ABSTRACT
The differentiation of society into separate groupings becomes social stratification when these groupings can be seen as forming a hierarchy. Traditionally, in sociology, three major types of strata have been recognised. In a caste system, different strata are characterised in terms of ethnic purity, with no movement between castes (so that a person lives his or her entire life within the caste into which he or she is born). In an estate system, typical of feudal societies, again there is little or no mobility between strata. The estates are defined through land ownership (on the part of the dominant stratum) and bondage. In industrial societies, stratification is in terms of class, with classes understood as economically defined. Class hierarchies formally allow for social mobility (although the actual amount of mobility and thus the real opportunities to leave the class of one’s birth, may be restricted through unequal access to economic and cultural resources, such as education). Disputes continue, firstly over the relevant criteria for defining class. In the Marxist tradition, two major classes are identified and distinguished in terms of ownership and control of the means of production. (In Marxism, estates and castes are subsumed within the concept and theory of class, being understood as different forms that class and exploitation take in different historical epochs.) In other sociological traditions, defining class in terms of occupation allows for a more subtle and comprehensive account of social stratification. However, it is not clear that other hierarchies, such as power, material reward and status necessarily map onto class hierarchies in any simple manner. (Thus, as Max Weber noted, the nouveaux riches may have the income and wealth typical of the highest class, yet they will not have the status or respect that traditionally attends old money.) Further, a predominantly economic analysis of social stratification can fail to recognise the significance of other hierarchical social groupings, such as gender and ethnicity. [AE] Further reading: Scott 1996.
