What Does It Affect Job Stratification And Economic Placement?

Social Stratification can be defined as “the study of whole societies, in comparative perspective, in an attempt to understand processes of social stability and change.” (Scott, Marshall, 2009:735). Nolan and Lenski (2004) stated that social organizations are a basic component of society; consequently, implying that societies are composed of different social classes that are defined by different roles, norms, ranks and values. Moreover, this assignment will Karl Marx’s theory of stratification and asses its usefulness in society today. Firstly, by briefly looking through Marx’s theory, secondly by looking at other theories of stratification:

Social inequality is a problematic phenomenon that occurs all around the world and affects both the developed and developing nations. It is defined as “the unequal distribution of social, political and economic resources within a social collective” (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 205). Inequality is closely connected with social stratification, a system of social hierarchy that positions individuals and groups into categories according to social variables such as class or ethnicity (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 485). This stratification has a significant impact on the opportunity that an individual may have to move up the hierarchy of inequality (Gill 2017a).

Stratification theories are defined as theories which emphasize social forces, particularly those related to a person’s social stratum or social category. Stratification is society’s categorization of people which can be based off a variety of things such as race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. These stratification theories limit individual choices and affect a person’s ability to function in late adulthood.

The article presents Weber’s argument regarding social stratification in contrast to Marx’s. In his discussion of his theory of social stratification, he outlines three ways in which society is divided: by class (economically), status (socially) and by party (ideologically). He argues that the individual identity is not determined by the class identity, and that status and party identities often cross class divisions.

Theory: connect it to the symbolic-Interaction Theory. The micro level analysis of social stratification is important because people’s social standings affect their everyday life. Rich people do not want to hang with homeless people. Everyone thinks highly of themselves that poor people just don’t want to work and are lazy is not surprising. Because of their social standing, they try to justify inequality.

Social Stratification can be explained as members of a society being placed into a hierarchy where they are

The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology defines inequality as ‘the unequal distribution of opportunities, rewards, and power among and between individuals, households and groups’(1). It goes on to say that ‘the subfield of social stratification has as its main task the description and analysis of inequalities, or the makeup of the stratification system of any given society’.(1) From this one definition, we can already begin to see the strong links that lie between inequalities and social stratification. As we delve deeper into the topics, we can begin to see both the inevitability and the functionality of stratification

Social stratification is defined as a system by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. For example, There are fundamental principles of stratification:

Social Stratification is a term used by sociologists to describe inequalities that exist between society and us as individuals and can also be described as a hierarchy with the less privileged people at the bottom and the more favoured people at the top. (Giddens, 2006)

Social Stratification is considered to be a hierarchy of positions concerning economic production which influences the social rewards to those in the positions (Social Stratification, Definition Social Stratification, n.d.). There are two commonly known theories when it comes to social stratification, the functional theory, and the conflict theory. The functionalist believes that stratification is needed for society to enhance stability and motivate members of the society to work hard. According to the functional theory, inequality ensures that the most functionally important jobs are filled by the individual who has the best skills for the job.

Social inequality is defined as the unequal distribution of social and economical resources. There are unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions and statuses within a group or society. Because there is social inequality, people have less life chances meaning less educational and occupational opportunities, which prevents movement on the social ladder. This gives authority to the rich because the rich own the means of production, giving capitalists the power to exercise it by exploiting the poor working class. An individual interest and not that of a community drive the rich. Such differences degrade and stigmatize the social class with less money and opportunities causing social stratification.

Weber’s claims of stratification support in a large measure, the ways the state continues its monopoly over the means of power and resources to act in its own favor. In most if not all the power resides within the control of the state. Since the state has the most power and resources to maintain its prestige, wealth and power it can perpetuate this in a rational manner. So in order to increase state assets the state must create stratification, and in the process inequality, by using its monopoly of power and influence. The state requires workers in the less desirable jobs with low pay and poor conditions to support capitalistic gain. Capitalism requires these positions in order to create an economy. Just as the state needs workers it requires consumers as well. I think Weber caught a glimpse of this in the instances of when the Catholics were more inclined to be factory workers in Germany as opposed to the Protestant skilled workers. There was policy in place to keep the Catholics as those workers with less prestige and in the lower levels of stratification. According to Weber (2002: 3), Catholics were basically set up to fail in society

Max Weber has studied and presented work that falls under symbolic interactionism, conflict, and functionalism theoretical models. He focused on social behaviors, ideal types, and relationships, all which help shape society and were studied at a macro level. One of his goals was to seek how systems of class and status brought about social change. This social change is caused by stratification and the legitimacy of the existing system. Max Weber argued that social class was three dimensions of stratification, which are class status and power.

Within this structure, Weber describes there being three dimensions of inequality: class (which correlates with the economy), status (which correlates with the social aspects of society), and party (which correlates with the political aspects of society). I believe most of the modern explanations of inequality, at most, help build upon Weber's general theories, and at least, reflect the same elitist pessimism that Weber also holds. The dual-labor market thesis contends that there are two labor markets (in terms of income), in which the higher income market is of primary importance and the lower income market is of secondary importance. This tries to justify those people within high power positions by (somehow) trying to prove that our system is objectively rewarding higher incomes to professions that have higher social importance than lower income professions. Similarly, the functionalist theory of stratification "views societies as social systems that have certain basic problems to solve or functions that have to be performed if the society is to survive" (243). So the reason for inequality, for functionalists, is because our system must reward (with significantly higher incomes) those individuals who are motivated enough to yield the stresses of such functionally important positions. The fact that our system reproduces classes into the same class assumes the

The purpose of this essay is to compare, contrast and critically evaluate Marxist and Weberian theories of stratification. To do this effectively this essay must explain and consider the main features, claims and perspectives of both Karl Marx and Max Weber. O’Donnell (1992) defines social stratification as “the division of a society or group into hierarchically ordered layers. Members of each layer are considered broadly equal but there is inequality between the layers.” Functionalist Durkheim (1858-1917) argued that the reason for the existence of stratification was because it was functional or beneficial to the order of society.