Social stratification according to. social stratification

Part 1

Select correct judgments about social stratification and write down digital R s under which they are listed.

1) The concept of "social stratification" denotes a system of signs and criteria of social stratification.

2) The division of society into strata allows the existence of privileges for representatives of some strata.

3) The criteria of social stratification include the amount of power.

4) One of the criteria for social stratification is the individual psychological traits of a person.

5) Scientists distinguish two types of social stratification: progressive and regressive.

Are the following judgments about social stratification correct?

A. The concept of "social stratification" refers to the system of social stratification of society.

B. The criteria for social stratification include the amount of income, the amount of power, the level of education.

1) only A is correct

2) only B is correct

3) both statements are correct

4) both statements are wrong

Choose the correct statements about social mobility and write down the numbers under which they are indicated.

1) Intergenerational mobility is a comparative change in social status among different generations.

2) Organized mobility is the state-controlled movement of a person or entire groups up, down or horizontally: with the consent of the people themselves, or without their consent.

3) The horizontal type of mobility includes obtaining an extraordinary military rank.

4) K vertical view Mobility refers to the transition of a person to a lower social stratum.

5) Social mobility is the division of society into groups occupying different positions.

Choose from the proposed list of words that you want to insert in place of the gaps.

“Social inequality characterizes the relative position of individuals and social (A). Specific group or individual ____ (b) are recognized as members of the society, and c public opinion they are given some importance.

Social inequality in modern society is most often understood as ____ (C) the distribution of social groups in a hierarchical order. And the concept of "middle class" just describes such a socially comfortable position: economic well-being, the presence of property valued in society ____ (D), civil rights.

Social inequality is determined primarily by the significance and ____ (E) functions performed for society. In modern society, the profession becomes decisive ____ (E) social status."

List of terms:

1) status

2) group

3) criterion

4) stratification

5) socialization

6) profession

9) mobility

Part 2

With the emergence of the “class of intellectuals”, non-materialistic goals become the driving force of social progress, and that part of society that is not able to assimilate them objectively loses its significance in public life more than any other class in an agrarian or industrial society. Intellectual stratification, reaching unprecedented proportions today, is gradually becoming the basis of any other social stratification ...

The development of a modern economy based on the production and use of knowledge presupposes the formation of a new principle of social stratification, much more rigid in comparison with all known to history. In agrarian societies, the power of the feudal lord over the peasants gave birthright, in industrial society the power of the capitalist was based on the right of ownership, and the influence of a civil servant was determined by his place in political system; all these status factors were not due to the natural and indelible qualities of people - any member of society, being in the place of representatives of the ruling class, could, with more or less success, fulfill the corresponding social functions…

In modern conditions, it is not social status that serves as a condition for a person to belong to the elite of a post-industrial society; on the contrary, he himself forms qualities in himself that make him a representative of the highest social stratum. It is widely believed that information is the most democratic source of power, because everyone has access to it, and a monopoly on it is impossible; however, it is also important that information is also the least democratic factor of production, since access to it does not mean owning it ...

“Any city, no matter how small,

actually divided into two halves:

one for the poor, one for the rich,

and they are at enmity with each other."

Plato "The State"

All known histories of society have been organized in such a way that some social groups in them have always had a privileged position over others in relation to the distribution of social benefits and powers. In other words, all societies, without exception, have social inequality. The inequality of people was explained by the initial inequality of souls (Plato), divine providence (most religions), the emergence of private property (J.J. Rousseau), the imperfection of human nature (T. Hobbes). This can be treated differently: to see it as an inevitable evil or product of a certain social organization, but so far history has not shown us a socially homogeneous society. Therefore, one of the basic concepts of modern sociology is the concept social stratification.

social stratification(from Latin stratum - layer and facio - I do), one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; the social structure of society; branch of sociology. Stratification is one of the main themes in sociology.

The term "stratification" entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to the layers of the earth.

Stratification is the division of society into social strata (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built along the vertical ( social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status).

In the context of research social stratification mainly deals with systematically manifested inequalities between groups of people, arising as unintentional consequence social relations and reproduced in each subsequent generation.

The main property of stratification is the division of society into strata based on the inequality of social distances between them.

Unlike social structure(see), arising in connection with the social division of labor (see), S.S. arises in connection with the social distribution of the results of labor, that is, social benefits. In sociology, there are three basic types of S.S. modern society economic, political, socio-professional. Accordingly, the main measurements (criteria) of S.S. are the size of income and property, ranks in the power hierarchy, status determined by occupation and qualifications (education). The social stratum (layer) has a certain qualitative homogeneity. It is a collection of people who occupy a close position in the hierarchy and lead a similar lifestyle. Belonging to a stratum has two components - objective (the presence of objective indicators characteristic of a given social stratum) and subjective (identification with a certain stratum).

In the scientific tradition, there are two main approaches to the study of S.S., one of which is class - based on objective indicators of belonging to a social class or stratum, the second - status - on subjective assessments of the prestige of individuals, social groups, professions. The first tradition is predominantly European, the second - American. The theory of the class structure of societies, social stratification and goes back to the works of Marx (see), Concept K. Marx considered stratification as a product of the natural-historical development of society, a necessary and inevitable stage of such development, which must also inevitably and inevitably pass, giving birth to a new type of society, devoid of stratification.

Most modern Western concepts of S.S. combine some aspects of Marx's theory with the ideas of M. Weber (see). To the economic criterion S.S. (wealth) Weber added two other dimensions - prestige and power. He considered these three aspects, interacting with each other, as the basis on which hierarchies are built in all societies. Differences in property creates classes, differences in prestige - status groups (social strata), differences in power - political parties. Unlike Marx, Weber assumed that communities are formed to a greater extent on the basis of status groups, allocated according to the criterion of socially prescribed prestige.

Functionalist theories of social stratification emphasize positive, functional character of inequality and try to substantiate its functional necessity. The authors of one of these K. Davies and W. Moore argue that the stratification of society is a direct consequence of the division of labor: unequal social functions of different groups of people objectively require unequal remuneration. If it were otherwise, individuals would lose the incentive to engage in complex and laborious, dangerous or uninteresting activities; they would have no desire to improve their skills. With the help of inequality in income and prestige, society encourages individuals to engage in necessary, but difficult and unpleasant professions, encourages more educated and talented people, and so on. Thus, according to this theory, social stratification is necessary and inevitably present in any society, not being its disadvantage.

(F. Hayek believed: inequality is a necessary payment for material well-being in a market society)

Another functionalist version of the nature of social inequality, owned by T. Parsons, explains the inequality existing in each society of its own hierarchized system of values. For example, in American society, success in business and career is considered the main social value, so scientists with technological specialties, directors of enterprises, etc. have a higher status and income. In Europe, the “preservation of cultural patterns” remains the dominant value, as a result of which society endows with special prestige intellectuals in the humanities, clergy, university professors. The disadvantage of this theory is that Parsons does not give a clear answer to the question of why value systems in different societies differ so much from each other.

American approach, the founder of which can be considered W. Warner with his theory of reputations, is based on subjective assessments of the prestige of individuals, professions, social groups. Numerous studies have shown that occupational prestige scores are very similar around the world and change little over time. D. Treiman's theory explains this phenomenon as follows: "In all societies there is approximately the same division of labor. As a result of the specialized division of labor, various degrees of power are added. In any society, people with power have political influence and various privileges. Since power and privileges are valued everywhere, so professions associated with them are considered prestigious." Occupational prestige studies allow the development of standard scales of prestige, such as Treiman scale , Siegel scale (NORC), etc., widely used in international comparative studies. In the approach proposed O. Duncan , uses a high correlation between the prestige of the profession, the level of education and income. The Socioeconomic Status Index (SES) he constructed is a linear combination of education and income and allows one to measure an individual's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy without resorting to time-consuming and costly measures of prestige. Socioeconomic stratification in American sociology is measured by grouping scales of prestige or socioeconomic status. The differences between such strata do not appear to be as radical as in the class approach. Prestige scales are supposed to measure a certain continuum of prestige or status, and there are no strict boundaries between strata. This feature of the American approach to S.S. This is due to the fact that historically there has not been a strict division into classes in the United States, since emigrants with a variety of class origins who arrived in the country had to start almost from scratch and reach a certain position on the social ladder due not so much to their origin as to personal merits. For this reason, American society has always been considered more open in terms of social mobility than European society. The class and status approaches are not mutually exclusive; both are often applied in the West to the same data.

Today it is already clear that sociology is not in a position to develop a unified theory of stratification and, perhaps, the search for such a theory is doomed to failure in advance. The existence of systems of stratification cannot be exhaustively explained either by the functional necessity of different social positions, or by the hierarchy of social values, or by the structure industrial relations. These schemes can only explain certain aspects of inequality.

M. Weber also showed that social inequality manifests itself in three dimensions - the economic (class) dimension of prestige (status), cratic (imperious). These dimensions are usually interconnected and feed off each other, but do not always coincide. For example, activities that enjoy prestige in society (teaching, creative professions), is not always highly paid to ensure a high economic position. In a society with an undistorted system of stratification, crime bosses and currency prostitutes do not have power and prestige, although they may have high economic opportunities.

Systems of social stratification(on one's own)

The stories are known various systems social stratification. First of all, they can be classified into closed and open. IN open systems it is quite easy for individuals to change their social status. The openness of the system means the possibility for any member of society to rise or fall on the social ladder in accordance with their abilities and efforts. In such systems, the status achieved means no less than the status assigned to a person from birth. For example, in modern Western society, any individual, regardless of gender or origin, can, at the cost of more or less effort, significantly increase their initial status, sometimes to extraordinary heights: starting from scratch, becoming a millionaire or the president of a great country.

Closed systems stratifications, on the other hand, presuppose the unconditional primacy of prescribed status. Here it is very difficult, almost impossible for an individual to change the status received by virtue of origin. Such systems are characteristic of traditional societies, especially in the past. For example, the caste system that operated in India until 1900 prescribed rigid boundaries between four castes, the belonging of individuals to which was determined by origin. It was impossible to change the caste. At the same time, the members of each caste were prescribed a strictly defined occupation, their own rituals, food system, rules for dealing with each other and with a woman, and a way of life. Honoring the representatives of the higher castes and contempt for the lower castes were enshrined in religious institutions and traditions. There were still cases of transition from caste to caste, but as single exceptions to the rules.

There are four main systems of social stratification - slavery, caste, clan and class systems.

Slavery- the possession of some people by others. Slaves were among the ancient Romans and Greeks, and among the ancient Africans. In ancient Greece, slaves were physical labor, thanks to which free citizens had the opportunity to express themselves in politics and the arts. Slavery was the least common among nomadic peoples, especially hunter-gatherers, and most prevalent in agrarian societies.

Conditions of slavery and slaveholding varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: having worked for his master for the allotted time, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland. For example, the Israelites freed their slaves in the year of jubilee - every 50 years; in ancient Rome, slaves were generally able to buy their freedom; in order to collect the amount necessary for the ransom, they entered into a deal with their master and sold their services to other people (this is exactly what some educated Greeks who fell into slavery to the Romans did). There are cases in history when a wealthy slave began to lend money to his master, and in the end the master fell into slavery to his former slave. However, in many cases, slavery was for life; in particular, criminals sentenced to life work were turned into slaves and worked on Roman galleys as rowers until their death.

In most places, the children of slaves automatically became slaves too. But in ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free. In some cases, the child of a slave who served all his life in a rich family was adopted by this family, he received the surname of his masters and could become one of the heirs along with the other children of the masters. As a rule, slaves had neither property nor power.

IN caste system status is determined by birth and is lifelong. The basis of the caste system is prescribed status. The achieved status is not able to change the place of the individual in this system. People who are born into a low-status group will always have this status, no matter what they personally manage to achieve in life.

Societies that are characterized by this form of stratification strive for a clear preservation of the boundaries between castes, therefore 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 complicated rules concerning ritual purity, according to which it is believed that communication with representatives of the lower castes defiles the higher caste. The most striking example of the caste system is Indian society before 1900.

estate system became most widespread in feudal Europe and some traditional societies ah Asia, for example in Japan. Its main characteristic is the presence of several (usually three) stable social strata to which individuals belong by origin and the transition between which is very difficult, although in exceptional cases it is possible. The basis of the estate system is not religious institutions, as in the caste system, but legal organization society, providing for the inheritance of titles and statuses. Different estates differed from each other in their way of life, level of education, traditional upbringing, culture, accepted norms of behavior. Marriages usually took place within the same class. The fundamental difference between the estates was not so much in economic well-being, but in access to political and social power and socially significant knowledge. Each estate had a monopoly on certain types of occupations and professions. For example, the clergy belonged to the second estate, state and military ranks were received only by nobles. Society had a complex and branched hierarchy. It was also a closed system, although there were cases of an individual change of status: as a result of inter-class marriages, at the behest of a monarch or feudal lord - as a reward for special merits, when tonsured to monasticism or received the rank of clergyman.

class system much more open than the systems of stratification based on slavery, caste and class, which are closed. Here, the boundaries separating people are so clear and firm that they do not leave them the opportunity to move from one group to another, with the exception of marriages between members of different clans. The class system is based primarily on money or material possessions. Class is also determined at birth: the individual receives the status of his parents, but the social class of the individual during his life may change depending on what he managed (or failed) to achieve in life. In addition, there are no laws that determine the occupation or profession of an individual depending on birth or prohibit 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 room for social mobility, i.e. to move up (or down) the social ladder. Having the potential to advance one's social position, or class, is one of the main driving forces that motivates people to study well and work hard. Of course, marital status, inherited by a person from birth, can also 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 practically impossible for him to “slide down” the class ladder.

(from Lat. stratum - layer + facere - to do) is called the differentiation of people in society depending on access to power, profession, income and some other socially significant features. The concept of "stratification" was proposed by a sociologist (1889-1968), who borrowed it from the natural sciences, where it, in particular, denotes the distribution of geological layers.

Rice. 1. The main types of social stratification (differentiation)

The distribution of social groups and people by strata (layers) makes it possible to single out relatively stable elements of the structure of society (Fig. 1) in terms of access to power (politics), professional functions performed and income received (economy). Three main types of stratification are presented in history - castes, estates and classes (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Main historical types of social stratification

castes(from portuguese casta - genus, generation, origin) - closed community groups related by common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are forbidden. The most famous is the caste system of India (Table 1), originally based on the division of the population into four varnas (in Sanskrit this word means “kind, genus, color”). According to legend, varnas were formed from different parts of the body of the primordial man, who was sacrificed.

Table 1. Caste system in ancient India

	Representatives		Associated body part
Brahmins	Scholars and priests
	Warriors and rulers
	Peasants and merchants
	"Untouchable", dependent persons

Estates - social groups whose rights and obligations, enshrined in law and tradition, are inherited. Below are the main estates characteristic of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries:

• the nobility is a privileged class from among the large landowners and officials who have served themselves. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;
• clergy - ministers of worship and the church, with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic) are distinguished;
• merchant class - the trading class, which included the owners of private enterprises;
• peasantry - the class of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as the main profession;
• philistinism - the urban class, consisting of artisans, small merchants and lower employees.

In some countries, a military estate was distinguished (for example, chivalry). IN Russian Empire the Cossacks were sometimes referred to as a special estate. Unlike the caste system, marriages between members of different classes are permissible. It is possible (although difficult) to move from one class to another (for example, the purchase of the nobility by a merchant).

Classes(from lat. classis - category) - large groups of people, differing in their attitude to property. The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), who proposed the historical classification of classes, pointed out that important criterion distinguishing classes is the position of their members - oppressed or oppressed:

• in a slave-owning society, such were slaves and slave-owners;
• in feudal society, feudal lords and dependent peasants;
• in capitalist society, the capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and the workers (the proletariat);
• there will be no classes in a communist society.

In modern sociology, one often speaks of classes in the most general sense - as collections of people with similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:

• upper class: divided into upper upper class (rich people from "old families") and lower upper class (recently rich people);
• middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and
• lower middle (skilled workers and employees); The lower class is divided into an upper lower class (unskilled workers) and a lower lower class (lumpen and marginals).

The lower lower class are groups of the population that, for various reasons, do not fit into the structure of society. In fact, their representatives are excluded from the social class structure, so they are also called declassed elements.

The declassed elements include lumpen - vagabonds, beggars, beggars, as well as outcasts - those who have lost their social characteristics and have not acquired in return new system norms and values, such as former factory workers who lost their jobs due to economic crisis, or peasants driven off the land during industrialization.

Strata - groups of people with similar characteristics social space. This is the most universal and broadest concept, which makes it possible to single out any fractional elements in the structure of society according to a set of various socially significant criteria. For example, strata such as elite specialists, professional entrepreneurs, government officials, office workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc. are distinguished. Classes, estates and castes can be considered varieties of strata.

Social stratification reflects presence in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have different opportunities to meet their needs. Inequality is the source of stratification in society. Thus, inequality reflects differences in the access of representatives of each layer to social benefits, and stratification is a sociological characteristic of the structure of society as a set of layers.

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

For a more precise definition of this concept, one 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 obligations, 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."

“Social stratification begins with Weber's distinction between more traditional societies based on status (for example, societies based on prescribed categories such as class and caste, slavery, whereby inequality is sanctioned by law) and polarized but more diffuse societies based on basically classes where personal achievement plays a big role, where economic differentiation is of paramount importance and is more impersonal.

concept social stratification is closely connected with the division of society into social strata, and the stratification model of society is built on the basis of such a phenomenon as social status.

social status- a position occupied by a person or group in society and associated with certain rights and obligations. This position is always relative, i.e. considered in comparison with the status of other individuals or groups. Status is determined by profession, socio-economic status, political opportunities, gender, origin, marital status, race and nationality. Social status characterizes the place of a person or a social group in the social structure of society, in the system of social interactions and, of course, 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.

Exist different kinds 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, which he automatically occupies as a representative of a large social group or community (professional, class, national).

Still talking about main status- the most characteristic status for a given individual, according to which others distinguish him or with which they identify him. In this regard, allocate prescribed status (independent of the desires, aspirations and efforts of a given person) and achieved status (the 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" is borrowed by sociology from geology, where it refers to the vertically arranged layers of the earth that are found when cut. Stratification - a certain section of the social structure of society, or theoretical perspective on how human society works. In real life, people certainly don't stand above or below others.

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

Thus, the German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf(b. in 1929) proposed to put the political concept of " authority”, which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes the relations of power and the struggle between social groups for power. Based on this approach, R. Dahrendorf presents the structure of society, consisting of managers and managed. He, in turn, divides the former into owner-managers and non-owner-managers, or bureaucrat-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. As defining features of the stratum, he singled out 4 parameters: income, prestige of the profession, education, and ethnicity.

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

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

Allocate more and 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 rewards. From point of view evolutionism, as culture becomes more complex and develops, there is a division of labor and specialization of activities. Some activities turn out to be more important, requiring long-term preparation and appropriate remuneration, while others are less important and therefore more massive, 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 incomes, 2) level of education, 3) access to power, 4) prestige of the profession. Individuals with 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 minimum income below the poverty threshold, live on government benefits, are unable to buy luxuries and have difficulty buying durables, are limited in their recreation and leisure activities, have a low level of education, and do not occupy positions of power in society. Thus, the four criteria of inequality describe, among other things, differences in the level, quality, way of life and style of life, cultural values, quality of housing, type of social mobility.

These criteria are taken as the basis typology of social stratification. There are stratifications:

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

Each of them can be represented as a vertically located 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, he occupies such a place on the scale of economic stratification.

political stratification 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 their combinations.

Educational scale is based on the number of years of school and university education. This is a single criterion, indicating that in society there are one system education, with formal certification of its levels and qualifications. The person who has elementary education, will be located at the bottom, with a college or university degree - in the middle, and with a doctorate or professor's degree - at the top.

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

Social stratification: concept, criteria, types

To get started, watch the video tutorial on social stratification:

The concept of social stratification

Social stratification is the process of arranging individuals and social groups in horizontal layers (strata). This process is associated primarily with both economic and human causes. The economic reasons for social stratification is that resources are limited. And because of this, they must be rationally disposed of. That is why the ruling class stands out - it owns the resources, and the exploited class - it obeys the ruling class.

Among the universal causes of social stratification are:

psychological reasons. People are not equal in their inclinations and abilities. Some can focus on anything long hours: on reading, watching movies, creating something new. Others do not need anything and are not interested. Some can go to the goal through all obstacles, and failures only spur them on. Others give up at the first opportunity - it's easier for them to moan and whine that everything is bad.

biological reasons. People are also not equal from birth: some are born with two arms and legs, others are disabled from birth. It is clear that it is extremely difficult to achieve something if you are disabled, especially in Russia.

Objective causes of social stratification. These include, for example, place of birth. If you were born in a more or less normal country, where you will be taught to read and write for free and there are at least some social guarantees, that's good. You have a good chance of being successful. So, if you were born in Russia even in the most remote village and you are a kid, at least you can join the army, and then stay to serve under the contract. Then you may be sent to a military school. It's better than drinking moonshine with your fellow villagers, and by the age of 30 to die in a drunken brawl.

Well, if you were born in some country in which statehood does not really exist, and local princes come to your village with machine guns at the ready and kill anyone at random, and whoever they hit are taken into slavery, then write your life is gone, and together with her and your future.

Criteria of social stratification

The criteria of social stratification include: power, education, income and prestige. Let's analyze each criterion separately.

Power. People are not equal in terms of power. The level of power is measured by (1) the number of people who are under your control, and also (2) the amount of your authority. But the presence of this criterion alone (even the greatest power) does not mean that you are in the highest stratum. For example, a teacher, a teacher of power is more than enough, but the income is lame.

Education. The higher the level of education, the more opportunities. If you have a higher education, this opens up certain horizons for your development. At first glance, it seems that in Russia this is not the case. But that's just how it seems. Because the majority of graduates are dependent - they should be hired. They do not understand that with their higher education they may well open their own business and increase their third criterion of social stratification - income.

Income is the third criterion of social stratification. It is thanks to this defining criterion that one can judge which social class a person belongs to. If the income is from 500 thousand rubles per capita and more per month - then to the highest; if from 50 thousand to 500 thousand rubles (per capita), then you belong to the middle class. If from 2000 rubles to 30 thousand then your class is basic. And also further.

Prestige is the subjective perception people have of your , is a criterion of social stratification. Previously, it was believed that prestige is expressed solely in income, because if you have enough money, you can dress more beautifully and better, and in society, as you know, they are met by clothes ... But even 100 years ago, sociologists realized that prestige can be expressed in the prestige of the profession (professional status).

Types of social stratification

Types of social stratification can be distinguished, for example, by spheres of society. A person in his life can make a career in (become a famous politician), in the cultural (become a recognizable cultural figure), in the social sphere (become, for example, an honorary citizen).

In addition, types of social stratification can be distinguished on the basis of one or another type of stratification systems. The criterion for singling out such systems is the presence or absence of social mobility.

There are several such systems: caste, clan, slave, estate, class, etc. Some of them are discussed above in the video on social stratification.

You must understand that this topic is extremely large, and it is impossible to cover it in one video tutorial and in one article. Therefore, we suggest that you purchase a video course that already contains all the nuances on the topic of social stratification, social mobility and other related topics:

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov