and Party (political power).
Focuses on how we create and
interpret social inequality in
Erving Criticized for ignoring macro-
everyday life. Examines how
Symbolic Goffman, structural forces and the "big
status is communicated, how the
Interactionism Pierre picture" of exploitation and
"self" is shaped by class
Bourdieu power.
position, and how we learn our
"place."

Unit 2: Systems of Stratification & Classical Foundations

2.1 Types of Stratification Systems

1. Slavery: The most extreme form, where people are owned as property. (Historically:
chattel slavery, debt bondage).
2. Caste System: A closed, birth-ascribed system. Social position is fixed for life and is
often sanctified by religion (e.g., the Varna system in India). Endogamy (marriage within
the caste) is strictly enforced.
3. Estate System (Feudalism): A hierarchal system of three estates: nobility (landowners),
clergy, and commoners (peasants/serfs). Status is tied to land and heredity, with some
limited mobility through the Church or military.
 4. Social Class System: An open, achievement-based system. Social position is based on
economic factors and is potentially fluid. Class is:
o Achieved: To a degree, you can move up or down.
o Economically based: Defined by wealth and occupation.
o Relatively fluid: Class boundaries are permeable.

2.2 Deep Dive: Classical Theorists

A. Karl Marx (1818-1883) – The Primacy of Class

• Base & Superstructure: The economic "base" (relations of production) determines the
"superstructure" (culture, politics, ideology).
• Two Main Classes in Capitalism:
o Bourgeoisie: Own the means of production (factories, land, capital).
o Proletariat: Own only their labor power, which they must sell to survive.
• Exploitation: Profit arises from the surplus value—the difference between what workers
are paid (subsistence) and the value they create.
• Class Consciousness: A revolutionary awareness where the proletariat recognizes its
shared exploitation and moves from a "class in itself" to a "class for itself."
• Critique: Marxists later acknowledged the rise of a petty bourgeoisie (small business
owners) and a lumpenproletariat (the underclass).

B. Max Weber (1864-1920) – The Complexity of Stratification

Weber agreed with Marx that class is important but argued it is insufficient. He introduced three
dimensions:

1. Class: Market situation. Your economic power determined by skills, property, and
income.
2. Status (Stand): Social honor, prestige, and lifestyle. Status groups (e.g., doctors,
aristocrats, celebrities) can have high status even if they are not the wealthiest.
3. Party: Power and influence in organizations and political spheres.

• Key Insight: These three dimensions often align (a CEO has high class, high status, and
high power) but can also diverge (e.g., a disgraced politician may have power but low
status).

C. Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) – Cultural Reproduction

Bourdieu bridged micro and macro approaches. He argued that inequality is reproduced not just
through economics but through culture. He identified three forms of "capital":

1. Economic Capital: Money, assets, property.

2. Social Capital: Networks of relationships and connections.
3. Cultural Capital: Non-financial social assets (education, intellect, style of speech, taste
in art) that promote social mobility.
 • Habitus: A deeply internalized system of perceptions, thoughts, and dispositions (a
"sense of one's place") that is shaped by class and, in turn, shapes future practices.

Unit 3: Dimensions of Inequality

3.1 Class and Socioeconomic Status (SES)

In modern sociology, SES is a composite measure typically using:

• Occupation: The strongest single predictor of social position.

• Education: A primary mechanism for social mobility and cultural capital.
• Income: Flow of money (wages, salaries).
• Wealth: The total value of assets minus debts. Wealth is more concentrated than
income and is a better measure of long-term security and intergenerational advantage.

3.2 Status and Prestige

• Occupational Prestige: Hierarchies of jobs based on social honor. Studies consistently

show high prestige for doctors, scientists, and lawyers; low prestige for janitors,
dishwashers.
• Conspicuous Consumption (Thorstein Veblen): The practice of purchasing goods to
display wealth and status rather than for utility.

3.3 Power

• Authority: Legitimate power (e.g., a manager).

• Elite Theory (C. Wright Mills): In his book The Power Elite (1956), Mills argued that a
unified elite of corporate, political, and military leaders makes the key decisions in
America, independent of democratic processes.
• Pluralist Theory: Contends that power is dispersed among many competing interest
groups, preventing any single elite from dominating.

3.4 Intersectionality

• Kimberlé Crenshaw: The concept that social categories like race, class, gender, and
sexuality are not independent but overlapping systems of discrimination and
disadvantage.
• Example: A Black working-class woman experiences inequality differently from a white
working-class woman or a Black middle-class man. Her experience is a unique
intersection of race, gender, and class, not merely the sum of each separate form of
oppression.
Unit 4: Social Mobility

4.1 Types of Mobility

• Intragenerational Mobility: A change in social position within a single person's lifetime

(career mobility).
• Intergenerational Mobility: A change in social position between parents and their
children. This is the most common focus of mobility studies.
• Absolute Mobility: The total number of people who move from one class to another,
often compared to their parents. This is influenced by structural changes in the economy
(e.g., shift from agricultural to industrial jobs).
• Relative Mobility: The "fluidity" of society—the likelihood of moving from one class to
another compared to others, regardless of overall structural changes. A society with high
absolute mobility (because everyone is moving up) can still have low relative mobility (if
the ranking stays the same).
• Structural vs. Exchange Mobility:
o Structural: Mobility caused by changes in the economy (e.g., growth of the
service sector creates more professional jobs).
o Exchange: Mobility caused by individuals swapping positions, with the overall
distribution of jobs remaining the same.

4.2 Key Concepts in Mobility Research

• Social Reproduction: The tendency for social class to be passed down from one
generation to the next. Bourdieu argued this happens through the transmission of capital
(economic, cultural, social).
• Status Attainment Model: A model (developed by Blau & Duncan) that views social
standing as a process influenced by:
o Ascribed Status: Characteristics one is born with (race, family background).
o Achieved Status: Characteristics one earns (education, occupation).
o Key Finding: Family background (father’s education/occupation) significantly
predicts a son's educational attainment, which in turn predicts his first job and
later occupation.

4.3 Is the U.S. an "Opportunity Society"? (Mobility Trends)

• Myth of Meritocracy: The belief that success is based solely on talent and effort.
Research shows that structural barriers, social capital, and family wealth play a massive
role.
• The Great Gatsby Curve: A positive correlation between income inequality and low
intergenerational mobility. Countries with higher inequality (like the U.S.) tend to have
lower mobility.
• Recent Trends:
o Stagnating Absolute Mobility: Research (Chetty et al.) shows that children born
in the 1980s have a lower chance of out-earning their parents than those born in
the 1940s (from ~90% to ~50%).
 o Persistent Racial Gaps: Black and Hispanic Americans experience significantly
lower intergenerational mobility than white Americans.
o Geographic Variation: Mobility varies dramatically by region in the U.S., linked
to factors like segregation, school quality, and family structure.

Unit 5: Contemporary Issues and Global Stratification

5.1 Global Stratification

The stratification of nations into a global hierarchy.

• Colonialism & Dependency Theory: The idea that the underdevelopment of the Global
South is not a stage of development but a result of exploitation by the Global North (core
nations extracting resources from periphery nations).
• World Systems Theory (Immanuel Wallerstein): Divides the world into:
o Core: Wealthy, powerful nations (U.S., Western Europe).
o Semi-Periphery: Industrializing, middle-income nations (Brazil, India).
o Periphery: Poor, agrarian nations dependent on the core (many sub-Saharan
African nations).
• Modernization Theory: An opposing view that argues poverty results from a lack of
modern values, technology, and institutions. It suggests that aid and technology transfer
will help poor nations develop through stages similar to the West.

5.2 The "New" Gilded Age & Rising Inequality

• Income and Wealth Concentration: The top 1% (and top 0.1%) have captured the vast
majority of income gains since the 1970s.
• Causes:
o Deindustrialization: Loss of well-paying unionized manufacturing jobs.
o Financialization: The shift in the economy from production to finance and
speculation.
o Technological Change: Skill-biased technological change that rewards high-skill
workers and automates low-skill jobs.
o Policy & Politics: Decline of union power, stagnant minimum wage, tax cuts for
the wealthy.

5.3 Poverty

• Absolute Poverty: A lack of basic necessities (food, shelter, water).

• Relative Poverty: Having significantly less income than the average in one’s society. In
the U.S., the official poverty line is a form of absolute measure.
• Culture of Poverty Thesis (Oscar Lewis): Argues that poverty creates a self-
perpetuating subculture of values (present-time orientation, fatalism) that is passed down
to children.
 o Critique: This theory has been heavily criticized for "blaming the victim" and
ignoring structural causes like lack of jobs, systemic racism, and inadequate
public policy.
• Structural Explanations for Poverty: Focus on labor market segmentation, lack of
affordable housing, inadequate social safety nets, and discrimination.

5.4 Social Policy and Stratification

• Welfare State: The system of social programs (unemployment insurance, social security,
food assistance) that mitigate the effects of market-based inequality.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI): A contemporary policy proposal to provide all citizens
with a regular, unconditional sum of money, intended to address job displacement due to
automation and growing precarity.
• Affirmative Action: Policies aimed at increasing opportunities for historically
disadvantaged groups (by race, gender) in education and employment. A contested policy
that raises questions about merit, justice, and remediation.

Conclusion

Social stratification is not merely a collection of individual differences but a systemic feature of
society with profound consequences for life chances, identity, and social stability. While some
degree of inequality may be inevitable, the extreme levels of contemporary inequality—and the
declining rates of mobility—pose fundamental questions about justice, opportunity, and the
health of democratic institutions. Understanding the complex interplay of class, status, power,
race, and gender is essential for analyzing the past, diagnosing the present, and imagining a more
equitable future.

Key Readings & References

1. Classic:
o Davis, K., & Moore, W. E. (1945). Some Principles of Stratification.
o Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto.
o Weber, M. (1946). Class, Status, Party.
o Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite.
2. Contemporary:
o Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
o Chetty, R., et al. (2017). The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute
Income Mobility Since 1940.
o Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City.
o Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
o Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents.
1. The Functionalist Theory of Stratification
1.1 Core Premise: Inequality as a Social Necessity

Functionalism, rooted in the works of Émile Durkheim and later systematized by Kingsley Davis
and Wilbert Moore, argues that social stratification is a universal necessity. It is not a sign of
societal failure but a functional prerequisite for a complex society’s survival. The central logic is
that all societies must solve two fundamental problems:

1. Motivation: How to ensure that talented and capable individuals are motivated to
undertake the most demanding and important roles.
2. Allocation: How to ensure that these individuals are not only motivated but also placed
into those roles.

1.2 The Davis-Moore Hypothesis (1945)

In their seminal essay, "Some Principles of Stratification," Davis and Moore proposed that
stratification serves a latent (unintended but essential) function. Their argument proceeds through
several propositions:

Proposition Explanation
Not all social positions are equally important for societal survival. Some
1. Positional positions (e.g., surgeon, engineer, military leader) require specialized skills
Importance and carry greater responsibility than others (e.g., retail clerk, sanitation
worker).
2. Scarcity of The number of individuals capable of filling these important positions is
Talent limited. Talent for complex roles is unequally distributed and scarce.
Filling these positions requires a period of training that involves sacrifice
3. Sacrifice &
(time, effort, foregone income). This training is often arduous and must be
Training
incentivized.
To motivate individuals to undergo this sacrifice and compete for scarce
4. Differential
positions, society must attach differential rewards (higher income, prestige,
Rewards
leisure) to those positions.
The unequal distribution of rewards creates a stratified system. This system is,
5. Resulting
in their view, universal, necessary, and functionally beneficial because it
Hierarchy
ensures that the most competent people end up in the most critical roles.

Key Implication: Social inequality is an unconscious device developed by societies to ensure

that the most important tasks are performed by the most qualified individuals. From this
perspective, a surgeon earns more than a janitor not because of power or exploitation, but
because society needs skilled surgeons far more than it needs janitors, and the path to becoming
a surgeon is long, costly, and requires scarce talent.

1.3 Key Concepts in Functionalist Stratification

 • Meritocracy: A system where social position is determined solely by individual merit
(talent + effort). Functionalists argue that stratification, when working correctly,
approximates a meritocracy.
• Role Allocation: The process by which education and other institutions sort individuals
into appropriate occupational roles based on their abilities.
• Social Consensus: A shared value system in which members of society agree on the
relative importance of different positions and accept the resulting reward distribution as
legitimate.

1.4 Critiques of Functionalism

While influential, the functionalist perspective has faced sustained criticism:

Critique Explanation
How do we know a position is important? Because it is highly rewarded. But
Circular functionalists argue it is highly rewarded because it is important. This is
Reasoning tautological. A CEO may be highly rewarded, but does that prove their role is
societally "more important" than a teacher or a nurse?
The theory assumes a perfectly open, meritocratic system. It ignores ascribed
Ignores
status—inherited wealth, nepotism, race, gender, and social connections—
Ascription
which often determine who gets the "important" positions regardless of talent.
Critics argue functionalism serves as an ideological justification for
Justifies
inequality, ignoring the possibility that many highly rewarded positions (e.g.,
Inequality
speculative financiers) may not be socially necessary or may even be harmful.
It assumes a consensus on what is "important" and what rewards are fair. It
Downplays
ignores that powerful groups can define their own positions as important and
Conflict
manipulate the reward system to their advantage.
It cannot explain negative stratification, such as poverty or the existence of a
Fails to Explain
hereditary underclass. If the system worked as described, poverty would be a
Dysfunction
temporary condition for the unmotivated, not a persistent, inherited status.

2. The Marxist Theory of Stratification

2.1 Core Premise: Stratification as Exploitation

Where functionalism sees necessity, Karl Marx saw conflict, exploitation, and alienation. For
Marx, social stratification is not a natural or inevitable feature of all societies; it is a historical
product of class-based societies, specifically the mode of production. Stratification is not about
"positional importance" but about ownership and control.

2.2 Historical Materialism

Marx argued that the foundation of any society is its economic base (the mode of production).
This base determines the superstructure (law, politics, culture, ideology). Each historical epoch
is characterized by a specific mode of production and a specific form of stratification:

• Primitive Communism: No classes, no stratification.

• Ancient Society (Slavery): Masters vs. Slaves.
• Feudalism: Lords (landowners) vs. Serfs (peasants bound to land).
• Capitalism: Bourgeoisie (owners of means of production) vs. Proletariat (wage laborers).
• Future (Communism): Classless, stateless society.

2.3 The Two Main Classes Under Capitalism

Marx’s analysis focuses on the capitalist mode of production. The defining feature is the private
ownership of the means of production (factories, machinery, land, resources).

Class Definition Source of Income Relationship to Production

The capitalist class that Profit from the They control the productive process,
Bourgeoisie owns the means of exploitation of purchase labor power, and own the
production. labor. output.
The working class that They have no control over the
Wages
Proletariat owns only its labor process, are subject to authority, and
(subsistence level).
power. produce value they do not own.

Note: Marx acknowledged the existence of other classes (e.g., petty bourgeoisie—small
shopkeepers, independent artisans who own their means of production but do not exploit others'
labor), but argued that capitalism would increasingly polarize society into these two primary
antagonistic classes.

2.4 The Mechanism of Exploitation: Surplus Value

The engine of stratification, for Marx, is exploitation. The process unfolds as follows:

1. Labor Power as a Commodity: Under capitalism, workers sell their "labor power" to
capitalists for a wage.
2. Value Creation: The value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor
time required to produce it. When a worker labors, they create new value.
3. Necessary Labor vs. Surplus Labor:
o Necessary Labor: The portion of the workday during which the worker produces
value equivalent to their wage (their subsistence).
o Surplus Labor: The additional time the worker works beyond necessary labor.
The value produced during this time is surplus value.
4. Appropriation of Surplus Value: The capitalist appropriates this surplus value as
profit, paying the worker only for their labor power (wages) while owning the entire
product of their labor.
 5. Result: The capitalist class grows wealthy precisely because the working class is
exploited. The relationship is inherently antagonistic—one class's gain is the other's loss.

2.5 Class Consciousness, False Consciousness, and Alienation

For Marx, a class is not merely a category of people sharing an economic position. A true class
requires class consciousness.

Concept Definition
An objective category: a group of people who share the same relationship to
Class in Itself
the means of production but are not yet aware of their common interests.
A subjective category: when the class becomes aware of its shared
Class for Itself exploitation, develops a collective identity, and organizes to pursue its
collective interests (e.g., through unions, political action, revolution).
A state in which the proletariat holds beliefs that are contrary to their objective
False class interests (e.g., believing in meritocracy, identifying with the wealthy,
Consciousness nationalism over class solidarity). This is maintained by the dominant
ideology of the bourgeoisie.
The process by which workers are disconnected from: (1) the product of their
labor (they do not own what they make); (2) the process of labor (they have no
Alienation
control or creativity); (3) their species-being (their human potential to create);
and (4) other workers (competition replaces solidarity).

2.6 Critiques of Marxism

Despite its profound influence, Marxist theory has been critiqued and refined:

Critique Explanation
Critics argue Marx reduced all social life (politics, culture, religion) to a
Economic mere "superstructure" determined by the economic base. This underestimates
Determinism the autonomy of culture, ideology, and politics. Weberians argue status and
power are independent dimensions.
The predicted revolution did not occur in advanced capitalist societies.
The "Death" of Critics point to the emergence of a large middle class (managers,
the Proletariat professionals, service workers) that does not fit neatly into the
bourgeoisie/proletariat binary.
The state, rather than being a mere "executive committee of the bourgeoisie,"
Rise of the has enacted social policies (social security, labor laws, healthcare) that
Welfare State mitigate exploitation and improve living standards for workers, reducing
revolutionary potential.
Marxism has been criticized for subsuming race, gender, and ethnicity under
Neglect of Non- class. Intersectional theorists argue that racial and gender stratification have
Class Divisions their own logics and are not reducible to class exploitation, though they are
intertwined with it.
 Critique Explanation
Empirical Contemporary stratification research shows that class boundaries are more
Complexity porous and fluid than Marx's polarized two-class model suggests.

3. Comparative Summary: Functionalism vs. Marxism

Functionalism (Davis &
Dimension Marxism (Karl Marx)
Moore)
Nature of Necessary, universal, and
Historical, exploitative, and dysfunctional.
Stratification functional.
Arises from the need to
Arises from private ownership of the means
Origin motivate talent and allocate
of production and class exploitation.
roles.
Basis of Positional importance and Ownership (or non-ownership) of the means
Inequality scarcity of talent. of production.
Differential rewards (income, Extraction of surplus value (profit) from
Key Mechanism
prestige) as incentives. workers.
Based on shared values and Based on ideology (false consciousness)
Social Cohesion consensus about the enforced by the dominant class; true cohesion
importance of roles. is impossible under capitalism.
A hierarchy of occupational Antagonistic social groups defined by their
View of Class
positions based on function. relationship to production and exploitation.
Gradual; as societies become Revolutionary; class conflict is the engine of
Social Change more complex, stratification history, leading to the overthrow of
adapts. capitalism.
Justifies inequality as
Normative Condemns inequality as unjust and calls for
necessary and fair (if
Stance its abolition.
meritocratic).

4. Synthesis and Contemporary Relevance

Neither theory is fully accepted in its classical form today. Contemporary sociologists of
stratification draw from both traditions while addressing their limitations:

• Neo-Functionalism: Modern scholars recognize that while some degree of inequality

may be unavoidable, the extent of inequality in contemporary capitalism far exceeds any
functional requirement. They study how stratification creates social dysfunction (e.g.,
health disparities, political instability, erosion of trust).
• Neo-Marxism (Conflict Sociology): Scholars like Erik Olin Wright developed
"contradictory class locations"—positions like managers or supervisors who are neither
purely bourgeois nor purely proletarian. They also incorporated Weberian insights on
 status and power while maintaining a focus on exploitation. Contemporary conflict
theorists study:
o Class reproduction: How the wealthy use private schools, inheritance, and social
networks to pass advantage to their children (Bourdieu).
o Financialization: The rise of a "finance aristocracy" that extracts wealth without
productive investment.
o Precariat: A new class of precarious, insecure workers without stable
employment or traditional labor protections.

Key Takeaway for Students:

The debate between functionalism and Marxism is not merely historical. It represents two
fundamentally different ways of understanding society:

• Functionalism asks: How does stratification contribute to social order and stability?
• Marxism asks: How does stratification serve the interests of the powerful and generate
conflict?

A comprehensive understanding of social stratification requires engaging with both perspectives,

recognizing their insights, and applying their critiques to contemporary empirical realities.