Why is there Social Stratification?: Crash Course Sociology #22

Summary

This script explores the persistence of social inequality through the lens of three sociological paradigms: structural functionalism, social conflict theory, and symbolic-interactionism. It discusses how ideology justifies inequality and how different theories attempt to explain its existence. The Davis-Moore Thesis, Marx's class struggle, Weber's multidimensional stratification, and the role of conspicuous consumption in everyday life are all examined to understand the complex nature of social stratification.

Takeaways

• 🏰 Inequality has been a persistent issue throughout history, from medieval peasants to modern factory workers, who often feel undercompensated despite their contributions.
• 🤔 Sociological systems of stratification explain how inequality occurs but do not address why it exists in the first place.
• 📚 The three sociological paradigms - structural functionalism, social conflict theory, and symbolic-interactionism - are essential to understanding the persistence and nature of inequality.
• 👑 Ideology plays a crucial role in justifying social inequality, influencing people's perceptions of fairness even when they are personally affected by it.
• 💼 The Davis-Moore Thesis suggests that social stratification is functional for society, with higher rewards for more important jobs, but it has faced criticism for its oversimplifications.
• 🚮 Not all important jobs are high-paying or difficult, and not all high-paying jobs are functionally important, challenging the Davis-Moore Thesis.
• 💼 Social-conflict theory, rooted in Marx's work, posits that stratification is based on control over the means of production and predicts increasing inequality and eventual revolution.
• 🛑 Dahrendorf's critique of Marx highlights changes in capitalism that have prevented the predicted revolution, such as a fragmented capitalist class and improved worker conditions.
• 🎓 Max Weber expanded on Marx's ideas by introducing the concept of 'socioeconomic status', which includes economic class, social status, and social power.
• 🛍️ Symbolic-interactionism helps explain how social stratification is manifested in everyday life through conspicuous consumption and the signaling of social position.
• 🎵 The example of choosing music in a car illustrates how tastes and preferences can signal social class and influence how others perceive and interact with an individual.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the script regarding historical and current societal structures?

The script discusses the persistent issue of inequality in society, both historically with medieval peasants and in modern times with factory workers, and how this inequality is perpetuated despite widespread disapproval.

Why might a medieval peasant or a modern factory worker accept inequality as fair despite their personal dislike for it?

They might accept inequality as fair due to the influence of societal ideology, which includes cultural beliefs and values that justify the organization of society and its patterns of inequality.

What are the three sociological paradigms mentioned in the script, and how do they relate to the understanding of inequality?

The three sociological paradigms are structural functionalism, social conflict theory, and symbolic-interactionism. They offer different perspectives on why inequality exists and how it is maintained in society.

What is the Davis-Moore Thesis, and how does it attempt to justify social stratification?

The Davis-Moore Thesis argues that society assigns greater rewards to jobs that are more important for its functioning, ensuring that difficult and necessary jobs are filled, thus promoting social stratification as functional for society.

What are some criticisms of the Davis-Moore Thesis as presented in the script?

Criticisms include the thesis not explaining how it works in practice, the mismatch between job importance and rewards, and the ignoring of unequal access to opportunities regardless of merit or hard work.

How does social-conflict theory, particularly Karl Marx's perspective, view the basis of social stratification?

Social-conflict theory, especially Marx's view, sees stratification as based on different relations to the means of production, where one class controls the means, allowing them to extract labor from another class that only controls its own labor.

What was the predicted outcome of increasing inequality according to Marx, and why did it not occur in Western Europe or the United States?

Marx predicted that increasing inequality would lead to a revolution by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. However, this did not occur due to changes in capitalist structures, worker organization, and legal protections that improved living standards and reduced revolutionary motivations.

What role does ideology play in the maintenance of stratification according to Ralf Dahrendorf's critique of Marx?

Dahrendorf argued that the ideology of capitalism, in which more people are both financially and ideologically invested, determines what people see as available to struggle over, thus preventing revolutionary change.

How does Max Weber's perspective on stratification differ from Marx's?

Weber criticized Marx's focus on economic stratification as too simplistic, arguing that stratification occurs along three dimensions: economic class, social status, and social power, adding more complexity to the understanding of stratification.

What is conspicuous consumption, and how does it relate to symbolic-interactionism and social stratification?

Conspicuous consumption is the act of buying products to make statements about one's social position. Symbolic-interactionism helps explain how these consumption patterns are used in everyday interactions to categorize individuals within the social hierarchy.

How do tastes and preferences, as discussed in the script, act as sign vehicles in the context of symbolic-interactionism?

Tastes and preferences act as sign vehicles by carrying meaning about an individual's social position. They are used by others to judge and categorize individuals within the social hierarchy, thus maintaining stratification.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Societal Inequality and Ideology

This paragraph discusses the persistent issue of inequality throughout history, from medieval times to the present day. It introduces the concept that while many people dislike inequality, they may still perceive it as fair due to societal ideology. The paragraph sets the stage for exploring the sociological paradigms that attempt to explain why inequality exists and persists, despite widespread disapproval. It also touches on the Davis-Moore Thesis, which suggests that social stratification is functional for society by rewarding important roles, thus ensuring their fulfillment.

05:02

💼 Critique and Conflict in Stratification Theories

The second paragraph delves into critiques of the structural functionalist perspective on social stratification, highlighting issues with the Davis-Moore Thesis, such as the mismatch between job importance and rewards, and the lack of meritocracy in society. It then contrasts this with social-conflict theory, particularly Marx's view of class struggle and the means of production. The paragraph also addresses the failure of the predicted proletarian revolution and introduces Ralf Dahrendorf's arguments about changes in capitalism that have prevented such a revolution. The critique continues with Max Weber's perspective, which adds complexity to stratification by considering economic class, social status, and social power.

Keywords

💡Inequality

Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, or rewards among different members of a society. In the video, it is discussed as a persistent issue that has been present historically and in the present, affecting both medieval peasants and modern factory workers. The video explores why inequality exists despite widespread disapproval, using the three sociological paradigms to analyze its causes and perpetuation.

💡Stratification

Stratification is the arrangement of individuals or groups into hierarchical layers based on economic, social, or political factors. The video script uses this term to describe the structured inequality within societies, which is justified by societal ideology and further examined through the lens of the three sociological paradigms.

💡Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is a sociological paradigm that views social institutions and structures as existing because they serve a purpose or function that contributes to the stability of society. In the script, it is used to explain social stratification through the Davis-Moore Thesis, which posits that stratification is functional for society by ensuring that important roles are filled.

💡Social Conflict Theory

Social conflict theory is a perspective that emphasizes the conflicts of interest between different social classes as a primary source of social change. The script discusses this concept through Karl Marx's ideas on class struggle and Ralf Dahrendorf's critique of Marx, highlighting how changes in capitalism have prevented the predicted revolution.

💡Symbolic-Interactionism

Symbolic-interactionism is a sociological perspective that focuses on the ways in which people interact and the meanings they create through their interactions. The video uses this concept to explain how social stratification is expressed and reinforced in everyday life through conspicuous consumption and the interpretation of social cues.

💡Ideology

Ideology is a set of cultural beliefs and values that justify a particular social order and its patterns of inequality. In the script, ideology is presented as a factor that helps maintain inequality by shaping people's perceptions of what is fair and just, even when they themselves are disadvantaged by the social structure.

💡Davis-Moore Thesis

The Davis-Moore Thesis is a structural functionalist theory that argues social stratification is necessary because it provides incentives for individuals to take on important but challenging roles in society. The video critiques this theory for not accounting for the complexity of real-world social structures and the mismatch between job importance and rewards.

💡Conspiracy of the Proletariat

The conspiracy of the proletariat, as envisioned by Marx, is the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, which would lead to the end of capitalism and its associated inequalities. The script notes that this revolution did not occur in Western societies, leading to a reevaluation of Marx's predictions.

💡Max Weber

Max Weber was a sociologist who criticized Marx's economic determinism and introduced the concept of social stratification along multiple dimensions, including class, status, and power. The video uses Weber's perspective to add nuance to the understanding of stratification beyond economic factors.

💡Conspicuous Consumption

Conspicuous consumption refers to the act of displaying wealth or social status through the purchase and use of luxury or high-status goods. In the script, it is discussed as a means by which individuals signal their social class to others, thus reinforcing the structure of social stratification.

💡Meritocracy

Meritocracy is a system in which individuals are rewarded and advance based on their abilities and achievements rather than their social class or other ascribed characteristics. The video script points out that despite the functionalist argument for meritocracy, societal structures often limit equal opportunities for all, contributing to the persistence of inequality.

Highlights

Inequality is a persistent issue despite widespread disapproval.

Three sociological paradigms are used to understand inequality: structural functionalism, social conflict theory, and symbolic-interactionism.

People may believe in the fairness of inequality due to societal ideology.

The Davis-Moore Thesis suggests social stratification is functional for society by rewarding important roles.

Critiques of the Davis-Moore Thesis highlight the mismatch between job importance and rewards, and the lack of meritocracy.

Social-conflict theory, inspired by Marx, posits that stratification is based on control of the means of production.

Marx predicted increasing inequality and a revolution by the proletariat, which did not occur as expected.

Dahrendorf argued that changes in capitalism, such as worker organization and legal protections, prevented the predicted revolution.

Weber critiqued Marx's oversimplification of economic stratification, introducing the concept of socioeconomic status with three dimensions.

Symbolic-interactionism provides a micro-level view of how people are categorized in social stratification through everyday interactions.

Conspicuous consumption is a way for individuals to signal their social class through the products they buy.

Tastes and preferences are shaped by social position and are used by others to judge an individual's class.

Judgments based on consumption and preferences play a significant role in maintaining social stratification.

Hiring practices often involve judgments about an applicant's fit within a company's culture, reflecting stratification.

The difficulty of acquiring background knowledge and understanding of tastes helps maintain stratification.

The video concludes by summarizing the discussed theories and their contributions to understanding social stratification.

Transcripts

If you asked a medieval peasant whether they liked working two days a week for their lord,

while they barely made enough food for themselves, they’d probably say no.

And if you ask a factory worker today whether they like making a tiny fraction of what their company’s CEO makes, they’d probably have a similar answer.

But, even though huge numbers of people don’t want inequality, it still exists, and it has for a long time.

And the systems of stratification that we talked about last week don’t really help explain this:

They can tell us about how this inequality happens, but they can’t tell us why.

If we want to answer that question, we'll have to return, once again, to our old friends the three sociological paradigms:

structural functionalism, social conflict theory, and symbolic-interactionism.

[Theme Music]

Let’s start with clarifying something pretty important about how sociologists understand inequality:

Even if the peasant and the factory worker both dislike the inequality in their lives, they might still believe that it’s fair.

The peasant might say that it’s simply their place in the world to toil for their lord, and the factory worker might say that the CEO surely deserves his wealth.

And this happens because of their societies’ ideology.

For our purposes, an ideology is a set of cultural beliefs and values that justify a particular way of organizing society.

Ideology also includes strongly held beliefs about a society’s patterns of inequality.

Ideology can help explain why inequality never goes away, but it doesn’t on its own explain why we have unequal societies in the first place.

For that, we have to turn to our three paradigms.

From a structural functionalist perspective, we have social stratification because...

well, you know the basic story of structural functionalism by now, so say it along with me:

We have stratification because it's functional for society.

This is the basic argument of what’s known as the Davis-Moore Thesis.

Put forward in 1945 by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore,

it argues that society assigns greater economic and social rewards to those jobs that are more important to society.

This guarantees that difficult jobs will be filled, the thinking goes, and will draw people away from easier and less important work.

So, the more important a job is for the proper functioning of society, the more a society rewards it,

which promotes the effective functioning of that society – and also a system of social stratification.

Davis and Moore basically argue that, without unequal rewards, few people would want the jobs that require the years of training or personal sacrifice that typically come with long work hours.

Think medical doctor.

Without the unequal rewards to motivate people, we’d have a lot of lifeguards sunning themselves on the beach and not very many ER docs.

But there are some serious problems with this idea.

To begin with, Davis and Moore don't talk about how their thesis actually works in society:

They only talk about why inequality might be functionally useful.

And this leads to another problem: Not all jobs that are important are necessarily hard to learn, or come with high pay.

Garbage collecting, for instance, is extremely important for the smooth functioning of society.

But it's not a particularly high-paid, socially valued job.

And this mismatch works the other way, too: Not all highly paid jobs are functionally important.

For instance, ask yourself who is more functional for society: a high school teacher or a famous actor?

Now think about who gets paid more.

Finally, Davis and Moore also ignore the fact that not all paths are equally open to all people.

If inequality is functional for society because it motivates hard work, then society should reflect this by being meritocratic –

a society in which everyone can work hard and get ahead.

But as we’ve already seen, this is not the social reality.

The structural nature of inequality, or the ways in which a society is organized to the advantage some groups over others, can be a cause of individual success or failure, no matter how hard a person works.

Now, while Davis and Moore don’t really deal with the impact of inequality, social-conflict theory very much does.

For Karl Marx, stratification is based on different relations to the means of production.

At the simplest level, one class controls the means of production, which allows them to extract labor from the other class, which controls only their own labor.

Marx believed that, as capitalism progressed, the inequality between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would get worse until,

eventually, the proletariat would unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie.

And in doing that, he thought, they’d ultimately derail the whole capitalist system and all the inequality that came with it.

But one of the central criticisms of the social-conflict understanding of stratification is that the proletariat revolution never happened in Western Europe, or the United States.

If inequality was so bad for workers, why did the revolution not happen?

Well, German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf argued that Marx wasn’t wrong about conflict per se,

but he saw that the conflict that Marx observed had changed in several ways that prevented revolution from happening.

First, Dahrendorf said, the capitalist class in Europe has been too fragmented to serve as a single target for revolutionaries.

Rather than having just a few capitalists against an ever increasing proletariat, we actually have more capitalists, of different kinds:

business owners, and executives, and people who own stocks.

More and more people are invested in capitalism as an economic system.

And a fragmented capitalist class makes it difficult for workers to focus their revolutionary energies on any one group.

In addition, he argued, greater worker organization, in the form of unions, has allowed workers

to fight for better working conditions, higher pay, and greater control over their labor,

resulting in an increased standard of living.

Greater legal protections for workers, like workers' compensation, unemployment insurance,

and Social Security have also worked to prevent the revolution that Marx predicted.

All of these structural changes, in turn, helped lead to greater job stability, which makes workers less likely to push for revolutionary change.

But Dahrendorf saw that the ideology of capitalism plays a role here as well.

Just as more people are financially invested in capitalism, people are also ideologically invested in it.

But this isn't just a matter of whether people like the system or not:

ideology determines what people see as available to struggle over.

Fighting for higher wages seems reasonable, but abolishing wage labor does not.

There are more criticisms of Marx than just an absent revolution, and one of the more fundamental ones was made by none other than Max Weber.

Specifically, Weber argued that Marx's focus on economic stratification was too simplistic:

Weber pointed out that there are other kinds of conflict to consider.

Weber argued that stratification actually occurs along three dimensions:

economic class, social status, and social power, or what sociologists refer to as socioeconomic status.

This view adds more complexity and nuance to the matter of stratification,

but as with the structural functionalist approach, it’s focused only on the macro perspective.

Marx’s theory, for example, is all about the long historical arc of class conflict,

but it doesn’t really tell us what that looks like in everyday life.

For a more micro- or individual-level view of inequality, sociologists turn to symbolic-interactionism.

When we first defined social stratification, we said that it involved putting people into categories.

Symbolic-interactionism lets us understand how this actually works because, sure, what class you're in might come down to how much money you make.

But how can other people tell what class that is in everyday interaction?

It’s not like people walk around with signs.

Except that they kind of do, in the form of conspicuous consumption.

This is when the products that you buy make statements about your social position.

Buying a really nice bottle of wine for a dinner party or wearing designer sunglasses isn’t just about the thing itself,

it’s also about sending a message to anyone who sees it, a message that says "I'm in the upper class."

The objects act as sign vehicles, carrying meaning just like a written word.

To some degree, all consumption is conspicuous consumption:

Your tastes are shaped by your social position, and you use them to define yourself just as others read your tastes to judge you and your position.

To see how this works, let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

Imagine you’re driving in your car with an acquaintance, and you want to put on some music.

The music you choose tells them something about you.

Let’s say you put on some really esoteric classical music.

Obviously, this tells your friend that you like it and hopefully that you think they’ll like it too.

But it also tells them that you are the kind of person who likes esoteric classical music.

Now, if it’s not obvious what this has to do with stratification, think about the assumptions that your acquaintance is gonna make about you:

that you come from a particular background, one that’s allowed you to have access to certain kind of education and upbringing,

or that you’ve had years of music lessons.

They might readily assume that you’re the kind of person whose class standing allows them to develop these musical tastes.

To be clear, I’m not saying that these judgements are true.

Lots of people who like classical music are not, say, wealthy or well-educated.

I’m saying that assumptions like these tend to be widely held, and recognized.

So when you put on your music, your friend might recognize you as a person like them, if they share your tastes.

Or maybe they don’t recognize you as being like them, so they judge you for being pretentious.

And this isn’t because classical music is special somehow:

it’s true regardless of what kind of music you put on, and applies just as much to the clothes you wear, the books you read, and all of your other tastes.

These are all ways in which people categorize you in the hierarchy of stratification.

They’re the signs you carry around that tell people where you fit in society and how to interact with you.

Thanks Thought Bubble.

This kind of judgement and mutual recognition isn’t a minor thing.

It’s a powerful force for stratification.

For instance, it can be extremely important in getting a job.

Hiring can often be an exercise in this kind of judgement, as managers look for people who “fit the culture” and will get along well with the rest of the team.

And it’s not just about what you like, it’s also about how you like it.

If you decide to start telling people that you like opera because you want to seem upper class,

but then you show up to a performance in a T-Shirt and flip-flops, you’re probably not gonna get anywhere.

There’s a ton of background knowledge and understanding behind tastes and preferences that you can’t just conjure out of nowhere,

and the difficulty of acquiring this knowledge helps maintain stratification.

So these three perspectives, structural-functionalism, social-conflict, and symbolic-interactionism

can help us better understand not just how stratification works, but why we have it.

Today we learned about different theories of stratification.

We talked about ideology and how it helps stratification reproduce itself.

We discussed structural-functionalism: the Davis-Moore thesis and its problems.

We talked about Marx's understanding of classes and Weber's criticisms.

And we saw how symbolic-interactionism helps explain stratification in everyday life.

Crash Course Sociology is filmed in the Dr. Cheryl C. Kinney Studio in Missoula, MT, and it’s made with the help of all of these nice people.

Our animation team is Thought Cafe and Crash Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud.

If you'd like to keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, you can support the series at Patreon, a crowdfunding platform that allows you to support the content you love.

Thank you to all of our patrons for making Crash Course possible with their continued support.