Social stratification
Social stratification is the conceptualization of society as being organized into socioeconomic tiers defined by education levels, race, income, wealth, and power. Social stratification suggests that communities organize themselves (or by invisible forces) into strata that eventually define their members’ chances of success. For instance, American society is characterized by distinct classes that can be generally labelled as upper class, middle class, and lower class. While there is no single agreed-upon and authoritative definition of social class, sociologists and psychologists agree that any nation’s social system organizes itself around wealth and power (Manstead, 2018). Wealth being material possession, and power the influence that comes alongside.
Social mobility
Contrary to Max Weber’s stratified society, the ideal society is that whose members are self-content and live in health and peace. In this abstract society, equality has been achieved; a very individual can obtain their need with ease. That sounds absurd because everyone misses something in the practical realm, and the deficiency drives the individual to work harder to get the need. Dissatisfaction defines social mobility and hence the movement of people across social strata (Manstead, 2018). Social mobility can be vertical, upward, or horizontal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Wealth, social stratification, and poverty
Despite the commonly held notion that everyone has a chance at success and thus, only one’s limitations restrict their placement in the social strata, sociologists maintain that social hierarchy has a superimposing effect on all individuals. That is, individual success is regulated by social stratification in a way to imply that social classes tend to depict strong inertia. In essence, the class system is maintained by a restricted flow of resources across the strata, which then affects intra-generational mobility (Gugushvilli, 2016). The US social system is an open stratified system. The difference between such a system and the closed system is that the former is a meritocracy, selectively allowing movements and interactions between the layers. And that defines the American Dream.
The class system is almost self-balancing, with incidences such as the Great Recession and the Great Depression often displacing many individuals and cementing the social pyramid’s stability. With income as the central metric distinguishing social classes, governments draw the poverty line at a value depending on the average family’s average expenditure on food. Often, poverty is unevenly distributed in terms of geography, ethnicity, and education. Thus, in the US, poverty is clustered in the South, while African Americans and Latinos are at higher risk of being poor than Whites.
There are two complementary explanations for poverty. First, economists argue that their values, attitudes, and behaviours are retrogressive, thus drawing them further away from progress. Others reason that society (intentionally) limits people’s access to opportunities. For instance, increasing university education denies the poor a chance to study, which builds the poverty cycle.
Wright’s Model
Given that Eric Wright’s social class model is built onto Marx and Weber’s ideas, it fits with the ideal society discussed above. On his part, Wright rewrites the classes into four distinctions – workers, managers, bourgeoisie, and capitalists (Schotte, 2018). Wright’s model is mainly proletarian, considering that the definitions are in terms of who offers the service and the flow of payments. However, Wright introduces an exciting flavour to the class structure. He imagines the middle class (primarily the petty and proper bourgeoisie) as a transitional class. Comparing the philosophy with modern times, Wright gets it wrong since, at present, the middle class (capitalist enterprise) is booming.
Gilbert & Karl’s Model
Similarly, Gilbert & Karl’s adaptation of the class structure defines six classes: the underclass, the working poor, the lower middle class, the upper-middle class, and the capitalist class. The model is more effective and interplays better with the Marx’s fundamental framework of class structure. Gilbert & Karl’s model offers a more precise definition of the classes, and recent adaptations have set income boundaries on them. What makes it more relatable is the admission that what shapes the levels to be what they are is growing inequality (Dennis & Gilbert, 2018).
People
Despite the systematic underpinnings that come with deliberate efforts by those at the apex to materially suffocate the lowly, class structure offers individuals multiple ways to climb the strata’s rungs. (Gugushvilli, 2016) observes that the most typical method of achieving mobility is gradual and step-wise. A case is given about Suzan, who has a high school diploma. She begins landscaping work as a manual labourer (lower middle class). After saving enough money, Suzan starts her own company and hires a few employees (middle class). After winning some contracts, she quits managerial work, does pure consultancy, and might even consider enrolling in university (capitalist).
In a class system, people are free to socialize. Thus, students at school interact with those in higher strata, workers mingle with bosses, and exogamous marriages are part of the outcomes. Class discrimination is rampant in open class systems. Racism and xenophobia are commonplace, particularly in the US, since members of privileged classes feel superior to those in lower classes. Given that it is those in the upper classes that influence policy, discrimination often becomes mainstream and is institutionalized.
Poverty contributes a lot to maintaining the status quo of social class. Individuals in lower classes are more likely to smoke, become alcoholics, and abuse drugs (Iversen et al., 2019). As a result, compared to those in higher classes, they are likely to exercise poor parenting and raise a generation of illiterate children. They are also more susceptible to disease, incrimination, and divorce. Their mortality rates are also the lowest.
In conclusion, several models portray different representations of social classes in society. These classes, however, are not just abstract labels but cast significant impacts on its members. Most importantly, there are opportunities for social mobility despite the obvious challenges posed by the system’s disequilibrium.
References
Gilbert, D. L. (2017). The American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality . SAGE Publications.
Gugushvili, A. (2016). Intergenerational Social Mobility and Popular Explanations of Poverty: A Comparative Perspective. Social Justice Research , 29 (4), 402-428.
Iversen, V., Krishna, A., & Sen, K. (2019). Beyond Poverty Escapes—Social Mobility in Developing Countries: A Review Article. The World Bank Research Observer , 34 (2), 239-273.
Manstead, A. S. (2018). The Psychology of Social Class: How Socioeconomic Status Impacts Thought, Feelings, And Behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology , 57 (2), 267-291.
Schotte, S. (2018). Poverty, Social Mobility, And The Middle Class (Doctoral Dissertation, Doctoral Dissertation Submitted at The University of Göttingen. Available at: Http://Hdl. Handle. Net/11858/00-1735-0000-002E-E4E1-9
