Stratification & Mobility

Answer : Social mobility may be defined as an act of moving from one social class to another. It is found in both open and closed systems but with different natures and in different forms. An open class society is one in which mobility is high whereas a closed society is one in which there is very little mobility. Social mobility as a concept is used in the sociological investigation of inequality; it refers to the movement of individuals between different levels of the social hierarchy, usually defined in terms of broad occupational or social-class categories. The amount of social mobility is often used as an indicator of the degree of openness and fluidity of a society.

Functionalists argued that modern societies are open and social mobility is possible only in open societies. They gave the example of western countries. However, as Marxists pointed out, only intergenerational mobility is taking place but not intergenerational mobility.

And as Duncan and Peter Blanc in their book, ‘American Occupation’ said that social mobility is greatly taking place between ranks very close to each other than taking place between ranks which are far off with each other, i.e., only short range-mobility is possible and not long range mobility even in open societies.

Goldthorpe, Ericson and Lockwood said the rate of mobility is higher in Scandinavian countries than Britain due to lack of feudal history.

Louis Dumont criticized Indian society as close society as it is driven by values of Hinduism which doesn’t allow for social mobility.

However, Andre Beteille countered Louis Dumont and said even the open society of America have not allowed women to acquire the post of Head of the State and even in Indian Society social-mobility is taking place in the form of Sanskritisation, due to reservation policy and conversion. To conclude open societies are not open and closed societies are not closed. Mobility is universally present in both societies and mobility persists in different degrees in both societies.

Answer : Mead being anti-positivist gave importance to individual (self) and his actions in contrast to group and social structure.

G.H. Mead made a distinction between the actions of animals which are static, continuous and stereotype from that of man’s action that is reflexive, accommodative adjustment depending on time, people and space. Reflexive action of man ensures that man understands the demand of the situation and acts accordingly with the application of mind.

Mind stores ideas, inferences coming out of socialization process and coming out of one’s relationship with the ‘Generalized others’ and ‘Significant others’. Durkheim and Marx gave importance to collectivism than individualism. Durkheim said that society regulates the behaviour of individual and Marx said that economic infrastructure determines the man relationship.

Similarly, Parson’s version of functionalism says that man’s behaviour is largely directed by the norms and values of the social system.

But Mead says that individual self is important and his actions are important. Individual actions are different at different time and keep changing according to meanings attached to such action by self. Thus, meanings are not fixed. They are created, developed, modified and changed within the actual process of interaction. For example, a pupil entering into a new class may first defined as hostile, later after interacting with fellow pupils and teacher, he may said the class is friendly.

Like so, every individual has generalized others and significant others as their role model and they tend to follow them and act according to demand of social situation. So, Mead says that action and interaction are dynamic as meanings attached by an individual self keep changes and hence, positivist method cannot be applied to study of social structure.

Answer : A role conflict occurs when one of a person’s roles conflict with one or more of the other roles the person plays at the same time.

Since each person plays many roles, serious role conflicts will arise now and then. The conflict is internal and personal for it is the individual who must act out the parts, or repair from doing so. But the conflict is also social, because the conflicting demands come from a social system or systems in which the person has a position, eg. the demands of the role of wife may conflict with those of mother and both may conflict with the demands of a woman’s job.

Role conflicts are seldom easy to resolve. One method is to avoid or give up one of the conflicting roles; another is to make compromises in the two roles in order to minimize conflict; a third is to rationalize the conflict and reduce its importance in one’s own perception; and still another is to try to live with both conflicting roles, by pursuing at proper times, each role as if the other were non-existent.

The choice of method depends on the circumstances. There are at least two kinds of role conflicts: conflict between roles and conflict within a simple role.

1. Two or more roles (either independent roles or parts of a role set) may impose conflicting obligations upon a person. The employed wife finds that the demands of her job may conflict with home duties. Or
2. Within a simple role there may be a structured (built-in) conflict e.g. among younger catholic clergy conflict between vows of celibacy and desire for marriage is the greatest source of role strain.

In many occupational roles, there is a built-in ‘conflict of interest’ in that the obligation to be honest with the patient may conflict with the desire to make money. Very few roles are completely free from structured role conflicts.

Answer : According to Pitrirn Sorokin, 'Social Mobility' is the movement of people from one social stratum to another either upward or downward. He has distinguished between horizontal and vertical social mobility. The horizontal social mobility is not a positional change, but it is shift from one type of assignment to the other of the same nature and characteristics. For example an agricultural worker is employed in the industry as worker. On the other hand the vertical social mobility is the positional change in the status and prestige of the individual. When an agricultural workers become a general manager of a company, it may be called vertical mobility.

The rate of social mobility, the amount of movement from one generation to another or from one stratum to another is very high in capitalist society as, compared to pre-industrial society. Industrial society is therefore described as open and has relatively low degree of closure. In particular, it is argued that status in pre-industrial society is largely ascribed whereas in industrial society it is increasingly achieved. As a result the ascribed characteristics, such as sex roles, kinship relationship etc have less and less influence on an individual's social status. The talent, ability, ambitions and hard work are steadly replacing ascribed characteristics as the criteria for determining a person's position in the class system.

Social mobility in modern industrial capitalist society has promoted the social differentiation, division of labour and specialization. The consequences of which are manyfold, such as low level of group and social cohesion, very little degree of social solidarity in comparison to pre-industrial society. Marx believed that high rate of social mobility would tend to weaken class solidarity. Class is becoming increasingly heterogeneous as their members ceased to share similar background. Distinctive class sub-culture tend to disintegrate since norms, attitude and value would no longer be passed from generation to generation within a single stratum. Class identification and loyalty is also weakening since it would be difficult for mobile individual to feel a strong consciousness of kind with other members of class in which they found themselves. As a result the intensity of class conflict and potential for class-consciousness would be reduced.

According to Ralph Dahrendorf, as a result of the high rate of social mobility, the nature of conflict has changed. In an open society there are considerable opportunities for individual advancement. There is therefore, less need for people to join together as a member of social class in order to improve their situation. Dahrendorf says, "Instead of advancing their claim as members of a homogenous group people are more likely to compete with each other as individual for the place in the sun. As a result the class solidarity and intensity of class conflict will be reduced, Dahrendorf then goes a step further and question whether a loose strata of the mobile individual can still be called social class. But he further says that although mobility diminishes the coherence of group as well as intensity of class conflict, it does not eliminate either.''

"The elite-self recruitment" is another problematic area of vertical social mobility. It is the process by which the healthy and powerful group are drawn from the sons of those who are already belongs to such group. In this system the recruited persons generally do not possess the talent and ability as required by the concerned post or designation. Thus, they do not efficiently carry on their official obligation and duties. It creates dysfunction in the system and society. Gidding designed to investigate the social origin of company chairman which reveal a high degree of elite-self recruitment.

In the closed social system, like caste system in India, the vertical mobility results in inter-caste conflict and its also promote mutual revatry among the castes. In the open or class-based society social mobility generally vertical social mobility is functioinal for the working class and dysfunctional for capitalist or bourgeoise. The downward mobility is permitted in every society. If the member of an upper class fails to live up to the class standards expected to him in his class, he will fact below class status. In India, a person may be excluded from his caste by marrying someone of another caste, especially a lower one. As regards upward mobility no society absolutely forbids it but the amount and case of social mobility will depends upon certain factors. These are social change, communication, division of labour, economic development etc.

In this way we see that social mobility - both vertical and horizontal enhances the degree of inequality of opportunities in society. It also weakens class-solidarity and consciousness in the society.

The solution to the problematic situation created by the vertical and horizontal social mobility in the society lies in various factors. Firstly, equality of educational opportunity should be provided to all which greately eliminate inequality in employment and others. Secondly, mobility in the closed social system will largely bring equality in the society, but to resolve the mutual caste conflict like in India, the vertical social mobility should be conducive only in some areas and it should also be checked through legislation.

In the open system, to resolve the class conflict due to social mobility the situation like "elite-self recruitment" must be checked through merits and technical skills. It is undue process of upward vertical and social mobility. We should also make such an arrangement through which we can ensure social mobility parallel to social equality. Without social mobility growth and development of the society cannot be realised and on the other hand high degree of social mobility enhances social inequality in society.

The weaker section of society must get adequate opportunities to mobile vertically in the social ladder so that they can get average life chances or style of life. For example sankritization in India is not harmful for the societal point of view till it is not creating caste conflict. The ethxicity is other hurdles of in the way of vertical social mobility in the secular, democratic and open society. The traditional elites are still dominating in spite of democratisation of the society. Religion also comes in the way of social mobility and class-conflict. Marx called it "opium of people" or ruling class ideology. Ultimately the solution lies in checking above mentioned core areas.

Answer : Conflict perspective provide a radical alternative to functional views of the nature of social stratification. They regard stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure. They see it as a mechanism whereby some exploit others rather than a means of furthering collective goals. They focus on social strata rather than social inequality in general. Karl Marx is the foremost architect of the conflict approach to the study of society and history.

According to Marx, in all stratified societies, there are two major social groups; a ruling class and a subject class. The power of the ruling class derives from its ownership and control of the forces of production. The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result, there is a basic conflict of interest between the two classes. The various institutions of society such as the legal and political systems are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to further its interests. Only when the forces of production are communally owned will classes disappear, thereby bringing an end to the exploitation and oppression of some by others.

From the conflict perspective, systems of stratification derive from the relationships of social groups to the forces of products. Marx used the term class to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems, though most modern sociologists would reserve the term for strata in capitalistic society. From this view, a class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the forces of production. Thus during the feudal epoch, there are low main classes distinguished by their relationship to land, the major forces of production. They are the feudal nobility who own the land and the landless serfs who work the land. Similarity, in the capitalist era, there are two main classes, the bourgeoisie or capitalist class which owns the force of production and the proletariat or working class whose members own only their labour which they hire to the bourgeoisie in return for wages.

Marx believed that Western society had developed through four main epochs: primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society. Primitive communism is represented by the societies of pre-history and provides the only example of a classless society. From then on, all societies are divided into two major classes: master and salves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society and capitalist and wage labourers in capitalist society. During each historical epoch, the labour power required for production was supplied by the subjects class, that is by slaves, serfs and wage labourers respectively. The subjects class is made up of the majority of the population whereas the ruling or dominant class forms a minority.

From a Marxian perspective, the relationship between the major social classes in one of mutual dependence and conflict. Thus in capitalist society, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are dependent upon each other. The wage labourer must sell his labour power in order to survive since he does not own a part of the forces of production and lacks the means to produce goods independently. He is therefore dependent for his livelihood on the capitalists and the wages they offer. The capitalists, as non-producers are dependent on the labour power of wage labourers, since without it, there would be no production. However, the mutual dependency of the two classes in not a relationship of equal or symmetrical reciprocity. Instead, it is a relationship of exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. In particular, the ruling class gains at the expense of the subject class and there is therefore a conflict of interest between them.

Thus, Marx’s theory of society in not materialistic and dialectical, hence also scientific. But there is also persisting shared reality in human life. Discontinuities along don’t characterize history and human society. Hence Marx's eternal assertion becomes relevant: “the history of all hitherto existing society in the history of class struggle.” But both Marx and Engels realized that class itself was a uniquely prominent feature of capitalist society, and hence bourgeoisie and proletariat constituted the entire social advice of modern capitalist era. However, the main question related to social ranking or stratification in relation to these basic class. Engles and also to certain extent Marx realized that there were intermediate and transitional strata. These would disregard the two-classes theory, and it would be quite consistent with the development of capitalism and modern state system.

Ralf Dahrendorf, while agreeing with Marxian theory of society in general, questions the ubiquitous character of class conflict. Conflict is context-specific, and ‘coercion’ is key to social ranking in the context of given institutions of authority. The two groups of people are: i) which is coercive, and ii) which is coerced. Such domination and subjugation are found in all the areas of social life-economic, political, industrial, social, cultural etc. And coincidence of one type of conflict into another has ceased to exist. ‘Conflict groups’ rather than ‘classes’ characterize conditions of social structure. ‘Authority’ is a legitimate relation of domination and subjugation. Authority relations are always relations of super-ordination and sub-ordination, hence stratification.

No doubt conflict notions of class and class conflict hence become hallmarks of the studies of India’s agricultural and urban industrial formations. Marx himself, however, thought of specific character of India's economic and social formation. Caste and class existed side by side in India in the pre-capitalist era. Features such as feudalism, caste, joint family subsistence economy etc. were peculiar to India even during the colonial period. Today, not the classes such as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but like the precapitalist, independent workers, employers, while-collar employee, and blue collar workers are clearly identifiable groups of people, out of which about fifteen per cent are in the organised sectors of economy. The framework implying large-scale industrialization and monopoly capitalism does not accourt for these myriad class. Trade unions and collective bargaining of workers have softened the bold of the employers of the workers. Class harmony is also a reality to certaint extent. Wage earners are a nebulous category as it includes a wide range of worker earning from, say, 1000 rupees to 15000 per month. Finally, caste is not simply a ritualistic system of relations; it inheres elements of class and power. All these point restrict application of the conflict approach to the study of social stratification in Indian society.

Answer : It is through socialization that the individual learns social behaviour in one hand and at the same time learns how to maintain social order with the help of social control. Therefore, it can be said that socialisation and social control go together to maintain social order of any type of society. In this context, there are various agency that play a greater role to socialize the people and to control on the behaviour of individual so that societal values, norms, customs, tradition and morality is maintained. These agencies mainly are family

peer group, school, mass media, custom and public opinion.

1. Family: The family is our most important agency of socialisation and social control. It is the unit which has the direct, intimate and almost exclusive contact in the earliest and most formative years of our lives. The way in which the infant's needs are met and whether he experiences satisfaction or deprivation, conveys an image of the world as either niggardly or indulgent, capricious or reliable. Where the child evokes love and affection from the family situation, the resulting satisfaction and emotional calmness express themselves by his taking on the ideals and models of behaviour set before him. Studies have found that failure to evoke love in the parents may result in the atrophy of the ability to love and in what has been called a ‘fear’ of loving.
2. Peer Group: The peer group of equals in age, experience and status soon completes with the family as a socializing agency in the one hand and social control on the other. Parent discover this when Lakshmi or Ram say or do something that they know was not a part of family’s mode of behaviour. But it goes further then this. As the peer group develops strong cohesion, it tends to take over the role of the family in socialisation. In western societies it is becoming the most important agency of socialisation and social control since societies now stress ‘other directedness ‘other directedness’ contrasted with ‘inner-directedness.’
3. School: The family alone cannot adequately train and control children for many adult roles in a complex industrial society; and other agencies, particularly the school, therefore, contribute significantly to preparation. Not only is the school expected to transmit skill and practical knowledge but important cultural values as well- patriotism, ambition, concern for others.
4. Mass-Media: In contemporary society, mass media contribute to the socialisation and social control over the people. In the information they make available, the models of behaviour they provide, the values they express and illustrate, the mass media can reinforce the efforts of family and school or weaken and dilute them. In a complex and heterogeneous society leaking ‘official’ values and with no central direction and control, the influence of the mass media is usually unplanned, potentially dysfunctional in relation to prevailing standards of some groups or to those of the whole society.
5. Custom: In controlling the behaviour and socializing of an individual in society, customs play an important role. They regulate the life of an individual in such a way that he experiences the minimum of pressure. Generally the people themselves want to live according to the custom as such a course firstly, saves them form the objections and ridicule of the society and secondly they do not have to resort to original thinking on every aspect. By means of customs they are provided with a clear guidance for every activity. For example, among the Hindus there are various definite customs relating to their day-to-day activity education, behavioural concepts, procedures, marriages etc. It has correctly been said by Ginsberg that the role played by customs in life is comparable to the role of instincts in living beings. Instincts guide the living beings in their struggle. For existence, customs enlighten man in his social life. From his very childhood man forms the habit of obeying them and he follows them without raising any hue or cry. He comes into possession of these customs when they come down to him in the form of his social heritage or inheritance, and it is these very customs which he bequeaths to his successors. Ordinarily, an individual does not dare to oppose the custom, sometimes harmoful custom continue to prevail for long periods because most people do not count them as harmful, while those who do consider them harmful lack the courage to oppose them. It is an exceptional individual who transforms customs, withstanding criticism and sometimes even endangering his life, but as time passes the people become reconciled to the novel idea and in this way the customs undergo a change. But they do not suffer a loss in their effect of controlling behaviour due to this possibility of their being changed.
6. Public Opinion: Public Opinion is of no mean importance as a means of controlling the behaviour and socializing of an individual. History bears evidence to numerous incidents of great men living to make great-sacrifices because of public opinion. In the present democratic age, public opinion is supremely powerful. It controls the government. Even the most powerful governments have to resign if they oppose it. This public opinion is formed by propaganda, newspaper, cinema, radio etc. Before embarking upon improvement of society the wise reformers first create public opinion favourable to them. An individual is more concerned with the reaction of people than even with the wrath of God. It is the fear of disgrace in society which causes most people to keep a check upon their behaviour. It is ordinarily very difficult to contradict public opinion. Some enterprising people do succeed in converting opinion of the public towards themselves but without doing so they cannot remain in conflict with it for long. Public opinion controls the conduct, behaviour, way of living and method etc. of the individual to a fairly large extent.

Above described facts show about how socialization and social control together maintain the social order of any society. It basically refers to both structural and functional aspect of society that make society a wholistic structure. In addition to it, Ross has enumerated the important agency of socialisation and social control are family, educational system or school, belief and religion, social suggestion, social ideal, ritual and festival, art, leadership, law and administration besides physical force. Last but not the least, Giddings concedes the importance of belief, social directions or guidance, religion, social ideals, social festivals, art, leadership, intellectual factors, education and propaganda, law and administration and force, as means and agency of socialisation and social control.

Answer : There are two views about the caste and class structure: One is that caste and class are different, secondly both are interlinked to each other. For instance, Majumdar points out that caste is a closed system whereas class is open system. But on the other, many sociologists such as Yogendra Singh, Andre Beittle and others supported the second view. But one thing is very clear that class represents occupational and economic basis of stratification but caste relates to social stratification.

In fact, it has been that those who belong to upper castes, they are related to upper class. For instance, the Rajputs or the Brahmins who belong to the family of land-lords or priests but it can be taken in macro level that difference mainly a different set of values. For eq., the Rajputs or the Brahmins who belong either to the labour class or the class of small peasant have considerable a different set of values than other members of their caste who belong to the class of big peasants.

Caste and class overlap to a great extent. As class and caste position coincides, class and occupation too have a considerable degree of overlap. The households which belong to the high income groups, do not consist of the manual or agricultural labourers but of the ex-Jagirdars, big peasants or merchants. The families from the lower income groups have poor educational background and therefore, generally do not have service or business as their occupation. This has been shown by K.L. Sharma’s study of six villages of Rajasthan. The impediments on their way to achieve education and professional skill are both their extreme poverty and lower caste rank.

Answer : The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities. Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of social group which are ranked one above the other, usually in terms of the amount of power, prestige and wealth their members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interests and a common identity. They will share a similar life style which to some degree will distinguish them from members of others social strata. The Indian caste system provides an example of a social stratification system. Social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular structure have a common identity, like interest and a similar life style. They enjoy or suffer the unequal distribution of rewards in society as members of different social groups. However, Social stratification is only a form of social inequality. It is possible for social inequality to exist without social strata. For example., social classes in USA have been replaced by a continuous hierarchy of unequal positions.

Although many sociologists use the term social inequality and social stratification interchangeably, the importance of seeing social stratification as a specific form of social inequality will become apparent. Many stratification systems are accompanied by beliefs which share that social inequalities are biologically based. Such beliefs are often found in systems of racial stratification. For example, whites claim biological superiority over blacks and see this as the basis for their dominance. But, Jean-Jacques Rousseau refers to biologically based inequality as ‘natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or the soul’. Ronsseau believed that biologically based inequalities between men were small and relatively unimportant whereas socially created inequality providers the major basis for systems of social stratification. Andre Beteille argues that the search for a biological basis for social stratification is bound to end in failure since the ‘identification as well as the gradation of, qualities is a cultural and not a natural process’.

There is a tendency for members of each stratum to develop their own subculture, that is certain norms, attitudes and values which are distinctive to them as a social group. When some members of society experience similar circumstances and problems which are not common to all members, a subculture tends to develop. Strata subcultures tend to be particularly distinctive when there is a little opportunity to move from some strata to another. This movement is known as social mobility. Social mobility can be upward, for example moving from the working to the middle class, or downward. Stratification systems which provides little opportunity for social mobility may be described as ‘closed’, those with a relatively high rate of social mobility as ‘open’. In closed systems an individual’s position is largely ascribed. Often it is fixed at birth and there is little he can do to change his status. Caste provides an example of a closed stratification system. An individual automatically belongs to the caste of his life in that status. By comparison, social class, the system of stratification in capitalist industrial society, provides an example of an open system. Some sociologists claim that an individual’s class position is largely achieved. It results from his personal qualities and abilities and the use he makes of them rather than ascribed characteristics such as the status of his parents or the colour of his skin. By comparison with the caste, the rate of social mobility in class systems is high.

Sociologists have identified two main types of social mobility. The first, introgenerational mobility, refers to social mobility within a single generation. It is measured by comparing the occupational status of an individual at two or more points in time. Thus, if a person begins his working life as an unskilled manual workers and ten years later is employed as an accountant, he is socially mobile in terms of intragenerational mobility. The second type, intergenerational mobility, refers to social mobility between generations. It is measured by comparing the occupational status of sons with that of their fathers. Thus, if the son of unskilled manual worker becomes an accountant, he is socially mobile in terms of intergenerational mobility.

Sociologists have argued the importance of social mobility. Firstly, the rate of social mobility may have an important effect on class formation. Anthony Giddens suggests that if the rate of social mobility is low, class solidarity and cohension will be high. Secondly, a study of social mobility can provide an indication of the life chances of members of society. For example, it can show the degree to which a person’s class of origin influences his chances of obtaining a high status occupation. Thirdly, it is important to know how people respond to the exercise of social mobility.

Answer : Social system and pattern variables: The concept of social system is very related to the concept of social structure as the former is functional aspect of the latter. In other words, social system functions through the social structure. The word social system signifies patterned relationships among the constituent parts of social system which is based on functional relations and which makes these parts active and bind them into unity. A social system is thus, an orderly and systematic arrangement of social interactions. Within the social system there are various sub-systems like educational system, political system, religious system etc. Role being the most vital element of the social system, its performance generates forces of strain or tension. The extent of strain depends on the way role-expectations are institutionalized in society and also on the degree to which the values of role-expectations are internalized by social actors. In relation to motivational orientation and value orientation, in the performance of roles, each actor faces dilemma. These dilemmas are known as pattern variables. These dilemmas emanate from strains in an individual’s choice of or preference within a range of orientation both related to needs and values. Persons examines five types of pattern variables. These are:

1. affectivity versus affective neutrality
2. self-orientation versus collective orientation
3. universalism versus particularism
4. ascription versus achievement
5. specificity versus diffuseness

Answer : Melvin Tumin presented his theory of social stratification as a critique against the famous functionalist thinkers Davis and Moore. Davis and Moore have tended to assume that the most highly rewarded positions are indeed the most important. However, many occupations which afford little prestige or economic reward can be seen as vital to society. Thus, Tumin argues that some labour force of unskilled workmen is as important and as indispensable to the factory as some labour force of engineers. In fact a number of sociologists have argued that there is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of positions.

Tumin argues that Davis and Moore have ignored the influence of power and the unequals distribution of rewards. Thus, differences in pay and prestige between the occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional importance. Secondly, Davis and Moore assume that only a limited number of individuals have talent to acquire the skills necessary for the functionally most important positions. Tumin regards this as a very questionable assumption because there is no effective method of measuring talent and ability. Secondly, there is no proof that exceptional talents are required for those positions which Davis and Moore consider important.

According to Davis and Moore, the major function of unequal rewards is to motivate talented individuals and allocate them to the functionally most important positions. Tumin rejects this view. He argues that social stratification can, and often does, act as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. This is readily apparent in closed system such as caste and racial stratification. Thus, the ascribed status of untouchables prevented even the most talented from becoming Brahmins. Until recently, the ascribed status of Blacks in the USA blocked all but a handful from political office and highly rewarded occupations. Thus, closed stratification system operate in exactly the opposite way to Davis and Moore’s theory.

Tumin suggests, however, that even relatively open system of stratification erect barriers to the motivation and recruitment of talent. There is a considerable evidence to indicate the class system in western industrial society limits the possibilities of the discovery and utilisation of talent. In general , the lower the individuals’s class position, the more likely he is to leave school at the minimum leaving age and the less likely he is to aspire to and strive for highly rewarded position. Thus, the motivation to succeed is unequally distributed throughout the class system. As a result, social class can act as an obstacle to the motivation of talent. In addition, Tumin argues that Davis and Moore have failed to consider the possibility that those who occupy highly rewarded position will erect barrier to recruitment. Occupational groups often use their power to restrict access to their positions, so creating a high demand for their services and increasing the rewards they receive. In this way self-interested use of power can restrict the recruitment of talented individuals to highly rewarded positions.

Tumin concludes that stratification, by its very nature, can never adequately perform the functions which Davis and Moore assign to it. He argues that those born into the lower strata can never have the same opportunities for realizing their talents as those born into the higher strata. Tumin maintains that, ‘It is only when there is genuinely equal access to recruitment and training for all potentially talented persons that differential rewards can conceivably be justified as functional. And stratification system are apparently inherently antagonistic to the development of such full equality of opportunity.

Finally, Tumin questions the view that social stratifications integrate the social system. He argues that differential rewards can encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among the various segments of a society. From this point of view, stratification is a divisive rather than an integrative force. Stratification can also weaken social integration by giving members of the lower strata a feeling of being excluded from participation in the larger society. By tending to exclude certain group from full participation in society, stratification serves to distribute loyalty unequally in the population and therefore reduces the potential for social solidarity. Tumin concludes that in their enthusiatic search for the positive functions of stratification, the functionalists have tended to ignore or play down its many dysfunctions.

Answer : The term ‘sex’ is biologically determined while the term ‘gender’ and its role specification are socially, culturally, traditionally and to some extent religiously constructed. The patriarchal norms dominate society and therefore most women experience “gender oppression” to a greater or lower degree. While reviewing the United Nation’s statistics envisages that (i) Women perform 67 percent of the world working hours (ii) They earn 10 percent of the world’s income (iii) Women are two thirds of the world’s illiterates and (iv) they own less than one percent of the world’s property. These inequalities related to socio-economic and political fields are gender based. In comparison to their male counterpart, the women of the world especially in developing and underdeveloped countries are still lagging behind. They are deprived, alienated, disorganised, dependent and lack power, prestige, status, freedom etc. in comparison to their male counterpart around the world. In cases of developed countries these inequalities are rather less. On the other hand, one can also observe the sex based inequalities in the male dominated society. It is generally assumed that the physical strength of the women is too weak to do hard work. Their I.Q. (intelligent quotient) level is also supposed to be low in comparison to man. It is also belived that they are suitable only for certain limited professions like teaching and nursing.

The French philosopher Rousseau provided one of the earliest examination of the relationship between biologically based and socialley created inequalities. He refers to biological based inequality as natural or physical because it is established by nature and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength and the qualities of the mind or the soul. By comparison socially created inequality consists of different previleges which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience. Rousseau believed that biologically based inequalities between men were small and relatively unimportant whereas socially created inequalities provide the major basis for the social stratification and gender issue.

In the modern industrial capitalist society, the gender inequality has greatly norrowed down due to the emergence of modernisation, democracy, rationality, development of science and modern education. For example, in India and around the world, the political participation of the women is very poor. In India, traditionally women were deprived from the right to vote, but now they are enjoying all the political right, even the women reservation bill 2002 is pending before the parliament. The year 2002 was celebrated as the year of empowerment of the women. But inspite of all these efforts, women hardly constitute even the one-third of the total number of seats of the Indian Parliaments. Similarly in U.S.A. also, the women’s representation is very poor. But, here also, the situtation is positively changing. The liberal ideology of the society and the education system is rapidly filling the gap of power and other socially created inequalities between men and women. The prevalence of gender inequality even may be traced at the family level. The male or boys are being provided good quality food, cloth, schooling etc. while the female or girl is being discriminated by the parents.

Thus, it may be concluded that the ‘gender issue’ should be seriously considered and efforts should be made by the male themselves to eliminate their dominating attitudes and tendencies over the female. The female and male should be equally treated at the family and societal levels. The idea of equality of opportunity must be sponsored or even be legalised. A large number of women’s organisation and association are generally used to raise the gender issue, but it may not be resolved till the attitudes of male are being changed. The quality of education, liberal ideology, cultural and valuational change in the society etc. many slow down the accelerating gap. Community consiousness and participation in this issue are also essential.

Answer : The term “social mobility” refers to the movement of the position, status, prestige and especially profession or occupation of a person. Social mobility may be categorised into upward and downward, vertical and horizontal and intragenerational and inter-generational. Whenever the key position of a person is further elevated, it is known as upward and vertical social mobility. It is a positional change. In the horizontal social mobility, the nature of job or assignment is changed, but the position remained the same. Social change refers to structural, valuational or cultural change in the society. It is a continuous and gradual process. The social mobility and social change are mutually correlated. The rate of social mobility in any society denotes the rapidity of social change. In the modern industrial capitalist society the rate of social mobility is very high which shows that social change is rapidly going on in the society. Thus, social change is always followed by social mobility. If the society is rapidly changing on the path of modernisation and globalisation, the inter-generational and vertical mobility will be very high. The high degree of social mobility is also followed by increase in deviant behaviours, crimes, division of labour, interdependence, specialisation, individualism, heterogenity etc.

Answer : Sorokin in “Social and Cultural Dynamics” attempts to explain course of history with the help of culture and recurring changes in it. Human Society, according to him, is travelling on a cyclical course of two extremes of cultural types- Ideational and Sensate. When ideational elements of culture becomes dominant in a society in course of history, society then starts moving towards sensate culture. As Marx explained history and society in terms of material development, Sorokin explained them in terms of culture. But Sorokin's exposition is cyclical, while that of Marx was evolutionary.

Sorokin's starting point of his theory is the concept of 'mentalities'. He tries to explain the socio-cultural phenomenon in human society with the help of the concept of 'mentalities'. Mentalities are relatively coherent and integrated aggregates of cultural outlooks. They are an integrated and harmonious system of concepts and ideas of a culture.

Before moving from here, Sorokin first wants to define culture. Culture for him is 'the sum total of everything which are created or modified by the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals interacting with one another or conditioning one another's behaviour’. Culture contains three related yet distinctive components. First is pure cultural systems which are systems of meanings or ideas in the most elementary sense. The second one is 'Socialised' cultural systems. By this he means that cultural systems operate in social interaction. And the last component is 'socio cultural system'. It is a system of meaning that is expressed in communicable terms and that constitutes an important element of a specific area of interaction. This last component is related to sorkin’s idea of mentalities.

Coming to the concept of mentalities, Sorokin learnt through the study of history that there were three types of mentalities. Different periods of history or the stages of human society are manifestation of these three mentalities. They are Ideational, Sensate and Idealistic. History suggests a pattern of cycle of rise and fall of society in terms of these three mentalities.

The period of history or a society in ideational cultural stage is based on the belief that reality is super sensory. Reality transcends the world of senses. According to Sorokin, ideational culture is characterised by belief that (i) reality is non-sensate and non-material, (ii) needs and ends are mainly spiritual, (iii) the extent of satisfaction is highest, (iv) method of their fulfilment is minimisation of physical needs.

Sorokin finds that Ideational culture is of two types. The ascetic ideational seeks total rejection of sensate world and active ideational seeks to transform the sensate world into spiritual world. The example of ideational culture as given by Sorokin Greek culture from 12th to 15th century.

The other end of the cultural system or mentalities is sensate culture. This period of history is characterised by features polar opposite to the ideational culture. At this point "time reality and time value is sensory… beyond the reality and value perceived by our sense organs there is no other reality and no value." The needs and ends are physical or bodily. People seek the maximum satisfaction of these needs. The method of satisfaction is exploitation of the resources available in the external world. Greek culture from 4th century BC to 4th century AD was in this stage.

Sorokin conceives a point of mentalities which is in between these two extreme types of mentalities. It is idealistic culture. It is a melange of the elements of both mentalities. Society of this type show a belief that 'reality is infinite, manifold, partly supersensory and partly super-rational and partly sensory". The elements of both mentalities make a harmonious balance. The Greek culture from the 15th to the 4th century BC was idealistic culture.

Sorokin believed that history is a cycle of these three mentalities. The order of these socio-cultural complex is first, Ideational, secondly Idealistic which is mixture of ideational and sensate and lastly Sensate.

Sorokin also discovered three basic principles of this cycle of history. The principle of cyclical change states that socio-cultural phenomenon is repeating itself in history or a society in cyclical form. That is ideational mentalities is replaced by sensate to be followed by ideational again. The second principle, the principle of immanent change, states that source of change is inherent in the socio-cultural system itself. Change is not itself of some external factor. The last one, the principle of limit posits that the changes which accompanies a socio-cultural phenomenon, soon reaches a limit. After that limit change in that direction is stopped. Socio-cultural phenomenon then turns back to its earlier form. This is how cycle is repeated.

Thus, the theory of history in terms of socio-cultural change between two points is obviously a cyclical theory. One important criticism of this theory is that society and history are marching in a line. It is not moving in a cycle as Sorokin wants us to believe.

Answer : Inter-generational mobility is a type of social mobility. Social mobility refers to movement of individuals or groups between different positions in the hierarchy of social stratification within society. For example, a manual labourer becoming head of village panchayat is an example of social mobility. Here the status of the person rises in the hierarchy from that of a manual labourer to that of a head of the village panchayat.

Inter-generational mobility is a specific type of social mobility. In it, mobility in the person's social position occurs in more than one generation. That is, it refers to a change in social level from the parent to the filial generation. Example of inter-generational mobility is a lecturer’s son becoming a minister in the government. Here, father’s status as a lecturer is raised because his son became a minister. Moreover this rise in social position occurs in two generations.

Inter-generational mobility is opposite of intra-generational mobility which refers to mobility of individual within his own life-time. Moreover, inter-genrational mobility may be upward or downward. That is, offspring generation can rise on the graph of social hierarchy as well as plummate. Lastly, inter-generational mobility can be vertical or horizontal. In vertical inter-generational mobility, one's social position makes upward or downward shift. But in horizontal inter-generational mobility, there occurs no clear change in the position of social hierarchy, though occupational movement occurs.

Answer : Most of the sociologists have assumed that the main basis of social stratification is the unequal distribution of power, prestige and rewards. In a stratified society there are social, economic and political differentiations. For example, in India, the society is mainly stratified on the caste ground. The status and position of Brahamin is considered higher than the other vama and caste. The Shudra is the lowest Varna and has low status in the society. At the middle level, there are Rajputa and Vaishya. The western, industrial capitalist society is chiefly based on the class system. There are higher class, middle class and lower class. The higher class is a relatively dominant group who enjoys high economic rewards, political power and social prestige. The middle class has not all of these. The lower class has not all of these or very little status and prestige. The unstratified social position was found in the primitive society which was a classless and casteless society. In this society there was the equality of social status. It was an uncivilized and pastoral society. Similarly, Marx imagined that the communist society would be an egalitarian society, where all the members of the society will share equal amount of power, prestige and economic rewards.

The ranking and position of individual and group in the society may be influenced by the two criteria. First, the ascribed status in which the individual and group have been ascribed status or a particular position by the family members and society. In this type, the quality and knowledge of the individual and group are not taken into account. The Indian caste system is its example. Those who are born in the Brahmin caste enjoy higher social status and position than the persons of other castes. In the traditional village and tribal community of India, most of the positions were ascribed. Unlike, ascribed status, the positions of individual and group in the modern industrial capitalist society is determined by the achieved status. There is no barrier of caste, creed, race etc. A person acquire the status with the completion of goal put by society. They have to go through tough competition and intense training for it. A father's status may be lower than his child in terms of achieved status.

Effective performance of role is another important criteria to allocate a position to an individual in the social system. Those who effectively and successfully perform the assigned roles and duties are generally allocated higher social position and status. In the tribal society, tribal chief is expected to performs his duties or role according to the expectation of collective conscience. If he is not able to do so, it may result in the alternation of his position in the society. On the other hand, in modern industrial society, technical knowledge, professional aptitude, competition etc. are some of the determinants of assigning a particular role to an individual or group.

As far as the question of universal existence of social stratification is concerned it can be said that, except primitive society, stratification has been universally found in all societies. Karl Marx has traced that the primitive society was a classless society. The ancient society was characterized by two classes, one was the ruling class known as master and the other was the ruled or subject class known as serf. The social status of master was generally ascribed or traditional in nature. They possessed economic wealth, political power and higher social prestige in the society. On the other hand the serfs were relatively poor and had no wealth, power and prestige. They were exploited by the master. Similarly, the feudal society, according to Marx, was characterized by landlord and slaves. The landlords enjoyed higher position and status because they owned the means of production, the entire economic and political power were centered around them. The slaves were like a servant. They had no status and prestige in the society. Thirdly, in the modern industrial capitalist society, there are two classes; one is called the capitalist class or bourgeoise and the other is called working class or proletariat. The bourgeoise is the owner of means of production. Therefore, they enjoy higher social status. The proletariat are poor, exploited and have no significant position and status in the society. Marx has described this type of existence of stratification in the traditional western society.

The Varna system which has now transformed into the caste system, was the another evidence of the existence of social stratification in India. The highest rank was enjoyed by the Brahmin. They had relatively much power, prestige and wealth. The second position, in terms of social status was given to Rajanya. At the third rank, the Vaishya was involved in the trade and commerce. And, finally the Shudra who was the servant of the society as a whole and had no status in the society.

Conclusion: Thus the position in the society is mainly determined by the possession of wealth, power and prestige by the individual or group. It cannot be measured objectively rather it is a relative term. Secondly, there are enough evidences to say that stratification is a universal institution which is found in every society, except primitive communism.

Answer : P.A. Sorokin, in his book "Social Mobility" (1927), had defined it as the movement of people from one social stratum to the another either upward and downward. He has distinguished between horizontal and vertical social mobility. The horizontal social mobility is not a positional change, but it is the shift from one type of assignment to the other of the same nature and characteristics. For example, an agricultural worker is employed in the industry as a worker. On the other hand, the vertical social mobility is the positional change in the status and prestige of the individual. When an agricultural worker becomes a general manager of a company, it may be called vertical mobility. Another type of social mobility is called intragenerational social mobility in which a clerk becomes a manger. In the inter-generational mobility, the status of son generally becomes higher than that of father.

The rate of social mobility, the amount of movement from one generation to another or from one stratum to another is very high in capitalist society as, compared to pre-industrial society. Industrial society is therefore, described as open and has relatively low degree of closure. In particular, it is argued that status in pre-industrial society is largely ascribed whereas in the industrial society it is increasingly achieved. As a result, ascribed characteristics, such as sex roles, kinship relationship etc. have less and less influence on an individual's social status. Thus, the talent, ability, amibition and hard work are steadily replacing ascribed characteristics as the criteria for determining a person’s position in the class system.

Social mobility may play important role in the formation of class in the industrial society. According to Anthony Giddings the role of social mobility determines the class solidarity and cohesion in the industrial society. Secondly a study of social mobility provides indication of the life chance of the members of society.

In an article based on the Oxford Mobility Study, John H. Goldthorpe and Catriona Llewellen make the following observation : The findings of the Oxford mobility study indicate that the highest degree of homogeneity in terms of social background is found in the manual working class. Around 70% of the member in 1972 were the son of manual workers. Similarity of origin and experience of the majority of the manual workers provide a basis for the collective action in pursuit of common interest.

That rate of economic growth and development may be traced with the help of rate of social mobility in the society. The high rates of horizontal and vertical mobility present a clear picture of economic development. The present industrial and urban society are characterised by the rapid social mobility. The present organisational and structural system of society offers the individual more opportunities to enhance their Job profile. Finding these opportunity, they quickly adapt themselves to the changing situation and make bargaining for the best position. Technical expertise and professional knowledge are more demanding, which in turn, offer higher mobility, for example-the Indian Information Technology experts have found more job opportunity in USA, Europe and some gulf countries with higher pay package. They migrate to do job there and bring foreign currency for our country. Thus, we would have more foreign currency if we supply more experts to these nations. These mobility increase the economy. High level of geographical mobility from the rural to urban areas point out that there is more job opportunity in the urban set up because of industrialization. Industrialization denotes the development and growth of the society. Secondly, at the organization level, the increased level of social mobility show that the number of organisations and institutions and its variegated forms have increased many fold in the society. The higher level of the number of organisations and institutions represent the growth of the economic activities. Thus, the rate of social mobility is one of the important indexes of economic growth or development.

Conclusion: On the basis of above mentioned argument it may be said that the present industrial capitalist society is characterized by high vertical and horizontal mobility. The high rate of mobility ensures the growth and development of the society. The specialization, division of labour, individualism, industrialisation, urbanisation etc., denote the growth and development of the society which are associated with social mobility and social change. The complex organizational and institutional relationship may be viewed in term of high social mobility and positional change in the society.

Answer : The characteristic features of caste are endogamy, hierarhy, purity and pollution, rules of marriage etc. It is a social group. The different castes have varied status and position in the society. All the Brahamins have higher social status than the Rajanya, Vaish a and Shundra. Their job and duty are also different from each other. Similarly in the class system there is the hierarchy of the higher, lower, middle etc. The higher class enjoys high status like the higher caste. The power, prestige and wealth are the main criteria of the determination of the class. Sociologists have observed that a higher caste tries to maintain his domination and status and enjoys the power, prestige and wealth at a relatively higher level than their counterparts or lower caste. For example, in a village settlement there are several castes. The lower caste are generally involved in the manual working job while the higher castes are generally landlord and own the means of production. The status of the farmer is poor than the higher castes. But in the present day modern society of India, factors such as Sanskritization, Westernization, modernization etc. are rapidly replacing it. It is establishing a new trend in the society.

Answer : The vertical social mobility refers to change in the position of an individual or group along with social hierarchy whereas the horizontal social mobility refers to change in occupational position or role of an individual or group without involving any change in its position to social hierachy. If an industrial worker or child of an industrial worker becomes a wealthy businessman or lawyer he undergoes quite a radical change in the position in stratification system. This is the example of vertical social mobility. But when a rural labourer comes to city and becomes an industrial worker, there is no significant change in the position of his status. This is instance of horizontal social mobility. Further, vertical mobility itself can take place in two ways i.e. individual or group may improve their position in the hierarchy by moving upward or they may fall down in the hierarchy. When a poor Harijan from the village becomes an IAS officer or a minister, it is a case of upward mobility. On the other hand, an aristocrat or member of an upper class may be disposed of his wealth in a revolution and he is obliged to enter into the manual occupation. This is an example of downward mobility.

Answer : The functionalist theory of stratification has been chiefly propounded by Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis and Moore, MelvinTumin etc. The basic assumption of this theory is that the various parts of the society are integrated and functional for the coordination and maintenance of the whole social system. Functionalists maintain that certain degree of order and stability are essential for the operation of social system. They therefore consider how stratification system helps to maintain order and stability in the society. Thus, the chief concern of the functionalist is that the stratification system is functional for the society.

Talcott Parsons is considered as the backbone of this theory. He maintains that order, stability and coordination of society is based on the value consensus, that is the general agreement of the members of society concerning what is good and worthwhile. According to Parsons "Stratification in its valuational aspect, then, is the ranking of unit in social system, in accordance with common value system. Thus, those who perform successfully in terms of societies’ values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. Since different societies have different value system, the way of attaining high position will vary from society to society. ”

According to the functionalist the relationship between various social groups and society is one of cooperation and interdependence. In the modern industrial society the interdependence and reciprocity among the various social groups have increased. He sees social stratification as both inevitable and functional for the society. It is inevitable because it derives from shared values which are necessary part of all social systems. It is functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society. He assumes power and prestige differentials are essential for coordination and integration of a specialized division of labour. Without social inequality, members of society, could not cooperate and work together.

The other functioalist thinker Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E Moore, in their notable work "Some principles of stratification", argue that it is universally found. They assume that there are certain functional prerequisites which must be met if the system is to survive and operate efficiently. One such functional prerequisite is effective role allocation and performance. Therefore, firstly all roles must be filled. Secondly, that they be filled by those best able to perform them. Thirdly, that the necessary training for them be undertaken and fourthly that the roles be performed conscientiously. According to Davis and Moore certain positions are 'functionally more important than others’. They require special skills for their effective performance and there are limited number of individuals with the necessary ability to acquire such skills. A major function of stratification is to match the most able persons with the functionally most important positions. It does this by attaching high reward to those positions. Such positions usually require long period of training which involves certain sacrifices such as loss of income. Davis and Moore argue that social stratification is a “device by which society ensures that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons.

According to Davis and Moore the functional importance of a position may be measured in two ways. Firstly, the degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being no other positions that can perform the same functions satisfactorily. The second measure is the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question. Thus, it may be argued that managers are more important than routine office staff since the latter are dependent on the direction and the organisation from the management.

Thus Davis and Moore regard social stratification as the functional necessity of all society. They see it as a solution to problem faced by all social system that of placing and motivating individuals in social structure.

The above mentioned views of Talcott Parsons and kingsley Davis and Willbert E. Moore have been criticized by other sociologists. Other sociologists have seen stratification as a divisive rather than functional. It is an arrangement whereby some gain at the expense of others. They have questioned the views that stratification system derives ultimately from shared values.

Commenting on the views of Davis and Moore, Melvin M. Tumin argues that the labour force of unskilled workmen is as important and as indispensable to the factory as the labour force of engineers. In fact, a number of sociologists have argued that there is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of a position. He says that Davis and Moore have ignored the influence of power on the unequal distribution of rewards. According to Tumin the differences in pay and prestige between occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional importance. Tumin argued that there is no proof that exceptional talent is required for those positions which Davis and Moore consider important.

Answer : horizontal social mobilityvertical social mobilityintra generational mobility

Answer : The social inequality chiefly refers to the unequal distribution of power, prestige, status etc. in the society. There are different social and ethnic groups in the society around the world among which one may trace the unequal distribution of social rewards and positions. All the men are of equal qualities, according to biologist, it is the society which has made them unequal in rewards. In America, there is the Black and White conflict, and in India, caste inequality may be understood in its structural context. People of the society are considered unequal in terms of social, economic, political, religious etc. aspects of life. Some groups of sociologists and psychologists believe that social inequality is natural because men are born with genetic differentiation. The education system is working as a prominent agency which make the rational interpretation of the inequality in the society. An educated man does not think that inequality is inherent rather he tries to find out the rational and logical interpretation of it in the context of the individual and group. Those who have higher level of educational attainment may be 'different from a layman, but they may be equal in some other respect to a layman.

Answer : Both, the social class and social status is closely related to each other. According to Max Weber the market situation determine the class of an individual which, in turn, determine the social status of the individual in the society. He has distinguished class into several types such as the propertied upper class, propertyless white collar workers, petty bourgeoisie and manual working class. The higher social status is enjoyed by the propertied upper class. Then the status level gradually decreases from propertyless white collar workers to the working class. Thus the power and prestige of the working class is very low in the capitalist society.

Karl Marx has chiefly argued about two polar opposite classes in all hitherto existing societies. The first is called ruling class and the second is called ruled or the subject class. The social status of ruling class is comparatively very high because they own the means of production and achieve the command over the infrastructure and superstructure of the society. On the other hand the subject class enjoys very little or no power and prestige in the society. Thus, the chief component of the determination of the social class and social status are the wealth, power and prestige. Those who possess these in higher degree enjoy higher class and status and those who do not possess, enjoy no status and class in the society.