Class:
Marx sees class as a phenomenon created as a result of the expansion of production forces beyond the sustenance level. However, class is a pre-Marxian idea. Aristotle divided society into three classes - upper, middle, and poor, while the term was first used by Saint Simon as a synonym for estates. There are particular characteristics of class:
Status Group:
While class is dependent particularly on economic variables, status groups are founded on honor and prestige differences. It is one of the most ancient systems of social stratification where ranking is done on the relative position in terms of respect. In traditional societies, it was ascriptive, while in modern societies, it is more achievement-oriented. Occupations, ethnic and religious groups, and lifestyles are accorded different degrees of prestige or esteem by members of society. Weber defined a status group as made up of individuals who are awarded a similar amount of social honor and therefore share the same status situation. Unlike classes, members of status groups are almost always aware of their common status situation. They share a similar lifestyle, identify with and feel they belong to their status group, and often place restrictions on the ways in which outsiders may interact with them. Social closure involves the exclusion of some people from membership of a status group. Pakulski and Waters argue that the status dimension is becoming more important in post-industrial societies. Consumption is now based on status and not on the basis of occupation or economic well-being. Rising consumerism has promoted status and eclipsed class. Warner emphasizes on social status instead of economic class as a form of stratification. He considers education, occupation, and income as the determinants of status. The Hindu caste system was stated as an example of status groups by Weber. Here status was ascriptive, lifestyle, honor, and prestige were sharply differentiated, and marriage endogamy, commensality, and occupational division of labor acted as social closures. However, MN Srinivas quotes the example of Lingayats in Karnataka as a community that through their economic and political power, also managed to improve their caste position and now refer to it as Sanskritization. Louis Dumont counters this argument by stating that while it is easy to become a Kshatriya in India, the same is not true for Brahmins. Proclaiming Brahmin status and obtaining Brahmin status are two different things, and hence Brahmins were and are a status group. Andre Beteille speaks about class within caste. In many societies, class and status groups are related to each other; however, it is not a norm. For example, firefighters have a high status in American society despite the presence of higher-paying professions. On the other hand, nouveaux riches are sometimes excluded from the status groups of the elite. Homosexuals form a status group, cutting across class divisions.
Gender:
Gender is a social concept, while sex is a biological one. Gender distinctions are found in economic-, kinship-, and caste-based stratification systems. A UN Report (1980) declares that while women constitute half of the world population, they perform nearly two-thirds of the total work hours, receive one-tenth of the total income, and own less than one-hundredth of the total property. Social role expectations are often formed along sex and gender lines, and entire societies may be classified according to the rights and privileges afforded to men or women. According to Naila Kabeer, gender roles are often slated as man and woman based on mutually exclusive traits of masculinity and femininity. Mary Daly blames female oppression on male aggression. Sex- and gender-based division of labor has increased with the advent of industrialization. Karuna Ahmad finds: Pink collarization - clustering of women in a few occupations. Clustering either in low-status occupations or in the lower rungs of prestigious professions. Glass ceiling - women receive lower salaries and advancement opportunities than men. A high proportion of highly educated and professionally trained unemployed women. Gender, as a form of stratification, difference and inequalities found mention in literature since the 70s when feminism started taking shape. It was observed that gender differences were present in every sphere of society in terms of status, wealth, and power. Matrilineal societies like the Khasis are often cited to rebuff the idea that women in all societies are discriminated. However, recent writings have shown how even among a matrilineal society like the Khasis, control of property and decision-making within the family (the private domain) often reside with the male head - the brother. Rousseau argued that biological inequalities matter least in the form of social stratification, but feminists state that the most ancient system of social stratification is based on gender. Plato placed the reproductive role of women higher than their productive roles. Similarly, Aristotle was against citizenship for women. There are different streams of Feminism which study gender differently: Radical feminism - They see society as patriarchal and blame men for the exploitation of women. Men use violence and its threat to secure and maintain their power over women. Marxist and socialist feminism - They see capitalists as the main beneficiaries of the exploitation of unpaid work indirectly (as men are able to work at the expense of their wives). Unlike Marxists, Socialists believe in the democratic system and aim for change within it. Liberal feminists - are the most moderate of them all and believe that it is culture that is the cause of inequality in social systems. They aim for equal opportunities, especially in education and work. Shulamith Firestone traces origins of gender stratification in biological differences. She believes that women are disadvantaged by their biology (menstruation, childbirth, feeding), due to which their dependence on men increased, which provided further grounds for different forms of exploitation. She says that the sexual class system was the first form of stratification. Michelle Rosaldo argued that it is the division between the public and private (domestic) world which is the reason for women's subordination. With the example of Mbuti Pygmies of Africa, she demonstrated that where men and women share domestic responsibilities, the societies are relatively egalitarian. Fredrick Engels states that in primitive communism, women had a higher position than men but as society developed and forms of private property emerged, the control of men increased, putting gender equality on the backburner. He believed that capitalist society, despite all its issues, provided an opportunity for women to work at par with men and gain some equality. However, he observed that bourgeois women were still forced to submit to male control. Coontz and Henderson - stratification arose. Patrilocal and polygamous societies grew, and matrilocal ones declined. Heidi Hartmann believes that capitalism and patriarchy are very intertwined, but she does not believe that the interests of men are identical to that of capitalists. For example, Capitalists may want women to work at low wages but men may want their wives to be at home to perform services for them. Parsons believes that with the arrival of modernity, the hierarchy of genders has been converted into a competitive gender relationship. Hence, gender does not determine ranking in stratification systems. Helen Mayor dismisses the class notion attached to women and instead terms them as a minority. Sylvia Walby identifies six patriarchal structures that help men to maintain dominance over women: Paid work - male-dominated unions ensure that women's interests are kept at bay. Relations within the household - household work is unpaid and unvalued. Culture - a key sign of femininity is seen to be the sexual attractiveness of a woman. Sexuality - sexually active women are labeled negatively. Violence - the final form of manifestation of dominance of men over women. State - policies, though have undergone changes, are still lacking in many aspects to ensure gender equality. Even religion has been portrayed as one of the factors promoting patriarchy. For example, Christianity projects Eve as being the origin of all human sufferings is blamed on her actions. When gender is combined with other forms of prejudices like race, ethnicity, and poverty, then it becomes the worst form of exploitation. Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis believe that patriarchy, capitalism, and racism are all part of one system, which advantages some groups and disadvantages others. Ann Oakley believes patriarchy and capitalism are damaging the planet. For example, War and violence stem from what men learn about being masculine, and from attempts to maintain patriarchy. Male-dominated transnational companies are constantly feeding the consumption culture. Male economists ignore housework in GDP calculations. Medical science making invasion of the female body possible, like IVF. With development, many societies are giving high priority to gender in different aspects of planning and policy formulation. Concepts like gender budgeting are gaining popularity. Similarly, changes in adha, reservation in local bodies' elections, women-specific entrepreneurial schemes, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, priority in institutional lending to women-owned businesses, and women self-help groups are some measures that are helping the journey towards gender equality. However, cultural and attitudinal change is the most important factor here.
Ethnicity:
Ethnicity is defined as a unit of people with a common blood or descent. An ethnic group is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience. It is usually seen as defining groups in terms of their cultural characteristics rather than their supposed biological differences. In English, for a long time, the term referred to someone who was neither Christian nor Jew - a pagan or heathen. In other words, ethnics were those 'others' who were not 'us'. Thomas H. Eriksen sees ethnicity as relating to relationships between groups whose members consider themselves distinctive, and these groups are often ranked hierarchically within a society and are biologically perpetuating. He distinguishes between different types of ethnic groups - modern migrants, indigenous people, proto nations or ethno-nationalist movements, ethnic groups in plural societies like Mauritius, and post-slavery minorities. Fredrick Barth sees ethnicity is a much more elastic concept as compared to race or caste. It is usually used for invoking a political milieu. Though some forms of ethnicity are much more ingrained and complex than others, however, by way of language shift, acculturation, adoption, and religious conversion, it is possible for some individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and enter another. There are three popular conceptions of ethnicity: Biological - it is based on a common genetic descent. In this sense, ethnicity has been treated as synonymous with race. Cultural - it treated ethnicity as a cultural phenomenon. Psychological - a consciousness of common identity. An awareness exists among the members of a group regarding their similarity to each other. Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following types of ethnic groups can be identified: ethno-racial, ethno-religious, ethno-linguistic, ethno-national, or ethno-regional. Paul Brass discusses three ways of defining ethnic groups: a. in terms of objective attributes - that separate one group from the other. Example: language, territory, religion, dress, etc. b. by reference to subjective feelings - existence of an ethnic self-consciousness. c. in relation to behavior - existence of concrete, specific ways in which ethnic groups do or do not behave in relation to, or in interaction with other groups. According to Karl Deutsch, ethnicity has been instrumental for balkanization and the rise of so many nations in Europe, post-WW2. Paul Hirst advocates that ethnicity is used by capitalists to keep the working class divided, so as to prevent any revolution from happening. Steve Fenton - H Gellner and Wallerstein advocate that merit-based nature of modern society will dissipate any divisions on the basis of ethnicity and abilities will spell out class positions. They believe that modern principles lead to more homogenization and thus the disappearance of cultural and ethnic identities. But critical theorists like Habermas and primordial theorists like Borris and Richmond argue that ethnicity becomes more prominent in modern times to preserve itself from drastic changes and is present in covert forms even in modern societies. Glazer has contended that not only does ethnicity not cease to exist in a modern society, but is actually 'revived' and the increasing importance of ethnic identities or ethnicization can, in fact, be attributed to the very conditions of modernization. Clifford Geertz, a symbolic theorist, states that ethnicity will continue to exist, not because of its functions but because of emotions. Some examples of ethnic issues are: Nuer and Dinka tribes in South Sudan were engaged in an ethno-religious conflict. Crimea was annexed by Russia from Ukraine on an ethno-national basis. The holocaust was a form of ethno-religious war. On the other hand, demands for separate Indian states were made on an ethno-linguistic basis, and this has often been stated as having helped the process of development. acknowledging differences and providing space for inclusive development, hosts expect immigrants to fit into their culture, smoothly and invisibly. Example: demand for bans on turbans and hijabs. Hence, we see wide manifestations of ethnicity ranging from everyday prejudices to the formation of nations. Thus, ethnicity as a system of social stratification, both integrates and disintegrates societies.
Race:
Race is a vast collectivity of people more or less bound together by shared and selected history, ancestors, and physical features. These people are socialized to think of themselves as a distinct group, and others regard them as such. Geneticist Steve Jones states that genetic diversity has little to do with race and the overall genetic - say Africans and Europeans - is no greater than that between different countries within Europe or within Africa. Richardson and Lambert view race as a social construction with no biological basis. It has more to do with what people make of physical differences and the everyday or commonsense notions that influence them. Park and Burgess call race a product of history and culture. In the 17th century, with European colonialism, the ideology of racial stratification gained strength, with Europeans placing themselves (Caucasoid) at the top of the scheme. With Darwin's theory of natural selection in 1859, the concept of Social Darwinism by Herbert Spencer arose, arguing that certain racial groups were more successful and thus superior to others. Racism as a term entered common usage only after 1900. Oliver C. Cox sees the idea of race as a human creation. Races were identified according to physical characteristics, but these characteristics did not have to reflect any real biological differences between groups. It was the belief in difference that was important, not any real differences that might exist. It is a product of the capitalist system with slavery, colonialism, and racism as its tools. Race as a system of stratification is loaded with both prejudice and discrimination based on social perceptions of observable biological differences between people. It often takes the form of social actions, practices, or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are perceived to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. In a given society, those who share racial characteristics socially perceived as undesirable are typically under-represented in positions of social power - they become a minority category in that society. This minority status does not necessarily have to do with the population. For example, Demographically, whites were a minority in South Africa, but sociologically speaking, they were in the majority. Minority members in such a society are often subjected to discriminatory actions resulting from majority policies, including assimilation, exclusion, oppression, expulsion, and extermination. There can be two kinds of racisms in systems of social stratification - overt and covert. Overt racism usually feeds directly into a stratification system through its effect on social status. For example, members associated with a particular race may be assigned a slave status, a form of oppression in which they are refused basic rights that are granted to other members. Covert racism, which many scholars opine is practiced in more contemporary societies, is socially hidden and less easily detectable. It often feeds into stratification systems as an intervening variable affecting income, educational opportunities, and housing. Both overt and covert racism can take the form of structural inequality in a society in which racism has become institutionalized. Sociologists argue that while class forms stratification, race forms a hierarchy. Studies point to how race is a factor that hinders social mobility. For example, Blacks are less represented in many areas of social life. In his book, Ralph Ellison talks about the atrocities blacks face on account of their color. Merton states that victims of racism respond in various ways and can become retreatists, innovators, rebellious, or ritualists. Gunnar Myrdal observes that while America is considered as a land of equal opportunity, it is seen that though colored Americans also follow institutionally prescribed means to pursue culturally prescribed goals, they are still subjected to inequalities. On the other hand, Parsons sees America as a land of meritocracy and states that colored people are held back not due to discrimination but due to lack of educational opportunities. Once these opportunities become available, race will cease to be a factor and only merit will determine the success of any individual. John Rex and Paul Hirst see race as a product of capitalism, where economic opportunities were seen in outside labor and slave trade brought down the costs. Discrimination meted out to them is attributed to the lowly tasks that they performed in the past. Pierre L. van den Berghe sees a shift from paternalistic race relationship of the 18th and early 19th century to competitive race relationship of today. Today, greater openness and diversity among ethnic groups have led to questioning of the concept of race. A growing number of individuals identify themselves as multiracial or multiethnic. The lines between ethnicity and race are getting blurred and contemporary stratification cannot be explained independently on any one line of race, ethnicity, or even class. But injustices in many parts are also developing new shapes and kinds, keeping pace with such changes.