Looking at society critically enables one to see that it has been divided into groups based on power, wealth and status .
People of the same fashion are seen to get along, and People of the same occupation are found associating with each other even students are associating with each other. From the above example it can be seen that society classifies people on the basis of social status. Social status is the position occupied by individuals or groups in relation to other individuals in society (Harris and Scott, 1997:28).Therefore the essence of this essay is to critically analyze social stratification as well as compare and contrast the; Class, Colourbar and Caste systems of social stratification, a brief description of these systems will be given.
Additionally, the essay will indicate the advantages and disadvantages of these social systems of social stratification to development. Finally, the conclusion will be drawn based on the analysis of this essay. The word Stratification is derived from the word ‘stratum’ which is a geographical word meaning a layer of rocks of which each layer lies between similar layers of different texture.Sociologists use the term to describe a hierarchical ordering of people or groups as though they were arranged in horizontal layers, one above the other. There are many definitions of Social stratification.
Among comprehensive definitions is the one propounded by Shaefer (1997), who defines it as a structural ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal economic rewards and power in society. It is a concept used by sociologists to describe inequalities that exist between individuals and groups within human societies. It means that people exist in layers of prestige, power and wealth.It can also be defined as a structural ranking of people that perpetuate unequal economic rewards and power in society. Social inequality is an inevitable result of social stratification, in that certain groups of people stand higher in society, control scarce resources, yield power and receive special treatment. Therefore, a stratified society comprises of members who are either Rich or Poor, Powerful or Powerless, High or Low (Kerbo and Harold 1991).
According to Bendix (1961:21),”social stratification is the ranking of units in a social system in accordance with the standards of common value system.Social stratification is a universal concept except that it varies from society to society. This means that the hierarchical arrangement takes place in all societies in the world but the criteria used differs from society to society. This is simply because every society has its own norms and values hence different culture. For instance, most African societies value marriage or family life while European or American societies encourage working towards the obtaining of wealth.
The different values and cultures differentiate societies. Subsequently, in some societies, age and sex are used as systems of social stratification.Nevertheless, the most commonly used systems include the Class, Colourbar and Caste systems (Ibid). The class system is called the open system. This system is so open that people who gain schooling and skills may experience social mobility.
This system was propounded by Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this system, social mobility drives class distribution. It is based on achievement rather than ascription. The system rests on talent, opportunity and effort unlike the Caste system which ascribes status at birth.
In the Class system, careers are an issue of individual choice and not moral duty.In addition, individual freedom is allowed in the selection of marriage partners (De Beer, F and Swanepoe, 2000). Social mobility is simply the movement of individuals or groups of people from one social position to another. People are able to change position by gaining or losing wealth, prestige and power. Upward mobility refers to movement up the social ladder while downward mobility refers to movement down the social ladder which means a loss in status. Intergenerational mobility is having a higher or lower status than ones parents.
The economic nature of the Class system enables it to have an advantage to development in that, it has no formal barriers to economic achievement and allows mobility between Classes, the unequal distribution of power, wealth and prestige in society motivates individuals in lower classes to aspire for better jobs and to work hard. This leads to high productivity in society. Secondly this system promotes Meritocracy in society. Meritocracy is leadership by people selected according to merit. This means only well deserving hardworking members of society move furthest up the social ladder (Coser, 1983).
In other words people have to compete for limited power, wealth and Prestige. The disadvantages of this system however, is that the people at the top or highest class usually use their power, wealth and prestige to prevent those in lower classes from moving up to their level. This limits there participation in the economy which impacts the economy negatively. Secondly the success of the people in higher classes is more favorable as compared to those in lower classes due to the power, wealth and prestige that allows them to access better education and health services than the lower class with low power, wealth and prestige.The Colourbar system of social stratification is one which is based on racial segregation, skin colour in particular . Racial segregation in this context being an act of separating groups in society on the basis of skin colour.
This system is based on Apartheid, a system of segregation based on grounds of race. People in this system are arranged hierarchically on the basis of their skin colour. An example of a colourbar society is South Africa before its independence.There were four main categories of people in South Africa, they were hierarchically categorized as follows; at the top were the Whites, followed by the Coloureds, Asians and at the bottom, the Blacks. In addition, colourbar societies are characterized by high levels of segregation, slavery and racism (Goode, 1994). This system privileges light-skinned people of colour over dark skinned people.
It is sometimes regarded as racial segregation. Racial segregation which is the act of separating people into different groups based on their skin colour. The Colourbar system is a legalized form of racial segregation.This system of stratification makes one race and colour superior to the others. This system promotes solidarity and integration in such a way that people of same race who share a common skill or who enjoy a certain level of privilege will be able to use that to their level best to get the satisfaction they need and thereafter lead to development at their level.
For example if blacks where to, collectively develop a skill of building houses and carpentry, this would lead to infrastructure development. The skill that has been learnt can be passed to the whole race and to new generations, who will advance and use it as an occupation.The disadvantages of this system outweigh the advantages due its nature of being a system based on racial segregation and discrimination. Due to discrimination the society fails to make use of the potential that people, especially blacks, have that can lead to development if given equal opportunities with the other races. Secondly under this system, leadership is limited to one dominant group. For example the whites or coloureds.
Thirdly the government would have to spend a lot of money to defend the racial barriers by making laws to prohibit the minority from accessing society’s wealth.This leads to wasting money on non-developmental issues, thereby retarding development. And lastly Goodwill and friendly diplomatic relations may not be achieved due to racial prejudice and discrimination that may be in existence. The prevailing discrimination in the Colourbar system aggravates social problems such as delinquency, crime and conflict between groups of people; these social problems have a tendency of placing serious burdens on the government hence drifting the government from focusing on developmental issues. The Caste system is also known as the closed system of social stratification.
It is a somewhat fixed social class or grouping of people who are separated from each other by religious rules of ritual purity. In this system, social stratification is based on ascription. It is closed in the sense that birth alone determines one’s social destiny with no opportunity for social mobility based on individual effort. The nature of this system is such that it has different castes which are divided in such a way that each caste is purer than the one before it, contact between castes is prohibited, as people in the higher Caste fear being contaminated by those of the lower Caste.
Societies with caste system ensure that there are well determined boundaries between castes. They are ranked in a rigid hierarchy and it is more concerned with religious roles and rituals and is practiced in Hinduism and Indian societies (Becker M. and Howard S. 1973). There are five groups of people in this system namely: the Brahmin, comprising of priests; the Kshatrya, comprising of landlords; the Vaisya, made up of farmers; the Saundra, who are the peasants and lastly the Harijans or the untouchables, who are said to be the impure of the groups.
It is worth noting that this system is characterized by endogamy. Meaning that marriage outside one’s group is not allowed (Maines and David, 1993). The advantage of this system is that it is credited to ensure the continuity of the traditional social organization of India. It has accommodated multiple communities including invading tribes in the Indian society. The knowledge and skills of the occupations have passed down from one generation to the next. Through subsystems like Jajmani system, the caste system promoted interdependent interaction between various castes and communities within a village.
The rituals and traditions promoted cooperation and unity between members of the different castes. However the Caste system promotes untouchability and discrimination against certain members of the society which in turn impacted negatively on Development. It hindered both horizontal and vertical social mobility forcing an individual to carry on the traditional occupation against his or her will and capacity. The status of women was affected and they were relegated to the background. The caste system divided the society into mutually hostile and conflicting groups and subgroups.
From the discussion above, it is clear that the three are comparable and differentiable in some respect. In all the three it has been Cleary seen that stratification is a characteristic of the society and not simply a reflection of individual differences. Virtually the same, people in all the three rarely have the control over their destinies rather their lives are sharpened by the prevailing system itself. Persistence of the stratification over time say from generation to generation is evidently seen in all the three system (Garfinkel and Harold, 1967).For example in all societies, parents confer their social positions on their children.
In this regard we see that the pattern of all these systems of inequality stay much the same wherever they are prevailing. Universality and variability of inequality is also identical in all the three systems of social stratification. This means that in all the three systems there is unequal distribution of obligation, power, personal freedom and prestige. However what is unequal and how unequal it is vary to some degree.It has also been noted that in all the three systems those with greater social privileges support strongly the existing system of social stratification.
In this regard, people who are favored by the prevailing system tend to be ethnocentric base on the belief that they are superior to the undermined (Kerbo and Harold, 1991). One key reason for the remarkable persistence of these inequalities in these three social systems is that they are all built on ideologies. This simply means that in all the three systems cultural beliefs, norms and values serve to justify stratification.However, the way in which these beliefs are implemented is what defers. For instance, rich feel they are more smart and hardworking than the poor who they consider to be lazy and worthy of their plight. The color bar system and the caste system of social stratification are all closed, while the class system is open .
It is practically impossible for individual to experience social mobility in caste and colour bar systems yet in a class system opportunities to change are granted to all.The class system rests on talent, opportunity nd effort unlike the caste and colour bar system which are by virtue of birth or ascription. In the class system, careers are an issue of individual choice and not moral duty. In contrast to caste and colour bar, class system offers individuals freedom is in the selection of marriage partners. Social boundaries also break down as people migrate or immigrate from rural to urban areas (Giddens, 2003). This shows us that in the caste and colour bar systems status is ascribed rather than being achieved.
An ascribed status is a social position assigned to someone without the regard for person’s unique talent or characteristics. Colourbar and Caste guides everyday life so that people remain in the company of their own kind, fearing being polluted by the contact with those of the lower classes. This is contrary to class system as freedom of interaction is given to all members of the society. Traditional caste group are linked to occupation so that generations of a family perform the same type of work. For example priests, farmers and so on.
On the other hand, in a class system people work in their own best interests. In conclusion, it is safe to say that social stratification is a characteristic of each and every society and not simply a mere reflection of individual differences. In all societies, people rarely control their destinies but rather people’s lives are shaped by the prevailing system of social stratification. This analysis of these three systems of stratification has evidently shown that each system has its own merits and demerits which play a part in the development of society and the economy as a whole.
