What is social stratification? Social stratification, its types and historical types

The concept of social stratification. Social stratification- a historically specific, hierarchically organized structure of social inequality, presented in the form of a division of society into strata (Latin - stratum - layer), differing from each other in that their representatives have an unequal amount of material wealth, power, rights and responsibilities, privileges, prestige. Thus, social stratification can be represented as hierarchically structured social inequality in society.

The fundamental importance of the principle of social inequality is generally recognized in sociological science, but explanatory models of the nature and role of social inequality differ significantly. Thus, the conflictological (Marxist and neo-Marxist) direction believes that inequality gives rise to various forms of alienation in society. Representatives of functionalism argue that the existence of inequality is an effective way of leveling the starting positions of individuals due to competition and stimulation of social activity; universal equality deprives people of incentives for advancement, the desire to make maximum efforts and abilities to fulfill their duties.

Inequality is perpetuated in any society through social institutions. At the same time, a system of norms is created according to which people must be included in relations of inequality, accept these relations, and not oppose them.

Systems of social stratification. Social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society. The processes of social stratification play an important regulatory and organizing role, helping society at each new historical stage to adapt to changing conditions, developing those forms of interaction that allow it to respond to new requirements. The stratified nature of human interaction makes it possible to maintain society in an orderly state and thereby maintain its integrity and boundaries.

In sociological science, four historically existing systems of stratification are most often described: slave, caste, estate and class. The famous English sociologist Anthony Giddens paid special attention to the development of this classification.

Slave stratification system based on slavery - a form of inequality in which some people, deprived of freedom and any rights, are the property of others, legally endowed with privileges. Slavery originated and spread in agrarian societies: from ancient times it existed until the nineteenth century. With primitive technology requiring significant human labor, the use of slave power was economically justified.

Caste stratification system characterized by the fact that a person’s social position is strictly determined from birth, does not change throughout life and is inherited. There are practically no marriages between individuals belonging to different castes. Caste (from the port. casta - “race”, or “pure breed”) is a closed endogamous group of people, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy depending on its functions in the system of division of labor. The purity of caste is maintained by traditional rituals, customs, and rules, according to which communication with representatives of lower castes defiles the higher caste.

For almost three millennia, until 1949, the caste system existed in India. There are still thousands of castes there, but they are all grouped into four main castes, or Varnas (from Sanskrit “color”): the Brahmins, or priestly caste, are landowners, clergy, scientists, village clerks, numbering from 5-10% of the population; Kshatriyas - warriors and noble people, Vaishyas - traders, merchants and artisans, who together made up about 7% of Indians; Shudras - simple workers and peasants - about 70% of the population, the remaining 20% ​​are Harijans (“children of God”), or untouchables, outcasts engaged in degrading work, who were traditionally cleaners, scavengers, tanners, swineherds, etc.

Hindus believe in reincarnation and believe that those who follow the rules of their caste will rise to a higher caste by birth in a future life, while those who violate these rules will lose social status. Caste interests became an important factor during election campaigns.

Class stratification system, in which inequality between groups of individuals is enshrined in law, became widespread in feudal society. Estates are large groups of people, differing in rights and responsibilities to the state, legislated and inherited, which contributed to the relative closedness of this system.

Developed class systems were feudal Western European societies, where the upper class consisted of the aristocracy and gentry (small nobility). In tsarist Russia, some classes were required to perform military service, others - bureaucratic service, and others - “tax” in the form of taxes or labor duties. Some echoes of the estate system survive in Britain today, where titles of nobility are still inherited and honored, and where leading businessmen, government officials and others can be given peerages or knighted as rewards for special services.

Class stratification system is established in a society based on private property and is associated with differences in the economic status of groups of people, with inequalities in the ownership and control of material resources, while in other systems of stratification non-economic factors (for example, religion, ethnicity, profession). Classes are social groups of legally free people who have equal fundamental (constitutional) rights. Unlike previous types, class membership is not regulated by the state, is not established by law, and is not inherited.

Basic methodological interpretations of the concept of “class”. The greatest contribution to the theoretical development of the concept of “class” and social class stratification was made by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920).

Having linked the existence of classes with certain historical phases of the development of production, Marx created his concept of “social class”, but without giving it a holistic, detailed definition. For Marx, a social class is a group of people who stand in the same relation to the means of production with which they ensure their existence. The main thing in characterizing a class is whether it is an owner or not.

The most complete definition of classes in accordance with Marxist methodology was given by V.I. Lenin, according to which classes are characterized by the following indicators:

1. possession of property;

2. place in the system of social division of labor;

3. role in organizing production;

4. income level.

Essentially important in the Marxist methodology of class is the recognition of the indicator “possession of property” as a fundamental criterion for class formation and the very nature of class.

Marxism divided classes into basic and non-basic. The main classes were those whose existence directly follows from the economic relations prevailing in a given society, primarily property relations: slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, proletarians and the bourgeoisie. Minor ones are the remnants of the former main classes in a new socio-economic formation or the emerging classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation.

In addition to the main and minor classes, social strata are the structural element of society. Social strata are intermediate or transitional social groups that do not have a clear relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not have all the characteristics of a class (for example, the intelligentsia).

Max Weber, agreeing with Marx's ideas about the connection between class and objective economic conditions, discovered in his research that the formation of a class is influenced by a much larger number of factors. According to Weber, class division is determined not only by the presence or absence of control over the means of production, but also by economic differences not directly related to property.

Weber believed that qualification certificates, academic degrees, titles, diplomas and the professional training received by specialists put them in a more advantageous position in the labor market compared to those who do not have the appropriate diplomas. He proposed a multidimensional approach to stratification, believing that the social structure of a society is determined by three autonomous and interacting factors: property, prestige (meaning respect for an individual or group based on their status) and power.

Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society. He argued that property owners are a “positively privileged class.” At the other extreme is the “negatively privileged class,” which includes those who have neither property nor qualifications to offer on the market. This is the lumpen proletariat. Between the two poles there is a whole spectrum of the so-called middle classes, which consist of both small owners and people who are able to offer their skills and abilities on the market (officials, artisans, peasants).

According to Weber, belonging to one or another status group is not necessarily determined by belonging to a certain class: a person who enjoys honor and respect may not be an owner; both the haves and the have-nots can belong to the same status group. Differences in status, Weber argues, generally lead to differences in lifestyle. Lifestyle is determined by the subculture common to the group and is measured by status prestige. The separation of groups by prestige can occur for various reasons (belonging to a certain profession, etc.), but it always acquires a ranking character: “higher - lower”, “better - worse”.

Weber's approach made it possible to distinguish in the social structure not only such large analytical units as “class”, but also more specific and flexible ones - “strata” (from lat. stratum-layer). A stratum includes many people with some common status sign of their position, who feel connected to each other by this community. In the existence of strata, evaluative factors play an important role: a person’s line of behavior in a given situation, his attitudes based on certain criteria that help him rank himself and those around him.

When studying social structure, social strata are distinguished, whose representatives differ from each other in the unequal amount of power and material wealth, rights and responsibilities, privileges and prestige.

Thus, Weber’s stratification methodology allows us to obtain a more voluminous, multidimensional understanding of the social structure of modern society, which cannot be adequately described in coordinates by Marx’s bipolar class methodology.

Social class stratification by L. Warner. The social stratification model of the American sociologist Warner (1898-1970) has become most widespread in practice.

Social stratification was considered by him as a functional prerequisite for the existence of modern industrial society, its internal stability and balance, ensuring the self-realization of the individual, his success and achievements in society. Position in class stratification (or status) is described by Warner using characteristics such as level of education, occupation, wealth and income.

Initially, Warner's stratification model was represented by six classes, but later the “middle middle class” was introduced into it and currently it has acquired the following form:

Highest-highest class are “aristocrats by blood”, representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with very significant resources of power, wealth and prestige throughout the state. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

Low-high class includes bankers, prominent politicians, owners of large firms who achieved higher status through competition or due to various qualities.

Upper-middle class consists of representatives of the bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals: successful businessmen, hired company managers, prominent lawyers, famous doctors, outstanding athletes, and the scientific elite. They enjoy high prestige in their fields of activity. Representatives of this class are usually spoken of as the wealth of the nation.

Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, people of intelligent professions, including engineers, teachers, scientists, heads of departments at enterprises, teachers, and middle managers. Representatives of this class are the main support of the existing government.

Lower-middle class consists of lower employees and skilled workers, whose work is predominantly mental in content.

Upper-lower class consist mainly of medium- and low-skilled wage workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, who create surplus value in a given society.

Low-low class comprised of the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, foreign workers and other representatives of marginalized groups of the population. They have only primary or no education and most often do odd jobs. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass.

Social mobility and its types. Under social mobility (from lat. mobilis- capable of movement, action) is understood as a change in place by an individual or group in the social structure of society. The study of social mobility was started by P.A. Sorokin, who understood social mobility not only as the movement of individuals from one social group to another, but also the disappearance of some and the emergence of other social groups.

According to the directions of movement they distinguish horizontal And vertical mobility.

Horizontal mobility implies the transition of an individual from one social group or community to another, located at the same social level, at one social position, for example, a transition from one family to another, a movement from an Orthodox to a Catholic or Muslim religious group, from one citizenship to another, from one profession to another. An example of horizontal mobility is a change of place of residence, moving from a village to a city for permanent residence or vice versa, moving from one state to another.

Vertical mobility call movement from one layer to another, higher or lower located in the hierarchy of social relations. Depending on the direction of movement we talk about rising or descending mobility. Upward mobility implies an improvement in social status, social advancement, for example, promotion, higher education, marriage with a person of a higher class or with a wealthier person. Downward mobility- this is a social descent, i.e. moving down the social ladder, for example, dismissal, demotion, bankruptcy. According to the nature of stratification, there are downward and upward currents of economic, political and professional mobility.

In addition, mobility can be group or individual. Group This is called mobility when an individual moves down or up the social ladder together with his social group (estate, class). This is the collective rise or fall in the position of an entire group in the system of relations with other groups. The reasons for group mobility are wars, revolutions, military coups, and changes in political regimes. Individual mobility is the movement of an individual that occurs independently of others.

The intensity of mobility processes is often considered as one of the main criteria for the degree of democratization of society and liberalization of the economy.

Range of mobility, characterizing a particular society depends on how many different statuses exist in it. The more statuses, the more opportunities a person has to move from one status to another.

In a traditional society, the number of high-status positions remained approximately constant, so there was moderate downward mobility of descendants from high-status families. Feudal society is characterized by very few vacancies for high positions for those who had low status. Some sociologists believe that, most likely, there was no upward mobility here.

An industrial society is characterized by a wider range of mobility, since there are many more different statuses in it. The main factor of social mobility is the level of economic development. During periods of economic depression, the number of high-status positions decreases and low-status positions expand, so downward mobility dominates. It intensifies during periods when people lose their jobs and at the same time new layers enter the labor market. On the contrary, during periods of active economic development, many new high-status positions appear. Increased demand for workers to keep them busy is the main reason for upward mobility.

The main trend in the development of industrial society is that it simultaneously increases wealth and the number of high-status positions, which in turn leads to an increase in the size of the middle class, whose ranks are replenished by people from lower strata.

Caste and class societies limit social mobility, placing severe restrictions on any change in status. Such societies are called closed.

If most statuses in a society are prescribed, then the range of mobility in it is much lower than in a society built on individual achievement. In pre-industrial society, there was little upward mobility, since legal laws and traditions practically denied peasants access to the landowning class.

In an industrial society, which sociologists classify as an open society, individual merit and achieved status are valued above all. In such a society, the level of social mobility is quite high. A society with open borders between social groups gives a person a chance to rise, but it also creates in him the fear of social decline. Downward mobility can occur both in the form of pushing individuals from high social statuses to lower ones, and as a result of lowering the social statuses of entire groups.

Channels of vertical mobility. The ways and mechanisms by which people climb the social ladder were named by P. A. Sorokin channels of vertical circulation, or mobility. Since vertical mobility exists to one degree or another in any society, between social groups or strata there are various “elevators”, “membranes”, “holes” through which individuals move up and down. For an individual, the possibility of upward mobility means not only an increase in the share social benefits he receives, it contributes to the realization of his personal data, makes him more flexible and versatile.

The functions of social circulation are performed by various institutions.

The most well-known channels are the family, school, army, church, political, economic and professional organizations.

Family becomes a channel of vertical social mobility if a marriage is concluded by representatives of different social statuses. So, for example, in many countries at one time there was a law according to which if a woman married a slave, then she herself became a slave. Or, for example, an increase in social status from marriage with a titled partner.

Family socioeconomic position also influences career opportunities. Sociological studies conducted in Great Britain showed that two-thirds of the sons of unskilled and semi-skilled workers were, like their fathers, engaged in manual labor, that less than 30% of specialists and managers came from the working class, i.e. rose, 50% of specialists and managers took the same positions as their parents.

Ascending mobility is observed much more often than downward mobility, and is characteristic mainly of the middle strata of the class structure. People from the lower social classes, as a rule, remained at the same level.

School, being a form of expression of the processes of education and upbringing, at all times it has served as a powerful and fastest channel of vertical social mobility. This is confirmed by large competitions for admission to colleges and universities in many countries. In societies where schools are available to all members, the school system represents a “social elevator”, moving from the very bottom of society to the very top. The so-called “long elevator” existed in ancient China. During the era of Confucius, schools were open to everyone. Exams were held every three years. The best students, regardless of the status of their families, were transferred to higher schools and then to universities, from where they ended up in high government positions.

In Western countries, many social spheres and a number of professions are practically closed to a person without an appropriate diploma. The work of graduates of higher educational institutions is paid higher. In recent years, the desire of young people who have received a university diploma to study in graduate school has become widespread. This significantly changes the ratio of undergraduate and graduate students studying at universities. Universities where there are more undergraduates than graduate students are called conservative, moderate - have a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, progressive - are those where there are more graduate students than undergraduates. For example, at the University of Chicago there are 7 thousand graduate students for every 3 thousand undergraduates.

Government groups, political organizations and political parties also play the role of an “elevator” in vertical mobility. In Western Europe during the Middle Ages, servants of various rulers, being involved in the state sphere, often became rulers themselves. This is the origin of many medieval dukes, counts, barons and other nobility. As a channel for social mobility, political organizations now play a particularly important role: many functions that previously belonged to the church, government and other social organizations are now taken over by political parties. In democratic countries, where the institution of elections plays a decisive role in the formation of the highest authorities, the easiest way to attract the attention of voters and get elected is through political activity or participation in a political organization.

Army as a channel of social mobility functions not in peacetime, but in wartime. Losses among the command staff lead to vacancies being filled by people of lower ranks. During the war, soldiers, showing courage and bravery, are awarded another title. It is known that out of 92 Roman emperors, 36 achieved this rank, starting from the lower ranks; out of 65 Byzantine emperors, 12 advanced through their army careers. Napoleon and his entourage, marshals, generals and the kings of Europe appointed by him belonged to the class of commoners. Cromwell, Washington, and many other commanders rose to the highest positions through military careers.

Church as a channel of social mobility has elevated a large number of people. Pitirim Sorokin, having studied the biographies of 144 Roman Catholic popes, found that 28 of them came from the lower strata, and 27 from the middle strata. The rite of celibacy (celibacy), introduced in the 11th century by Pope Gregory VII, did not allow the Catholic clergy to have children, so the vacant high positions of the clergy were occupied by lower-ranking persons. After the legalization of Christianity, the church begins to serve as the ladder along which slaves and serfs began to climb, sometimes to the highest and most influential positions. The church was not only a channel of upward mobility, but also downward: many kings, dukes, princes, lords, nobles and other aristocrats of various ranks were ruined by the church, put on trial by the Inquisition, and destroyed.

Social marginality. The process of individuals losing their identification with certain social communities and classes is expressed by the concept marginalization.

Social mobility can lead to the fact that an individual has left the confines of one group, but finds himself rejected or only partially included in another. Thus, individuals and even groups of people appear who occupy marginal positions (from lat. marginalis- located on the edge) of a position, without integrating for a certain time into any of the social groups to which they are oriented.

In 1928, the American psychologist R. Park first used the concept of “marginal person.” Research on the characteristics of individuals located on the border of different cultures, conducted by the Chicago sociological school, laid the foundation for the classical concept of marginality. Subsequently, it was picked up and reworked by researchers studying boundary phenomena and processes in society.

The main criterion that determines the state of marginality of an individual or social group is the state associated with the state of transition, represented as a crisis.

Marginality can arise for various reasons, both personal and social. The phenomenon of marginality turns out to be quite common during the transition of society from one economic and political system to another, with a different type of stratification. In this case, entire groups or social strata find themselves in a marginal position, unable, or unable, to adapt to the new situation and integrate into the new stratification system. A marginal situation can cause conflicts and deviant behavior. This situation can create anxiety, aggressiveness, doubt in personal worth, and fear in making decisions in an individual. But a marginal situation can become a source of socially effective creative action.

Stratification of modern Russian society. Modern Russian society is characterized by profound changes in the social and class structure of society and its stratification. In the new conditions, the former status of social groups is changing. The upper elite strata, in addition to traditional management groups, include large owners - new capitalists. A middle layer appears - relatively financially secure and well-established representatives of various social and professional groups, mainly entrepreneurs, managers and some qualified specialists.

The dynamics of social stratification of modern Russian society are characterized by the following main trends:

- significant social stratification;

― slow formation of the “middle class”;

― self-reproduction of the middle class, narrow sources of its replenishment and expansion;

― significant redistribution of employment across economic sectors;

― high social mobility;

- significant marginalization.

The middle class of Russian society. In the social-class structure of modern society, an important place belongs to the “middle class” (“middle classes”). The scale and quality of this social group significantly determine the socio-economic, political stability and nature of the systemic integration of society as a whole. For modern Russia, the formation and development of the “middle class” essentially means the creation of the foundations of civil society and democracy. Russian sociologists have compiled a generalized portrait of representatives of the middle class (MC) of Russia and its strata.

The upper layer of the middle class are, for the most part, highly educated people. 14.6% of them have an academic degree or have completed graduate school, another 55.2% have higher education, and 27.1% have secondary specialized education. The middle layer of the middle class is also quite highly educated. And although only 4.2% here already have an academic degree, the majority are people with higher education (the number of people with secondary specialized education is 31.0%, and with secondary and incomplete secondary education is only 9.8%). In the lower layer of the middle class, the number of people with secondary and special secondary education reaches a total of 50.2%.

In terms of job status, more than half (51.1%) of the representatives of the upper layer of the middle class are senior managers and entrepreneurs with employees. Qualified specialists in this stratum accounted for 21.9%.

The middle layer of the middle class is clearly dominated by qualified specialists (30.1%) and workers (22.2%); the share of managers is only 12.9%, entrepreneurs with employees - 12.1%. But in this group, the proportion of those who have a purely family business is one and a half times higher than in the middle class as a whole (6.4% versus 4.3%).

In general, using the terminology adopted in studies of the middle class in Western European countries, based on the results of the study, we can say that the backbone of the upper layer of the middle class consists of senior managers and businessmen who have their own companies with hired employees. The presence of highly qualified specialists is clearly noticeable in it, fairly evenly representing the humanitarian intelligentsia and the military, and to a lesser extent, engineers. The presence of “white” and “blue collar” workers is weak.

The backbone of the middle layer of the middle class consists, first of all, of qualified specialists, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, “blue collar workers” - skilled workers. A prominent place in its composition is also occupied by managers and entrepreneurs, including representatives of family businesses and those engaged in self-employed activities.

According to data from the All-Russian Center for Living Standards for 2006, the middle class in our country includes families where the cash income for each family member per month ranges from 30 thousand to 50 thousand rubles. Representatives of this class are characterized not only by the ability to eat normally and purchase necessary durable goods, but also to have decent housing (at least 18 square meters per person) or a real possibility of improving it, plus a country house or the possibility of purchasing one in the foreseeable future. Of course, there must be a car or cars. It is also necessary to have funds for treatment, surgery, payment for children’s education, and legal fees, if necessary. Such a family can vacation at our resorts or abroad.

The listed requirements for the whole country in 2006 were met by average per capita consumer spending of 15 to 25 thousand rubles per month. Plus your monthly savings should be about the same. Naturally, each territory has its own characteristics, and the amounts of income and savings will be different. For Moscow, for example, these limits are 60-80 thousand rubles. Above this bar are the wealthy and wealthy. In total, as these studies have shown, about 10 percent of the country's population, or approximately 13.5 million Russians, can be classified as middle class. This means approximately 6-7 million families.

Approximately 90% of the Russian middle class have substantial savings. It also includes private shareholders who have invested in securities - no more than 400 thousand people. Taking into account their family members, this turns out to be about one and a half million Russians - 1% of the population. This is the upper middle class. For comparison: in the USA the number of such shareholders is tens of millions, almost half of American families. Their efficient activities, property and income created the basis for the stable functioning of the market without deep government intervention.

In Western Europe and the USA and other countries, an influential “middle class” has existed for several centuries and makes up from 50 to 80% of the population. It consists of various groups of entrepreneurs and businessmen, skilled workers, doctors, teachers, engineers, clergy, military personnel, government officials, and middle staff of firms and companies. There are also significant political, economic and spiritual differences between them.

There are not so many wealthy and wealthy citizens with incomes higher than the middle class in our country. That's 4 million people, or 3 percent of the total population. The very rich - dollar millionaires - from 120 to 200 thousand.

With a 60-million-strong army of poor people (taking into account not only their income, but also their housing conditions) and a small middle class, it is difficult today to talk about long-term stability in society.

New marginalized groups. As a result of the changes that have occurred in Russia in the last decade in the economic, political and social spheres of public life, new marginal groups have emerged:

- “post-specialists” are professional groups of the population that are released from the economy and have no job prospects due to their narrow specialization in the new economic situation in Russia, and retraining is associated with a loss of skill level, loss of profession;

- “new agents” - private entrepreneurs, so-called. the self-employed population, previously not oriented toward private entrepreneurial activity, but forced to look for new ways of self-realization;

- “migrants” - refugees and forced migrants from other regions of Russia and from “near abroad” countries. The peculiarities of the situation of this group are due to the fact that it objectively reflects a situation of multiple marginality, caused by the need to adapt to a new environment after a forced change of place of residence.

Social stratification(from lat. stratum− layer and facio− I do) is one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification and position in society; social structure of society; branch of sociology. The term “stratification” entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the arrangement of layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions that existed between them to layers of earth, floors of buildings, objects, tiers of plants, etc.

Stratification- this is the division of society into special layers (strata) by combining different social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality, built horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are built vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of well-being, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

IN social stratification a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy of social layers is built. In this way, unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is recorded by establishing social filters at the boundaries separating social strata. For example, social strata can be distinguished by levels of income, education, power, consumption, nature of work, and leisure time. The social strata identified in society are assessed according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

The simplest stratification model is dichotomous - dividing society into elites and masses. In some of the earliest, archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans was carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequalities between and within them. This is how “initiates” appear, i.e. those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - “profane” (profan - from lat. pro fano- deprived of holiness, uninitiated; laymen - all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen). Within them, society can further stratify if necessary.

The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility. According to P. Sorokin’s definition, “social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another.” However, social agents do not always move from one position to another; it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy; such movement is called “positional mobility” (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that set barriers to social movement, there are also “social elevators” in society that significantly accelerate this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education ,property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social layer to another largely determines what kind of society it is - closed or open.

• Social structure
• Social class
• Creative class
• Social inequality
• Religious stratification
• Racism
• Castes
• Class struggle
• Social behavior

Links

• Ilyin V.I. Theory of social inequality (structuralist-constructivist paradigm). M., 2000.
• Social stratification
• Sushkova-Irina Ya. I. Dynamics of social stratification and its representation in pictures of the world // Electronic magazine “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill". - 2010. - No. 4 - Culturology.
• REX news agency experts on social stratification

Notes

1. Sorokin P. Man. Civilization. Society. M., 1992. P. 373

• Sociology
• Social hierarchy

Social stratification

Social stratification (from Latin stratum - layer and facio - do) is one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification and position in society; social structure of society; branch of sociology. The term “stratification” entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the arrangement of layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions that existed between them to layers of earth, floors of buildings, objects, tiers of plants, etc.

Stratification is the division of society into special layers (strata) by combining different social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality, built horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are built vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of well-being, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy of social layers is built. In this way, unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is recorded by establishing social filters at the boundaries separating social strata. For example, social strata can be distinguished by levels of income, education, power, consumption, nature of work, and leisure time. The social strata identified in society are assessed according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

The simplest stratification model is dichotomous - dividing society into elites and masses. In some of the earliest, archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans was carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequalities between and within them. This is how “initiates” appear, i.e. those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - “profane” (profane - from Latin pro fano - deprived of holiness, uninitiated; profane - all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen). Within them, society can further stratify if necessary.

As society becomes more complex (structuring), a parallel process occurs - the integration of social positions into a certain social hierarchy. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.

Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (sometimes allowing the existence of multiple stratification models): qualifications, quotas, certification, determination of status, ranks, benefits, privileges, other preferences.

32.CLASS STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY

There is a special type of stratification of modern society, which is called class stratification .

Social classes , according to Lenin’s definition “... large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently ", according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy."

For the first time, the expanded concept of social class was formulated by K. Marx through the use of the concept class-forming characteristic . According to Marx, this sign is the attitude of people towards property. Some classes in society own property and can dispose of property, while other classes are deprived of this property. Such division can lead to inter-class conflicts, which are aimed primarily at redistribution and redistribution of property. The presence of this sign of the class division of society continues to be used by many modern scientists.

Unlike Marx, the German sociologist Max Weber identifies several signs of class division in society. In particular, he considers prestige as one of the most important signs of social class. In addition to prestige, Weber considers such signs wealth and power, as well as attitudes towards property . In this regard, Weber identifies a significantly larger number of classes in society than Marx. Each of the social classes has its own subculture, which includes specific modes of behavior, an accepted value system and a set of social norms. Despite the influence of the dominant culture, each social class cultivates its own values, behaviors and ideals. These subcultures have fairly clear boundaries within which individuals feel they belong to a social class and identify themselves with it.

Currently, there are quite a few models of the class structure of society. However, the most common model should be considered W. Watson model . According to this model, modern society is divided into six main classes. The upper and middle classes of society are especially clearly distinguished.

The experience of using this model has shown that it has limitations in relation to pre-market Russia. However, with the development of market relations, the class structure of Russian society increasingly resembles the class structures of Western countries. That is why Watson’s class structure model can be of great importance in the analysis of social processes taking place in modern Russia.

Social stratification

Social stratification - this is the determination of the vertical sequence of the position of social layers, layers in society, their hierarchy. Various authors often replace the concept of stratum with other keywords: class, caste, estate. Using these terms further, we will put a single content into them and understand by stratum a large group of people that differ in their position in the social hierarchy of society.

Sociologists are unanimous in the opinion that the basis of the stratification structure is the natural and social inequality of people. However, the way inequalities were organized could be different. It was necessary to isolate the foundations that would determine the appearance of the vertical structure of society.

K. Marx introduced the only basis for the vertical stratification of society - ownership of property. The narrowness of this approach became obvious already at the end of the 19th century. That's why M. Weber increases the number of criteria that determine belonging to a particular stratum. In addition to the economic - attitude towards property and income level - he introduces criteria such as social prestige and belonging to certain political circles (parties)

Under prestige was understood as the acquisition by an individual from birth or due to personal qualities of such a social status that allowed him to occupy a certain place in the social hierarchy.

The role of status in the hierarchical structure of society is determined by such an important feature of social life as its normative and value regulation. Thanks to the latter, only those whose status corresponds to the ideas rooted in the mass consciousness about the significance of their title, profession, as well as the norms and laws functioning in society always rise to the “upper steps” of the social ladder.

M. Weber’s identification of political criteria for stratification still seems insufficiently reasoned. Says this more clearly P. Sorokin. He clearly points out the impossibility of giving a single set of criteria for belonging to any stratum and notes the presence in society three stratification structures: economic, professional and political. An owner with a large fortune and significant economic power could not formally enter the highest echelons of political power or engage in professionally prestigious activities. And, on the contrary, a politician who has made a dizzying career may not be the owner of capital, which nevertheless did not prevent him from moving in the circles of high society.

Subsequently, sociologists made repeated attempts to expand the number of stratification criteria by including, for example, educational level. One can accept or reject additional stratification criteria, but apparently one cannot but agree with the recognition of the multidimensionality of this phenomenon. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted; it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.

IN 30-40s in American sociology an attempt was made to overcome the multidimensionality of stratification by inviting individuals to determine their own place in the social structure.) In studies conducted W.L. Warner in a number of American cities, the stratification structure was reproduced on the basis of the principle of self-identification of respondents with one of six classes based on the methodology developed by the author. This methodology could not but cause a critical attitude due to the debatability of the proposed stratification criteria, the subjectivity of respondents and, finally, the possibility of presenting empirical data for several cities as a stratification cross-section of the entire society. But this kind of research gave a different result: they showed that people consciously or intuitively feel, are aware of the hierarchical nature of society, feel the basic parameters, principles that determine a person’s position in society.

However, the study W. L. Warner did not refute the statement about the multidimensionality of the stratification structure. It only showed that different types of hierarchy, refracted through a person’s value system, create a holistic picture of his perception of this social phenomenon.

So, society reproduces and organizes inequality according to several criteria: by the level of wealth and income, by the level of social prestige, by the level of political power, and also by some other criteria. It can be argued that all these types of hierarchy are significant for society, since they allow regulating both the reproduction of social connections and directing personal aspirations and ambitions of people to acquire statuses that are significant for society. After determining the basis of stratification, we move on to considering its vertical section. And here researchers are faced with the problem of divisions on the scale of social hierarchy. In other words, how many social layers need to be identified so that the stratification analysis of society is as complete as possible. The introduction of such a criterion as the level of wealth or income led to the fact that, in accordance with it, it was possible to distinguish a formally infinite number of segments of the population with different levels of well-being. And addressing the problem of socio-professional prestige gave grounds to make the stratification structure very similar to the socio-professional one.

Hierarchical system of modern society is devoid of rigidity, formally all citizens have equal rights, including the right to occupy any place in the social structure, to rise to the upper steps of the social ladder or to be “at the bottom”. The sharply increased social mobility, however, did not lead to the “erosion” of the hierarchical system. Society still maintains and protects its hierarchy.

Stability of society associated with the profile of social stratification. Excessive “stretching” of the latter is fraught with serious social cataclysms, uprisings, riots that bring chaos and violence, hindering the development of society, putting it on the brink of collapse. The thickening of the stratification profile, primarily due to the “truncation” of the apex of the cone, is a recurring phenomenon in the history of all societies. And it is important that it is carried out not through uncontrolled spontaneous processes, but through consciously pursued state policy.

Stability of the hierarchical structure society depends on the share and role of the middle layer or class. Occupying an intermediate position, the middle class plays a kind of connecting role between the two poles of the social hierarchy, reducing their opposition. The larger (in quantitative terms) the middle class, the more chances it has to influence state policy, the process of formation of fundamental values ​​of society, the worldview of citizens, while avoiding the extremes inherent in opposing forces.

The presence of a powerful middle layer in the social hierarchy of many modern countries allows them to remain stable, despite the occasional increase in tension among the poorest strata. This tension is “extinguished” not so much by the power of the repressive apparatus, but by the neutral position of the majority, generally satisfied with their position, confident in the future, feeling their strength and authority.

The “erosion” of the middle layer, which is possible during periods of economic crises, is fraught with serious shocks for society.

So, vertical cross-section of society mobile, its main layers can increase and decrease. This is due to many factors: declines in production, structural restructuring of the economy, the nature of the political regime, technological renewal and the emergence of new prestigious professions, etc. However, the stratification profile cannot “extend” indefinitely. The mechanism of redistribution of national wealth of power is automatically triggered in the form of spontaneous uprisings of the masses demanding the restoration of justice, or to avoid this, conscious regulation of this process is required. The stability of society can be ensured only through the creation and expansion of the middle layer. Taking care of the middle stratum is the key to the stability of society.

What is the stratification of society?

Psyche

Stratification is the arrangement of individuals and groups from top to bottom along horizontal layers (strata) based on inequality in income, level of education, amount of power, and professional prestige.
Stratification reflects social heterogeneity, stratification of society, the uneven social status of its members and social groups, and their social inequality.

Barcodaurus

Sociation is one of the main topics in sociology. This is the division of society into social layers (strata) by combining different social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality, built vertically (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status ) . In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the boundaries separating them. For example, social strata can be distinguished by levels of income, education, power, consumption, nature of work, and leisure time. The social strata identified in society are assessed according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions. But in any case, social stratification is the result of more or less conscious activities (policies) of the ruling elites, who are extremely interested in imposing on society and legitimizing in it their own social ideas about the unequal access of society members to social benefits and resources. The simplest stratification model is dichotomous - dividing society into elites and masses. In the earliest, archaic society, the structuring of society into clans was carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequality between and within them. This is how those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - laymen (all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen) appear. Within them, society can further stratify if necessary. As society becomes more complex (structuring), a parallel process occurs - the integration of social positions into a certain social hierarchy. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear. Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered, multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (allow the existence of many, sometimes stratification models). The degree of freedom of social movement (mobility) from one social layer to another determines what kind of society it is - closed or open.

The term “stratification” entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the arrangement of layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions that existed between them to layers of the earth.

The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are built vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of well-being, power, education, leisure, and consumption.
“Stratification” is a term accepted in science, but the word “stratification” is more commonly used in everyday language.

Social stratification (brief definition) - social stratification, i.e. the division of the entire society into groups of the rich, wealthy, wealthy, poor and very poor, or beggars.

Stratification is the division of society into poor and rich, which constitute the two poles of society.

Polarization of society is a process when the distance between the poor and the rich increases greatly.

A class is a large social group that owns the means of production, occupies a certain place in the system of social division of labor and is characterized by a specific way of generating income.

Underclass is the lowest layer of stratification (beggars).

Introduction

Human society at all stages of its development was characterized by inequality. Sociologists call structured inequalities between different groups of people stratification.

Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence and absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. Social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society.

In real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is a specific form of social differentiation in which individuals, layers, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to satisfy needs. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.

Stratification is closely related to the prevailing value system in society. It forms a normative scale for assessing various types of human activity, on the basis of which people are ranked according to the degree of social prestige.

Social stratification performs a double function: it acts as a method of identifying the layers of a given society and at the same time represents its social portrait. Social stratification is characterized by a certain stability within a specific historical stage.

1. Stratification term

Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. In complex societies, inequality is very strong; it divides people according to income, level of education, and power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, transition from one social layer (stratum) to another is prohibited; There are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.

The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth's layers. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social layers (strata) also vertically. The basis is an income ladder: the poor occupy the lowest rung, the affluent groups the middle, and the rich the top.

Each stratum includes only those people who have approximately the same income, power, education and prestige. Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. The social stratification of any society includes four scales - income, education, power, prestige.

Income is the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, benefits, alimony, fees, and deductions from profits. Income is measured in rubles or dollars, which is received by an individual (individual income) or a family (family income) over a certain period of time, say one month or year.

Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, it accumulates and turns into wealth.

Wealth is accumulated income, i.e. amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Wealth is usually inherited. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, but only working people can receive income. Besides them, pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich can work or not work. In both cases they are owners because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of existence is income, since the first, if there is wealth, is insignificant, and the second does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, but its absence forces you to work for a salary.

Wealth and income are distributed unevenly and represent economic inequality. Sociologists interpret it as an indicator that different groups of the population have unequal life chances. They buy different quantities and qualities of food, clothing, housing, etc. People who have more money eat better, live in more comfortable homes, prefer a personal car to public transport, can afford expensive vacations, etc. But in addition to obvious economic advantages, the wealthy strata have hidden privileges. The poor have shorter lives (even if they enjoy all the benefits of medicine), less educated children (even if they go to the same public schools), etc.

Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university. Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high – 9 years, high school – 11, college – 4 years, university – 5 years, graduate school – 3 years, doctoral studies – 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.

Power is measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).

The essence of power is the ability to impose your will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power is institutionalized, i.e. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows decisions vital for society to be made, including laws that usually benefit the upper class. In all societies, people who have some form of power - political, economic or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It represents the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.

The three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars. Years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige is the respect that a particular profession, position, or occupation enjoys in public opinion. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or plumber. The position of president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be ranked from top to bottom on the ladder of professional prestige. As a rule, professional prestige is determined by us intuitively, approximately.

2. Systems of social stratification

Regardless of the forms that social stratification takes, its existence is universal. There are four main systems of social stratification: slavery, castes, clans and classes.

Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. An essential feature of slavery is the ownership of some people by others.

Three reasons for slavery are usually cited. Firstly, a debt obligation, when a person who was unable to pay his debts fell into slavery to his creditor. Secondly, violation of laws, when the execution of a murderer or robber was replaced by slavery, i.e. the culprit was handed over to the affected family as compensation for the grief or damage caused. Thirdly, war, raids, conquest, when one group of people conquered another and the winners used some of the captives as slaves.

Conditions of slavery. Conditions of slavery and slavery varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: after working the allotted time for his master, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland.

General characteristics of slavery. Although slaveholding practices varied in different regions and in different eras, whether slavery was the result of unpaid debt, punishment, military captivity, or racial prejudice; whether it was lifelong or temporary; hereditary or not, a slave was still the property of another person, and a system of laws secured the status of a slave. Slavery served as a basic distinction between people, clearly indicating which person was free (and legally entitled to certain privileges) and which person was a slave (without privileges).

Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms:

Patriarchal slavery - the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people; it was forbidden to kill him;

Classical slavery - the slave lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not marry and did not have a family, he was considered the property of the owner.

Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person is the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms.

Caste is a social group (stratum) whose membership a person owes solely to his birth.

The achieved status is not able to change the individual’s place in this system. People who are born into a low status group will always have that status, no matter what they personally achieve in life.

Societies characterized by this form of stratification strive to clearly maintain boundaries between castes, so endogamy is practiced here - marriages within one's own group - and there is a ban on intergroup marriages. To prevent contact between castes, such societies develop complex rules regarding ritual purity, according to which interaction with members of lower castes is considered to pollute the higher caste.

Clan is a clan or related group connected by economic and social ties.

The clan system is typical of agrarian societies. In such a system, each individual is connected to an extensive social network of relatives - a clan. A clan is something like a very extended family and has similar characteristics: if the clan has a high status, the individual belonging to this clan has the same status; all funds belonging to the clan, meager or rich, belong equally to each member of the clan; Loyalty to the clan is the lifelong responsibility of each member.

Clans also resemble castes: membership in a clan is determined by birth and is lifelong. However, unlike castes, marriages between different clans are quite permitted; they can even be used to create and strengthen alliances between clans, since the obligations imposed by marriage on the in-laws can unite members of two clans. Processes of industrialization and urbanization transform clans into more fluid groups, eventually replacing clans with social classes.

Clans especially unite during times of danger, as can be seen from the following example.

A class is a large social group of people who do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.

Stratification systems based on slavery, castes and clans are closed. The boundaries separating people are so clear and rigid that they leave no room for people to move from one group to another, with the exception of marriages between members of different clans. The class system is much more open because it is based primarily on money or material possessions. Class membership is also determined at birth - an individual receives the status of his parents, but an individual's social class during his life can change depending on what he managed (or failed) to achieve in life. In addition, there are no laws defining an individual's occupation or profession based on birth or prohibiting marriage with members of other social classes.

Consequently, the main characteristic of this system of social stratification is the relative flexibility of its boundaries. The class system leaves opportunities for social mobility, i.e. to move up or down the social ladder. Having the potential to improve one's social status, or class, is one of the main driving forces that motivates people to study well and work hard. Of course, the family status inherited by a person from birth can determine extremely unfavorable conditions that will not leave him a chance to rise too high in life, and provide the child with such privileges that it will be almost impossible for him to “slide down” the class ladder.

Whatever typologies of classes scientists and thinkers have come up with. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the first to propose their model.

Today in sociology they offer different typologies of classes.

More than half a century has passed since Lloyd Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.

The upper - upper class includes the "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and over the course of many generations accumulated untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

The lower – upper class consists mainly of the “new rich”, who have not yet managed to create powerful clans that have seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, receiving tens of millions, but in a family that does not have “aristocrats by blood.”

The upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals, such as large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching that of high society, but they still cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities.

The middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people in intellectual professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.

The lower-middle class consisted of low-level employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their work, gravitated toward mental rather than physical labor. A distinctive feature is a decent lifestyle.

The upper-lower class includes medium- and low-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but with a behavior pattern significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.

Lower - the lowest class consists of inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places less suitable for living. They do not have any or primary education, most often survive by doing odd jobs or begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.

The term "upper class" means the upper stratum of the upper class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes the stratum or layer, and the second – the class to which the given layer belongs. "Upper-lower class" is sometimes called as it is, and sometimes it is used to designate the working class.

In sociology, the criterion for assigning a person to one or another layer is not only income, but also the amount of power, level of education and prestige of the occupation, which presuppose a specific lifestyle and style of behavior. You can get a lot, but spend all the money or drink it on drink. It is not only the income of money that is important, but its expenditure, and this is already a way of life.

The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two layers: lower - middle and upper - lower. All intellectual workers, no matter how little they earn, are never classified in the lower class.

The middle class is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the beggars, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled mental workers - white-collar workers.

Another option is possible: workers are not included in the middle class, but constitute two layers in the general working class. Specialists are part of the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of “specialist” presupposes at least a college-level education. The upper stratum of the middle class is filled mainly by “professionals”.

3. Stratification profile

and stratification profile.

Thanks to the four scales of stratification, the sociologist is able to create such analytical models and tools with which it is possible to explain not only the individual status portrait, but also the collective one, that is, the dynamics and structure of society as a whole. For this purpose, two concepts are proposed that are similar in appearance. But they differ in internal content, namely the stratification profile and the stratification profile.

Thanks to the stratification profile, it is possible to examine the problem of status incompatibility more deeply. Status incompatibility is a contradiction in the status set of one person, or a contradiction in the status characteristics of one status set of one person. Now, to explain this phenomenon, we have the right to connect the category of stratification and express status incompatibility in stratification characteristics. If some concepts of a specific status, for example, professor and policeman, go beyond the boundaries of their (middle) class, then status incompatibility can also be interpreted as stratification incompatibility.

Stratification incompatibility causes a feeling of social discomfort, which can turn into frustration, frustration into dissatisfaction with one’s place in society.

The fewer cases of status and stratification incompatibility in a society, the more stable it is.

So, a stratification profile is a graphic expression of the position of individual statuses on four stratification scales.

It is necessary to distinguish another concept from the stratification profile - the stratification profile. Otherwise known as the economic inequality profile.

A stratification profile is a graphical expression of the percentage shares of the upper, middle and lower classes in the composition of the country's population.

Conclusion

According to the evolutionary theory of stratification, as culture becomes more complex and develops, a situation arises in which no individual can master all aspects of social activity, and a division of labor and specialization of activity occurs. Some types of activities turn out to be more important, requiring lengthy training and appropriate remuneration, while others are less important and therefore more widespread and easily replaceable.

The concepts of stratification, in contrast to the Marxist idea of ​​classes and the construction of a classless society, do not postulate social equality; on the contrary, they consider inequality as the natural state of society, therefore strata not only differ in their criteria, but are also located in a rigid system of subordination of some layers to others, privileged the position of the superiors and the subordinate position of the inferiors. In a dosed form, even the idea of ​​some social contradictions is allowed, which are neutralized by the possibilities of vertical social mobility, i.e. it is assumed that individual talented people can move from lower to higher strata, as well as vice versa, when inactive people who occupy places in the upper strata of society due to the social position of their parents can go bankrupt and find themselves in the lowest strata of the social structure.

Thus, the concepts of social layer, stratification and social mobility, complementing the concepts of class and class structure of society, concretize the general idea of ​​the structure of society and help to detail the analysis of social processes within the framework of certain economic and socio-political formations.

This is why the study of stratification is one of the most important areas of social anthropology. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, there are three main objectives of such research: "The first objective is to establish the extent to which class or status systems dominate at the level of society, establishing modes of social action. The second objective is to analyze class and status structures and factors that determine the process of class and status formation. Lastly, social stratification documents the inequality of conditions, opportunities and incomes, and the ways in which groups maintain class or status boundaries. In other words, it raises the question of social closure (clousure) and examines the strategies by which some groups maintain their privileges and others seek access to them.”

List of used literature

Avdokushin E.F. International economic relations: Textbook - M.: Economist, 2004 - 366 p.

Bulatova A.S. World economy: Textbook - M.: Economist, 2004 – 366 p.

Lomakin V.K. World economy: Textbook for universities. – 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. – 735 p.

Moiseev S.R. International monetary relations: Textbook. - M.: Publishing house "Delo and Service", 2003. - 576 p.

Radjabova Z.K. World Economy: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: INFRA-M, 2002. – 320 p.

1. Social stratification (12)

   Abstract >> Sociology

   Widely used in sociology concept“social stratification" When considering the problem social inequalities are quite justifiable to proceed from... the principle, then they are social layers. IN social stratification tends to inherit positions. ...

2. Social stratification (11)

   Abstract >> Sociology

   Groups of people are widely used in sociology concept « social stratification". Social stratification- (from lat. stratum - ... three fundamental concepts sociology - social structures, social composition and social stratification. In the domestic...

3. Social stratification as a tool social analysis

   Coursework >> Sociology

   Between concepts « social stratification" And " social structure”, V. Ilyin also draws a parallel between concepts « social stratification" And " social inequality". Social

Human society at all stages of its development was characterized by inequality. Sociologists call structured inequalities between different groups of people stratification.

For a more precise definition of this concept, we can cite the words of Pitirim Sorokin:

“Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence and absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. Social stratification is a permanent characteristic of any organized society."

“Social stratification begins with Weber’s distinction between more traditional status-based societies (for example, societies based on prescribed categories such as estates and castes, slavery, whereby inequality is sanctioned by law) and polarized but more diffuse societies based on are based on classes where personal achievement plays a large role, where economic differentiation is of paramount importance and is more impersonal in nature.”

Concept social stratification is closely related to the division of society into social layers, and the stratification model of society is built on the basis of such a phenomenon as social status.

Social status is a position occupied by a person or group in society and associated with certain rights and responsibilities. This position is always relative, i.e. considered in comparison with the statuses of other individuals or groups. Status is determined by profession, socioeconomic status, political opportunity, gender, origin, marital status, race and nationality. Social status characterizes the place of a person or social group in the social structure of society, in the system of social interactions and, necessarily, contains an assessment of this activity by society (other people and social groups). The latter can be expressed in various qualitative and quantitative indicators - authority, prestige, privileges, income level, salary, bonus, award, title, fame, etc.

There are different types of statuses.

Personal status- the position that a person occupies in a small or primary group, depending on how he is assessed by his individual qualities.

Social status- the position of a person that he automatically occupies as a representative of a large social group or community (professional, class, national).

They also talk about main status- the most characteristic status for a given individual, by which others distinguish him or with which they identify him. In this regard, there are prescribed status (independent of the desires, aspirations and efforts of a given person) and achievable status (a position that a person achieves through his own efforts).

From here, social stratification- this is the arrangement of people in the status hierarchy from top to bottom. The term “stratification” was borrowed by sociology from geology, where it refers to the vertically arranged layers of the earth that are revealed when cut. Stratification is a certain section of the social structure of society, or theoretical perspective on how human society works. In real life, people, of course, do not stand above or below others.

In Western sociology, there are several concepts (theories) of stratification.

Thus, the German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf(b. 1929) proposed to put the political concept “ authority", which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes power relations and the struggle between social groups for power. Based on this approach, R. Dahrendorf presents the structure of society as consisting of managers and managed. He, in turn, divides the former into owner-managers and non-owner-managers, or bureaucratic managers. He also divides the latter into two subgroups: the higher or labor aristocracy, and the lower - low-skilled workers. Between these two main groups he places the so-called “new middle class”.

American sociologist L. Warner proposed his hypothesis of social stratification. He identified 4 parameters as defining characteristics of a stratum: income, professional prestige, education, and ethnicity.

Another American sociologist B. Barber carried out stratification according to six indicators: 1) prestige, profession, power and might; 2) income level; 3) level of education; 4) degree of religiosity; 5) the position of relatives; 6) ethnicity.

French sociologist Alain Touraine(b. 1925) believes that all these criteria are already outdated and proposes to define strata according to access to information. The dominant position, in his opinion, is occupied by those people who have access to the greatest amount of information.

They also highlight functionalist theory of stratification. For example, K. Davis and W. Moore argue that the normal functioning of society is carried out as the implementation of various roles and their adequate performance. Roles differ in the degree of their social importance. Some of them are more important to the system and more difficult to perform, requiring special training and remuneration. From point of view evolutionism, as culture becomes more complex and develops, division of labor and specialization of activities occurs. Some types of activities turn out to be more important, requiring lengthy training and appropriate remuneration, while others are less important and therefore more widespread and easily replaceable. Russian sociologist A.I. Kravchenko offers a kind of generalizing model of social stratification. He arranges the status hierarchy from top to bottom according to four criteria of inequality: 1) unequal income, 2) level of education, 3) access to power, 4) prestige of the profession. Individuals who have approximately the same or similar characteristics belong to the same layer, or stratum.

The inequality here is symbolic. It can be expressed in the fact that the poor have a minimum income determined by the poverty threshold, live on government benefits, are unable to buy luxury goods and have difficulty buying durable goods, are limited in proper rest and leisure, have a low level of education and occupy positions of power in society. Thus, the four criteria of inequality describe, among other things, differences in the level, quality, lifestyle, cultural values, quality of housing, and type of social mobility.

The specified criteria are taken as a basis typology of social stratification. There are stratifications:

• economic (income),
• political (power),
• · educational (level of education),
• · professional.

Each of them can be represented in the form of a vertical scale (ruler) with marked divisions.

IN economic stratification The divisions of the measuring scale are the amount of money per individual or family per year or per month (individual or family income), expressed in national currency. What is the income of the respondent, this is the place he occupies on the scale of economic stratification.

Political stratification it is difficult to build according to a single criterion. This does not exist in nature. Its substitutes are used, for example, positions in the state hierarchy from the president and below, positions in companies and organizations, positions in political parties, etc. or combinations thereof.

Education scale is based on the number of years of study at school and university. This is a single criterion indicating that society has a unified education system, with formal certification of its levels and qualifications. A person with a primary education will be positioned at the bottom, a person with a college or university degree in the middle, and someone with a doctorate or professor at the top.

According to Anthony Giddens, “Four main systems of stratification are discernible: slavery, castes, estates and classes.

Annotation: The purpose of the lecture is to reveal the concept of social stratification associated with the concept of social layer (stratum), to describe models and types of stratification, as well as types of stratification systems.

The stratification dimension is the identification of layers (strata) within communities, which allows for a more detailed analysis of the social structure. According to the theory of V.F. Anurin and A.I. Kravchenko, the concepts of classification and stratification should be distinguished. Classification is the division of society into classes, i.e. very large social groups that share some common characteristic. The stratification model represents a deepening and detailing of the class approach.

In sociology, the vertical structure of society is explained using such a concept, passed down from geology, as "strata"(layer). Society is presented as an object that is divided into layers that pile on top of each other. The identification of layers in the hierarchical structure of society is called social stratification.

Here we should dwell on the concept of “stratum of society”. Until now we have used the concept of “social community”. What is the relationship between these two concepts? Firstly, the concept of a social layer is used, as a rule, to characterize only the vertical structure (that is, the layers are layered on top of each other). Secondly, this concept indicates that representatives of very different communities belong to the same status in the social hierarchy. One layer may include representatives of both men and women, generations, and different professional, ethnic, racial, religious, and territorial communities. But these communities are included in the layer not entirely, but partially, since other representatives of communities may be included in other layers. Thus, social strata consist of representatives of various social communities, and social communities are represented in various social strata. We are not talking about equal representation of communities in strata. For example, women are more likely than men to be represented in strata located on the lower rungs of the social ladder. Representatives of professional, ethnic, racial, territorial and other communities of people are also unevenly represented in social communities.

When we talk about the social status of communities of people, we are dealing with averaged ideas, whereas in reality within a social community there is a certain “scatter” of social statuses (for example, women at different levels of the social ladder). When they talk about social strata, they mean representatives of different communities of people who have the same hierarchical status (for example, the same income level).

Models of social stratification

Usually in social stratification there are three largest strata - the lower, middle and upper strata of society. Each of them can also be divided into three more. Based on the number of people belonging to these strata, we can build stratification models that give us a general idea of ​​real society.

Of all the societies known to us, the upper strata have always been a minority. As one ancient Greek philosopher said, the worst are always in the majority. Accordingly, there cannot be more “best” (rich) than middle and lower ones. As for the “sizes” of the middle and lower layers, they can be in different proportions (larger either in the lower or in the middle layers). Based on this, it is possible to construct formal models of the stratification of society, which we will conventionally call “pyramid” and “rhombus”. In the pyramidal model of stratification, the majority of the population belongs to the social bottom, and in the diamond-shaped stratification model - to the middle strata of society, but in both models the top are a minority.

Formal models clearly show the nature of the distribution of the population among various social strata and the features of the hierarchical structure of society.

Types of social stratification

Due to the fact that the resources and power that separate hierarchically located social layers can be economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spiritual in nature, stratification characterizes the economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spheres of social life. Accordingly, we can distinguish the main types of social stratification - socio-economic, socio-political, socio-personal, socio-informational and socio-spiritual.

Let's look at the varieties socio-economic stratification.

In the public consciousness, stratification is represented primarily in the form of dividing society into “rich” and “poor”. This, apparently, is not accidental, because it is the differences in the level of income and material consumption that “catches” the eye, By income level such strata of society are distinguished as beggars, poor, wealthy, rich and the super rich.

The social “lower classes” on this basis represent beggars and poor. The poor, who represent the “bottom” of society, have the income necessary for the physiological survival of a person (so as not to die from hunger and other factors that threaten human life). As a rule, beggars subsist on alms, social benefits or other sources (collecting bottles, searching for food and clothing among garbage, petty theft). However, some may also be considered beggars. categories workers if the size of their wages allows them to satisfy only physiological needs.

The poor include people who have incomes at the level necessary for a person’s social survival and maintaining their social status. In social statistics, this level of income is called the social subsistence minimum.

The middle strata of society in terms of income are represented by people who can be called “wealthy”, “prosperous”, etc. Income secured p exceed the cost of living. To be wealthy means to have the income necessary not only for social existence (simple reproduction of oneself as a social being), but also for social development (expanded reproduction of oneself as a social being). The possibility of expanded social reproduction of a person implies that he can increase his social status. The middle strata of society, in comparison with the poor, have different clothes, food, housing, their leisure time, social circle, etc. change qualitatively.

The upper strata of society by income level are represented by rich and super rich. There is no clear criterion for distinguishing between the wealthy and the rich, the rich and the super-rich. Economic criterion wealth - liquidity of available assets. Liquidity refers to the ability to be sold at any moment. Consequently, the things that the rich own tend to increase in value: real estate, masterpieces of art, shares of successful businesses, etc. Income at the level of wealth goes beyond even expanded social reproduction and acquires a symbolic, prestigious character, determining a person’s belonging to the upper strata. The social status of the rich and super-rich requires certain symbolic reinforcement (usually luxury goods).

Rich and poor strata (layers) in society can also be distinguished based on ownership of the means of production. To do this, it is necessary to decipher the very concept of “ownership of the means of production” (in the terminology of Western science - “control over economic resources”). Sociologists and economists distinguish three components in property - ownership of the means of production, disposal of them, and their use. Therefore, in this case we can talk about how, to what extent certain layers can own, manage and use the means of production.

The social lower classes of society are represented by strata that are not owners of the means of production (neither the enterprises themselves nor their shares). At the same time, among them we can identify those who cannot and use them as employees or tenants (usually the unemployed), who are at the very bottom. Slightly higher are those who can use the means of production of which they are not the owners.

The middle strata of society include those who are usually called small owners. These are those who own the means of production or other means of generating income (retail outlets, services, etc.), but the level of these incomes does not allow them to expand their business. The middle strata can also include those who manage enterprises that do not belong to them. In most cases, these are managers (with the exception of top managers). It should be emphasized that the middle strata also include people who have nothing to do with property, but receive income through their highly qualified work (doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.).

The social “top” includes those who receive income at the level of wealth and super-wealth thanks to property (living off property). These are either the owners of large enterprises or a network of enterprises (controlling shareholders), or senior managers of large enterprises participating in the profits.

Income depends both on the size of the property and on qualification (complexity) of labor. Income level is the dependent variable of these two main factors. Both property and the complexity of the work performed practically lose their meaning without the income they provide. Therefore, it is not the profession (qualification) itself, but the way it provides a person’s social status (mainly in the form of income) that is a sign of stratification. In the public consciousness this manifests itself as the prestige of professions. The professions themselves can be very complex, requiring high qualifications, or quite simple, requiring low qualifications. At the same time, the complexity of a profession is not always equivalent to its prestige (as is known, representatives of complex professions may receive wages that are inadequate to their qualifications and amount of work). Thus, stratification by property AND professional stratification| make sense only when they are built within stratification by income level. Taken together, they represent the socio-economic stratification of “society”.

Let's move on to the characteristics socio-political stratification of society. The main feature of this stratification is the distribution political power between strata.

Political power is usually understood as the ability of any strata or communities to extend their will in relation to other strata or communities, regardless of the desire of the latter to submit. This will can be spread in a variety of ways - with the help of force, authority or law, legal (legal) or illegal (illegal) methods, openly or covertly (form, etc.). In pre-capitalist societies, different classes had different amounts of rights and responsibilities (the “higher”, the more rights, the “lower”, the more responsibilities). In modern countries, all strata have, from a legal point of view, the same rights and responsibilities. However, equality does not yet mean political equality. Depending on the scale of ownership, level of income, control over the media, position and other resources, different strata have different opportunities to influence the development, adoption and implementation of political decisions.

In sociology and political science, the upper strata of society that have a “controlling stake” in political power are usually called political elite(sometimes the concept of “ruling class” is used). Thanks to financial opportunities, social connections, control over the media and other factors, the elite determines the course of political processes, nominates political leaders from its ranks, and selects from other strata of society those who have shown their special abilities and do not threaten its well-being. At the same time, the elite is distinguished by a high level of organization (at the level of the highest state bureaucracy, the top of political parties, the business elite, informal connections, etc.).

Inheritance within the elite plays an important role in the monopolization of political power. In a traditional society, political inheritance carried out by transferring titles and class affiliation to children. In modern societies, inheritance within the elite occurs in a variety of ways. This includes elite education, elite marriages, protectionism in career advancement, etc.

With triangular stratification, the rest of society consists of the so-called masses - virtually powerless, elite-controlled, politically unorganized strata. With diamond-shaped stratification, the masses form only the lower strata of society. As for the middle strata, most of their representatives are politically organized to one degree or another. These are various political parties, associations representing the interests of professional, territorial, ethnic or other communities, producers and consumers, women, youth, etc. The main function of these organizations is to represent the interests of social strata in the structure of political power by putting pressure on this power. Conventionally, such layers that, without possessing real power, exert pressure in an organized form on the process of preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions in order to protect their interests can be called interest groups, pressure groups (in the West, lobby groups protecting the interests of certain communities). Thus, three layers can be distinguished in political stratification - “elite”, “interest groups” and “masses”.

Social and personal stratification studied within the framework of sociological socionics. In particular, we can distinguish groups of sociotypes, conventionally called leaders and performers. Leaders and performers, in turn, are divided into formal and informal. Thus, we get 4 groups of sociotypes: formal leaders, informal leaders, formal performers, informal performers. In socionics, the connection between social status and belonging to certain sociotypes is theoretically and empirically substantiated. In other words, innate personal qualities influence position in the system of social stratification. There is individual inequality associated with differences in types of intelligence and energy-information exchange.

Social information stratification reflects the access of various layers to society’s information resources and communication channels. Indeed, access to information goods, compared to access to economic and political goods, was an insignificant factor in the social stratification of traditional and even industrial societies. In the modern world, access to economic and political resources is increasingly beginning to depend on the level and nature of education, on access to economic and political information. Previous societies were characterized by the fact that each layer, distinguished by economic and political characteristics, also differed from others in terms of education and awareness. However, socio-economic and socio-political stratification depended little on the nature of access of a particular layer to the information resources of society.

Quite often, the society that replaces the industrial type is called informational, thus denoting the special importance of information in the functioning and development of the society of the future. At the same time, information becomes so complicated that access to it is associated not only with the economic and political capabilities of certain layers, but this requires an appropriate level of professionalism, qualifications, and education.

Modern economic information can only be accessible to economically educated layers. Political information also requires appropriate political and legal education. Therefore, the degree of accessibility of a particular education for various strata becomes the most important sign of the stratification of a post-industrial society. The nature of the education received is of great importance. In many countries of Western Europe, for example, representatives of the elite receive social and humanitarian education (law, economics, journalism, etc.), which in the future will make it easier for them to maintain their elite affiliation. Most representatives of the middle strata receive engineering and technical education, which, while creating the possibility of a prosperous life, nevertheless does not imply wide access to economic and political information. As for our country, over the last decade the same trends have also begun to emerge.

Today we can talk about what is beginning to take shape socio-spiritual stratification as a relatively independent type of stratification of society. The use of the term “cultural stratification” is not entirely correct, given that culture can be physical, spiritual, political, economic, etc.

The social and spiritual stratification of society is determined not only by inequality in access to spiritual resources, but also inequality of opportunities spiritual influence of certain layers on each other and on society as a whole. We are talking about the possibilities of ideological influence that the “tops,” “middle layers,” and “bottoms” have. Thanks to control over the media, influence on the process of artistic and literary creativity (especially cinema), on the content of education (what subjects and how to teach in the system of general and vocational education), the “tops” can manipulate public consciousness, especially its state, as public opinion. Thus, in modern Russia, in the system of secondary and higher education, hours for teaching natural and social sciences are being reduced, at the same time, religious ideology, theology and other non-scientific subjects are increasingly penetrating into schools and universities, which do not contribute to the adaptation of young people to modern society and economic modernization .

In sociological science there are two methods of studying stratification society - one-dimensional and multidimensional. One-dimensional stratification is based on one characteristic (this can be income, property, profession, power or some other characteristic). Multivariate stratification is based on a combination of various characteristics. Univariate stratification compared to multivariate stratification is a simpler task.

Economic, political, informational and spiritual types of stratification are closely related and intertwined. As a result, social stratification is something unified, a system. However position of the same layer in different types of stratification may not always be the same. For example, the largest entrepreneurs in the political stratification have a lower social status than the highest bureaucracy. Is it then possible to single out one integrated position of various layers, their place in the social stratification of society as a whole, and not in one or another of its types? Statistical approach (method averaging statuses in various types of stratification) is impossible in this case.

In order to build a multidimensional stratification, it is necessary to answer the question on which attribute the position of a particular layer primarily depends, which attribute (property, income, power, information, etc.) is “leading”, and which is “leading”. slave." Thus, in Russia, politics traditionally dominates economics, art, science, the social sphere, and computer science. When studying various historical types of societies, it is discovered that their stratification has its own internal hierarchy, i.e. a certain subordination of its economic, political and spiritual varieties. On this basis, sociology identifies various models of the system of stratification of society.

Types of stratification systems

There are several main types of inequality. In the sociological literature, three systems are usually distinguished: stratification - caste, estate and class. The caste system is the least studied. The reason for this is that such a system existed in the form of remnants until recently in India; as for other countries, the caste system can be judged approximately on the basis of surviving historical documents. In a number of countries there was no caste system at all. What is caste stratification?

In all likelihood, it arose as a result of the conquest of some ethnic groups by others, which formed hierarchically located strata. Caste stratification is supported by religious rituals (castes have different levels of access to religious benefits; in India, for example, the lowest caste of untouchables is not allowed to participate in the purification ritual), the heredity of caste affiliation and almost complete closedness. It was impossible to move from caste to another caste. Depending on the ethno-religious affiliation in caste stratification, the level of access to economic (primarily in the form of division of labor and professional affiliation) and political (by regulating rights and obligations) resources is determined. Consequently, the caste type of stratification is based on the spiritual-ideological (religious) type inequalities

Unlike the caste system, class stratification is based on political and legal inequality, first of all, inequalities. Class stratification is carried out not on the basis of “wealth”, but