Social stratification is a certain orderliness of society. In the history of human society, there have been various types of stratification. Allocate four main historical types of stratification:
Slavery
Estates
The primitive state is characterized by a natural structuring by age and gender, since inequality in primitive society was negligible. In complex societies, inequality is clearly expressed, it has divided people into groups (strata). Castes arose, then estates, later classes. In some societies, the transition from one social stratum to another is prohibited; there are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely allowed. Freedom of social movement determines whether a society is closed or open.
closed society- one where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited or significantly limited (slavery, castes, estates).
open society– movements from one stratum to another are not officially restricted in any way (classes).
Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality.
Distinguish two forms of slavery:
1) patriarchal- the slave had all the rights of the youngest family member: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, inherited the owner's property;
2) classic- the slave was finally enslaved: he was allowed to be killed, he was considered the property of the owner.
At a mature stage, slavery turns into slavery. Slavery- the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms.
caste system- a closed type of society, i.e. status is given from birth, and mobility is almost impossible. Caste was a hereditary association of people connected by traditional occupations and limited in communication with each other. Caste system took place in Ancient Egypt, Peru, Iran, Japan, in the southern states of the USA. Its classic example was India, where the caste organization turned into a comprehensive social system. The hierarchical ladder of access to wealth and prestige in India had the following steps: 1) brahmins - priests; 2) kshatriyas - military aristocracy; 3) vaishyas - farmers, artisans, merchants, free community members; 4) Shudras - not free community members, servants, slaves; 5) "untouchables", whose contacts with other castes were excluded. This system was banned in India in the 50s of the twentieth century, but caste prejudice and inequality still make themselves felt today.
Class type of social stratification also characterizes a closed society, where mobility is strictly limited, although it is allowed. estate, like caste, was associated with the inheritance of rights and obligations enshrined in custom and law. But unlike caste, the principle of inheritance in estates is not so absolute, and membership can be bought, bestowed, recruited. Class stratification is characteristic of European feudalism, but was also present in other traditional civilizations. Its model is medieval France, where society was divided into four classes: 1) the clergy; 2) nobility; 3) artisans, merchants, servants (city dwellers); 4) peasants. In Russia, from Ivan the Terrible (mid-XNUMXth century) to Catherine II, a hierarchy of estates was formed, officially approved by her decrees (1762 - 1785) in the following form: the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, the bourgeoisie, the peasantry. The decrees stipulated the paramilitary class (sub-ethnos), the Cossacks and the raznochintsy.
class stratification characteristic of open societies. It differs significantly from caste and class stratification. These differences appear as follows:
Classes are not created on the basis of legal and religious norms, membership in them is not based on hereditary position;
Class systems are more fluid, and the boundaries between classes are not rigidly delineated;
Classes depend on economic differences between groups of people associated with inequalities in the ownership and control of material resources;
Class systems mainly carry out connections of an impersonal nature. The main basis of class differences - the inequality between conditions and wages - operates in relation to all occupational groups as a result of economic circumstances belonging to the economy as a whole;
Social mobility is much simpler than in other stratification systems; there are no formal restrictions for it, although mobility is actually constrained by a person's starting capabilities and the level of his claims.
Classes can be defined as large groups of people, differing in their general economic opportunities, which significantly affect the types of their lifestyle.
The most influential theoretical approaches in the definition of classes and class stratification belong to K. Marx and M. Weber.
According to Marx, a class is a community of people in direct relation to the means of production. He singled out the exploiting and exploited classes in society at different stages. The stratification of society according to Marx is one-dimensional, connected only with classes, since its main basis is the economic situation, and all the rest (rights, privileges, power, influence) fit into the “Procrustean bed” of the economic situation, are combined with it.
M. Weber defined classes as groups of people who have a similar position in a market economy, receive similar economic rewards and have similar life chances. Class divisions stem not only from control of the means of production, but also from economic differences not related to property. Such sources include professional excellence, rare specialty, high qualifications, intellectual property ownership, and so on. Weber gave not only class stratification, considering it only a part of the structuring necessary for a complex capitalist society. He proposed a three-dimensional division: if economic differences (by wealth) give rise to class stratification, then spiritual (by prestige) - status, and political (by access to power) - party. In the first case, we are talking about the life chances of social strata, in the second - about the image and style of their life, in the third - about the possession of power and influence on it. Most sociologists consider the Weberian scheme to be more flexible and appropriate for modern society.
The basis of social stratification is social differentiation - the division of people into groups that are correlated with each other both horizontally and vertically. The most common is the social stratification of society based on the following criteria:
- income-the amount of money that a family or a certain individual received for a certain period of time;
- wealth- movable and immovable property, as well as the availability of accumulated income in the form of cash savings;
- power- the ability and ability to manage other people;
- prestige- the degree of respect in society for a particular profession.
History knows various systems of social stratification.
AT open systems individuals simply need to change their social status. The openness of the system means the possibility for any member of society to rise (fall) on the social ladder in accordance with his abilities and efforts. In such systems, the status achieved means no less than the status assigned to a person from birth. In modern society, any individual, regardless of gender and origin, can, at the cost of more or less effort, significantly increase their initial status, for example, starting from zero, becoming the president of the country.
Closed systems stratifications, on the other hand, presuppose the unconditional primacy of assigned status. Here it is almost impossible for an individual to change the status received by virtue of descent. Such systems are characteristic of traditional societies, especially in the past. For example, the caste system that operated in India until 1950 prescribed rigid boundaries between four castes, the belonging of individuals to which was determined by origin. 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. Reverence for representatives of the higher castes and contempt for the lower castes was enshrined in religious institutions and traditions. There were cases of transition from caste to caste, but as single exceptions to the rules.
Four main systems of social stratification are known: slavery, castes, estates and.
Slavery characterized by the possession of some people by others. Slavery was most prevalent in agrarian societies, and slavery was least common among nomadic peoples, especially hunter-gatherers.
Conditions of slavery and slaveholding varied significantly in different regions of the world. In ancient Greece, slaves were engaged in physical labor, thanks to which free citizens had the opportunity to express themselves in politics and the arts. 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. 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 made a deal with the owner 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. In many cases, slavery was for life; in particular, criminals sentenced to hard labor were turned into slaves and worked on Roman galleys as rowers until their death.
The status of a slave was not always inherited. In ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free people. But in most countries the children of slaves automatically became slaves too. 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.
Castes. In the caste system, status is determined by birth and is lifelong; in other words, 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. Those who are born into a low-status group will always have that status, no matter what they have personally achieved in life.
Societies that are characterized by this form of stratification strive to clearly preserve the boundaries between castes, therefore endogamy (marriages within their own group) is practiced here and intergroup marriages are prohibited, complex rules have been developed according to which communication with representatives of the lower castes defiles the higher caste.
estate system was most widespread in feudal Europe and some traditional Asian societies, such as 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 the legal organization of society, which provided for the inheritance of titles and statuses, so marriages were usually concluded within the same estate. 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. The class system is a closed system, although occasionally an individual change of status was allowed: as a result of inter-class marriages, at the behest of a monarch or feudal lord - as a reward for special merits, when tonsured into monasticism or received the rank of clergyman.
class system far more open than systems of stratification based on slavery, caste, and class, where the boundaries separating people are so clear and rigid that they leave no way for people to move from one group to another, except for marriages between members of different clans. The class system is based primarily on money or material possessions. Although class is also determined at birth - the individual receives the status of his parents, however, the social class of the individual during his life can 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, this system of social stratification is characterized by the relative flexibility of its boundaries. The class system leaves room for social mobility, i.e. to move up (down) the social ladder. Having the potential to advance 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, may determine extremely disadvantageous conditions that will not leave him a chance to rise too high in life, or provide him with such privileges that it will be almost impossible for him to “slide down” the class ladder.
Ideas about social mobility
The concept of social mobility was first introduced by P. Sorokin, who defined it as "any transition of an individual, social object or value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another." Sorokin considered mobility as one of the necessary social functions. Downward mobility is due to the exclusion of less fortunate and less capable individuals in the competitive struggle, and at the level of group mobility it is due to a decrease in the social prestige of specific professions due to objective factors, the loss of popularity of political parties, etc.
social mobility called the movement of individuals in the system of social stratification from one layer to another. There are at least two reasons for the existence of social mobility in society. First, societies change, and social change alters the division of labor, creating new statuses and undermining old ones. Second, although the elite may monopolize educational opportunities, it is unable to control the natural distribution of talent and ability, so the upper strata are inevitably replenished with talented people from the lower strata.
Social mobility comes in many forms. She may be:
- vertical - this is a change in the position of the individual, which causes an increase or decrease in his social status. For example, if an auto mechanic becomes the director of a car service, this is an indication of upward mobility, and if an auto mechanic becomes a cleaner, such a movement will be an indicator of downward mobility;
- horizontal - a change in the position of the individual, which does not lead to an increase or decrease in social status. For example, if an auto mechanic gets a job as a locksmith, such movement would mean horizontal mobility;
- intergenerational (intergenerational), determined by comparing the social status of parents and their children at a certain point in the career of both (for example, by the rank of their profession at approximately the same age). Research shows that a significant portion, perhaps even the majority, of the Russian population moves at least slightly up or down in the class hierarchy in each generation;
- intragenerational (intragenerational), which involves comparing the social status of an individual over a long period of time. As evidenced by the results of studies, many Russians changed their occupation during their lives. However, the mobility of the majority is limited. Traveling short social distances is the rule, long distances are the exception.
For open stratification systems, vertical mobility is a fairly common phenomenon, if we are not talking about dizzying jumps from the bottom to the elite, but about moving step by step. For example, the grandfather is a peasant, the father is a rural teacher, the son moves to the city and defends his dissertation.
In closed systems, social mobility is practically excluded. For example, in caste and class societies, the social norm was, on the one hand, dozens of generations of shoemakers, tanners, merchants, serfs, and on the other hand, long genealogical chains of noble families. The monotony of such social reality is evidenced by the street names given in historical sources, for example Khlebny Lane, Kuznetsky Most Street in Moscow. Craftsmen passed on their status and profession from generation to generation and even lived side by side.
Types of stratification systems
Social inequality can be represented as a scale, where at one extreme - the rich, people who own the maximum amount of scarce resources, at the other - the poor, respectively, with minimal access to public goods. Distinguish between absolute and relative poverty. Under absolute poverty is understood as such a state in which an individual is not able to satisfy even basic needs (for food, clothing, housing) on the income received, or to satisfy them in an amount that ensures only biological survival. The inability to maintain the “decent” living standards accepted in society is considered as relative poverty.
Poverty is not only the economic and social condition of people, but also a special way, a lifestyle that is passed down from generation to generation and limits the possibilities for normal civilized development. In Russia, for characterization poverty level, which is determined by the proportion of the population of the country, located at the officially fixed traits, or poverty line. commonly used indicator living wage. Given that currently about 30% of the Russian population lives at or below the poverty line. an important task of the state is to reduce poverty.
To measure inequality, P. Sorokin introduced two parameters:
- stratification height - the magnitude of the social distance between the highest and lowest status in a given society;
- stratification profile - the ratio of the number of social positions occupied in the hierarchy of values of the status layer (stratum).
It should be noted that there is the following pattern: the higher the level of development of society, the lower the height of stratification, and vice versa. So. in developed societies profile stratification approaching diamond-shaped form due to the large middle class, and in the backward - to the pyramidal, or "conical". The Russian stratification profile rather resembles a triangle with a vertically protruding acute angle.
An important empirical indicator of social inequality is decile coefficient, which is understood as the ratio of incomes of the 10% richest to the 10% of the lowest paid groups. So, in highly developed industrial countries it is 4-7, where even the approach of this coefficient to 8 is considered as an indicator of future social upheavals.
In general, despite the differences in the views of different sociological schools and trends, it can be noted that social inequality performs a positive function in society, since it serves as an incentive for the progress of social development.
Under social stratification system It is customary to understand the totality of ways that support the unevenness of this distribution in a given society. In sociology, four main historical types of stratification systems are distinguished: slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies in which social movement from one stratum to another is either completely prohibited or significantly restricted. The fourth type belongs to open a society where transitions from the lower to the higher strata are quite real.
1. Slavery is a form of economic, social and legal enslavement of people. This is the only form of social relations in history in which one person is the property of another, deprived of all rights and freedoms.
2. Caste system - stratification system, which involves the life-long assignment of a person to a certain stratum on an ethnic-religious or economic basis. Man owes his membership in this system solely to his birth. A classic example of a caste system is India, where there was a detailed regulation for each caste. So. according to the canons of this system, belonging to one or another caste was inherited, and therefore the possibility of moving from one caste to another was prohibited.
3. The estate system is a stratification system that involves the legal assignment of a person to a certain stratum. At the same time, the rights and obligations of each stratum were determined by law and consecrated by religion. Membership in the estate was mainly inherited, but as an exception it could be acquired for money or bestowed.
The class organization of European feudal society was divided into two upper classes(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(merchants, artisans, peasants). The barriers between the estates were quite rigid, so social mobility was carried out not so much between as within the estates, which included many ranks, ranks, layers, professions.
4. Class system - an open-type stratification system, where, unlike previous closed-type systems, belonging to classes is determined primarily by a place in the system of social production, ownership of property, as well as the availability of abilities, education, and the level of income received.
The considered stratification system is generally recognized, but not the only classification. In reality, all stratification systems are closely intertwined and complement each other.
There are many stratification criteria by which any society can be divided. Each of them is associated with special ways of determining and reproducing social inequality. The nature of social stratification and the way it is established in their unity form what we call the stratification system.
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description of caste, slaveholding, estate and class differentiation is usually given. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in the modern world or already irrevocably gone into the past.
The following are nine types of stratification systems that, in my opinion, can be used to describe any social organism, namely:
Physico-genetic;
slaveholding;
Cast;
Class;
Ektaratic;
Socio-professional;
class;
Cultural - symbolic;
Cultural - normative;
The first type of physical-genetic stratification system is based on the differentiation of social groups according to “natural” socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, those with physical disabilities are considered defective and occupy a humbled social position.
Inequality in this case is affirmed by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then fixed in customs and rituals.
This "natural" stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to be reproduced to this day. It is especially strong in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The one who is able to carry out violence against nature and people or resist such violence has the greatest prestige here: a healthy young man is a breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of primitive manual labor; courageous warrior of the Spartan state; a true Aryan of the National Socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring.
The system that ranks people according to their capacity for physical violence is largely a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. At present, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sexually-erotic propaganda.
The second stratification system - slaveholding - is also based on direct violence. But the inequality of people here is determined not by physical, but by military-physical coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil rights and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, along with things, are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slaveholding systems are quite varied. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servility in Russia during the Russkaya Pravda, this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American United States before the civil war of 1861-1865, and, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deported persons on German private farms during the Second World War.
The methods of reproduction of the slave-owning system are also characterized by considerable diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly by conquest. For early feudal Russia, it was more debt, enslaving slavery. The practice of selling one's own children without being able to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. In the same place, various kinds of criminals (including political ones) were turned into slaves. This practice was practically reproduced much later in the Soviet Gulag (although private slavery was carried out here in forms hidden outside the legal framework).
The third type of stratification system is caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by the religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the special functions of each caste in the system of division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities of social mobility are extremely limited here.
And the stronger caste is expressed, the more closed this society turns out to be. India is rightfully considered a classic example of a society dominated by the caste system (this system was legally abolished only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. Explicit features of caste were affirmed in the middle of the twentieth century by the policy of fascist states (the Aryans were assigned the position of the highest ethnic caste, called to dominate the Slavs, Jews, etc.). The role of binding theological doctrines in this case is assumed by the nationalist ideology.
The fourth type is represented by a class stratification system. In this system, groups differ in legal rights, which, in turn, are strictly related to their duties and are directly dependent on these duties. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in law. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.
Examples of developed estate systems are feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. An estate is, first of all, a legal division, and not, say, an ethnic-religious or economic division. It is also important that belonging to a class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.
Some similarity with the estate system is observed in the ektaratic system representing the fifth type (from French and Greek - “state power”). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in their respective power hierarchies.
All other differences - demographic and religious - ethnic, economic and cultural play a secondary role. The scale and nature of differentiation (the amount of power) in the ektaratic system is under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be fixed formally - legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations, assignment of categories to state institutions, or they can remain outside the sphere of state legislation (a good example is the system of the Soviet party nomenclature, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws). The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.
The etacratic system is revealed with all the greater force, the more authoritarian character the government assumes. In ancient times, societies of Asian despotism (China, India, Cambodia), located, however, by no means only in Asia (for example, in Peru, Egypt) were a vivid example of the etacratic system. In the twentieth century, it is actively asserting itself in the so-called socialist societies and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special ektaratic system is not yet traditional for works on stratification typologies.
This is followed by the sixth, socio-professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. A special role is played by the qualification requirements for a particular professional role - the possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. Approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, grades, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types of activities. The validity of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history. Socio-professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with any developed division of labor. This is a system of craft workshops of a medieval city and a rank grid in modern state industry, a system of certificates and diplomas of education, a system of scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.
The seventh type is represented by the popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach. But for us, class division is only a particular case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of “class”, we will focus in this case on the more traditional - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes represent social groups of politically and legally free citizens. Differences between groups are primarily in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated by the highest authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited. In its purest form, the class system does not contain any internal formal partitions at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).
Economically egalitarian communities, where class differentiation is completely absent, are a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But throughout most of human history, class divisions still bear a subordinate character. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies. And the class system reaches its greatest heights in the liberal spirit of the United States of America.
The eighth type is cultural-symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, and the ability to be a bearer of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to church ministers, who make up the bulk of the literate population, interpreters of sacred texts, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims to communicate with divine forces, to possess scientific truth on expression of public interest existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this regard is occupied by those who have the best opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can prove their rights to true understanding better than others, own the best symbolic capital.
Simplifying the picture somewhat, we can say that pre-industrial societies are more characterized by theocratic manipulation; for industrial - partocratic; and for post - industrial - technocratic.
The ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural-normative. Here, differentiation is built on differences of respect and prestige that arise from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior followed by a given person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental labor, consumer tastes and habits, manners of communication and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “them”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble-not noble”, “decent-not decent”, “elite-ordinary people-bottom”). The concept of elites is surrounded by a certain mysterious veil. They talk a lot about it, but often, they do not outline any clear denoting boundaries.
The elite is not only a category of politics. In modern society, there are many elites - political, military, economic, professional. Somewhere these elites are intertwined, somewhere they compete with each other. It can be said that there are as many elites as there are areas of social life. But no matter what area we take, the elite is essentially a minority that opposes the rest of society, its middle and lower strata as a kind of “mass”. At the same time, the position of the elite as an upper class or caste can be fixed by a formal law or religious code, or it can be achieved in a completely informal way.
Elitist theories arose and were formed to a large extent as a reaction to radical and socialist teachings and were directed against various currents of socialism: Marxist, anarcho-syndicalist. Therefore, Marxists, in fact, were very skeptical about these theories, did not want to recognize them and apply them to the material of Western societies. For this would mean, firstly, the recognition that the lower strata are a weak or not at all organized mass that needs to be controlled, a mass incapable of self-organization and revolutionary action, and secondly, recognition to some extent of the inevitability and the “naturalness” of such a sharp inequality. As a result, views on the role and character of the class struggle would have to be radically revised.
But the elitist approach is directed against democratic parliamentarism. He is generally anti-democratic in nature. Democracy and accessories presuppose the rule of the majority and the universal equality of people as independent citizens, organized enough to realize their own goals and interests. And because of this, the champions of democracy treat any attempts at elite rule rather coldly.
Numerous approaches to the concept can be divided into two main groups - authoritative and meritocratic. In accordance with the former, the elite are those who have decisive power in a given society, and in accordance with the latter, those who have certain special virtues and personal qualities, regardless of whether they have power or not.
In the latter case, the elite is distinguished by talent and merit. Sometimes domineering and meritocratic approaches are conventionally referred to as the “Lasswell line” and “Pareto line”. (Although the first approach might just as well be called the “Mosca line” or “Mills line”.)
One group of researchers understands the elite as layers that have the highest positions of power or the highest formal power in organizations and institutions. Another group refers to the elite of charismatic personalities, divinely inspired, capable of leadership, representatives of the creative minority.
In turn, power approaches are divided into structural and functional. Those who choose a structural approach that is simpler from an empirical point of view consider the elite to be the circle of persons holding the highest positions in the institutions under consideration (ministers, directors, military leaders).
Those who dwell on the functional approach set themselves a more difficult task: to identify groups that have real power in making socially important decisions (many representatives of these groups, of course, may not hold any prominent public posts, remain in the “shadow”) .
The first system of social stratification is slavery, which arose in antiquity and in some backward regions is still preserved. There are two forms of slavery: patriarchal, in which the slave has all the rights of the youngest member of the family, and classic, in which the slave has no rights and is considered the property of the owner (a talking tool). Slavery was based on direct violence, and social groups in the era of slavery were distinguished by the presence or absence of civil rights.
The second system of social stratification should be recognized castesystem. A caste is a social group (stratum) in which membership is transferred to a person only by birth. The transition of a person from one caste to another during his lifetime is impossible - for this he needs to be born again. India is a classic example of a caste society. In India, there are four main castes, descended, according to legend, from various parts of the god Brahma:
a) brahmins - priests;
b) kshatriyas - warriors;
c) vaishyas - merchants;
d) Shudras - peasants, artisans, workers.
A special position is occupied by the so-called untouchables, who do not belong to any caste and occupy a lower position.
31. Historical types of stratification: estates,clans, classes.
In sociology, there are four main type of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type - open ones.
estate- a group of people who have rights and obligations enshrined in law or custom, inherited. Usually in society there are privileged and unprivileged classes. For example, in Western Europe, the first group included the nobility and clergy (in France they were called that - the first estate and the second estate) to the second - artisans, merchants and peasants. In Russia until 1917, in addition to the privileged (the nobility, the clergy) and the unprivileged (the peasantry), there were also semi-privileged estates (for example, the Cossacks).
Finally, another stratification system is the class system. The most complete definition of classes in the scientific literature was given by V. I. Lenin: “Classes are large groups of people who differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach, although in fact class division is only a special case of social stratification.
Depending on the historical period in society, the following are distinguished as the main classes :
a) slaves and slave owners;
b) feudal lords and feudal dependent peasants;
c) the bourgeoisie and the proletariat;
d) the so-called middle class.
32.Problems of stratification in modernRussian society.
Bernard Barber, based on the fact that individuals occupy different positions in social systems, with a certain degree of hierarchy, singled out two main figures - a pyramid and a rhombus. But if the West is currently characterized by a diamond-shaped figure, then for Russia, in contrast, it is a pyramidal figure (the poor are a large stratum, a small middle and a little elite). The changes that began in Russia in the 1990s led to a sharp division of the population along property lines, and a bipolar stratification structure was formed. After conducting a rather extensive study of the current state of affairs in Russia, scientists came to the conclusion that “the social structure of Russian society is acquiring the features of a bourgeois society of early capitalism, which is characterized by an amorphous class structure, an intensive process of lumpenization (from German - rags) of workers, and the criminalization of social relations. In the formation of the social structure of society, subjective status, ideological and political, socio-psychological, socio-spiritual features are becoming increasingly important. Associative groups of the population acquire special significance in the conditions of disruption of the dynamic balance of society”
33.Social mobility: essence, causes,mechanisms, classification.
According to the definition of P. Sorokin, "... social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another."
P. Sorokin distinguishes between two types of social mobility: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mobility- this is the transition of an individual or a social object from one social position to another, lying on the same level. In all these cases, the individual does not change the social stratum to which he belongs, or social status. But the most important process is vertical mobility, which is a set of interactions that contribute to the transition of an individual or a social object from one social stratum to another.
Society can elevate the status of some individuals and lower the status of others. Depending on this, there are ascending and descending social mobility, or social upsurge and social downfall. To quantify mobility processes, indicators are usually used speed and intensity social mobility. The speed of mobility is understood as "the vertical social distance or the number of strata - economic, professional or political, that an individual passes in his movement up or down in a certain period of time." Under intensity Mobility refers to the number of individuals who change social positions in a vertical or horizontal direction over a certain period of time. As a variant of social mobility - intragenerational and intergenerational.
P. Sorokin considers the following social institutions to be channels or "elevators" of social mobility: the army, church, educational institutions, family, political and professional organizations, mass media, etc. To overcome the cultural barrier and the barrier of communication, there are several ways that individuals resort to in one way or another in the process of social mobility.
1. Lifestyle change.
2. Development of typical status behavior.
3. Change in the social environment.
4. Marriage with a representative of a higher status stratum.
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description of caste, slaveholding, estate and class differentiation is usually given. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in the modern world or already irrevocably gone into the past. Another approach assumes that any particular society consists of combinations of various stratification systems. and many of their transitional forms. Can be distinguished nine types of stratification systems, which can be used to describe any social organism, namely:
Physico-genetic;
Socio-professional;
slaveholding;
class;
Cast;
Cultural and symbolic;
Class;
Cultural and normative;
Etacratic.
Based on the first type physical-genetic stratification systems - lies the differentiation of social groups according to "natural" socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, those with physical disabilities are considered defective and occupy a humbled social position. Inequality is affirmed in this case by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then it is fixed in customs and rituals.
This "natural" stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to be reproduced to this day. It is especially strong in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The greatest prestige here belongs to those who are able to carry out violence against nature and people or resist such violence: a healthy young male breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of primitive manual labor; courageous warrior of the Spartan state; a true Aryan of the National Socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring. The system that ranks people according to their capacity for physical violence is largely a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. At present, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sexual-erotic propaganda.
The second stratification system - slaveholding- is also based on direct violence. But inequality here is determined not by physical, but by military-legal coercion.
Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil rights and property rights. Certain social groups have been completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, along with things, have been turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slaveholding systems are quite diverse. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servility in Russia during the Russkaya Pravda, this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American states before the civil war of 1861-1865, and, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deported persons on German private farms during World War II.
The methods of reproduction of the slave-owning system are also characterized by considerable diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly by conquest. For early feudal Russia, debt, enslavement was more characteristic. The practice of selling one's own children into slavery without being able to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. In the same place, various kinds of criminals (including political ones) were turned into slaves. This practice was reproduced much later in the Soviet Gulag (although slaveholding was carried out here only in hidden non-legal forms).
The third type of stratification system - caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by the religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the functions of each caste in the system of division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities of social mobility are extremely limited here. And the stronger caste is expressed, the more closed this society turns out to be.
A classic example of a society With India is considered to be the dominance of the caste system (legally, this system was abolished here only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. Obvious features of caste were affirmed in the middle of the twentieth century by the policy of fascist states (the Aryans were given the position of the highest ethnic caste, called to dominate the Slavs, Jews and etc.). In this case, the nationalist ideology assumed the role of binding theological doctrines.
The fourth type is represented class stratification system. In this system, groups are distinguished by legal rights, which, in turn, are tightly bound With their duties and are directly dependent on these duties. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in law. Some classes are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.
Examples of developed estate systems were feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. This is how V.O. Klyuchevsky in his “History of estates in Russia”: “We call classes (“classes” for him simply a synonym for the concept of “groups” - author), into which societies are divided according to rights and duties established by the supreme power. - "The estate division is essentially legal, it is established by the Law, unlike other social divisions." So, this is, first of all, a legal, and not, say, ethnic-religious or economic division. It is also important that belonging to a class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.
Some similarity with the estate system is observed in representing the fifth type thiscratic system (from French and Greek - "state power"). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as according to the privileges that these groups are able to derive from their positions of power.
The degree of material well-being, the style of life of social groups, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in the respective power hierarchies. All other differences - demographic and religious-ethnic, economic and cultural - play a secondary role.
The scale and nature of differentiation (volumes of power) in the etacratic system are under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be fixed formally legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations, assignment of categories to state institutions - or they can remain outside the sphere of state legislation (a good example is the system of the Soviet party nomenclature, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws) . The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.
The etacratic system is revealed with all the greater force, the more authoritarian character the government assumes. In ancient times bright examples of the eta-cratic system were observed in the societies of Asiatic despotism (China, India, Cambodia), located, however, by no means only in Asia (for example, in Peru, Egypt). In the twentieth century, it is actively asserting itself in the so-called "socialist societies" and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special etacratic system is not yet traditional for work on stratification typologies.
Followed by the sixth socio-professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. A special role is played by the qualification requirements for to that or another professional role - the possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. Approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, assignment of categories, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types of activities. The validity of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history.
The socio-professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with a more or less developed division of labor. This is the structure of craft workshops of a medieval city and the bit grid in modern state industry, a system of certificates and diplomas about received education, a system of scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.
The seventh type is represented by the most popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach. But class division is only a particular case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of "class", we will focus in this case on the most traditional - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes are social groups of politically and legally free citizens. The differences between these groups lie in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated by the highest authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited (property and capital are transferred, but not the status itself). In its purest form, the class system does not contain any internal formal partitions at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).
Economically egalitarian communities, where there is absolutely no class differentiation, are a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But throughout most of human history, class divisions still bear a subordinate character. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies.
It remains to consider two more stratification systems. One of them can be called cultural and symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, and the ability to be a bearer of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to church ministers, interpreters of sacred texts, who make up the bulk of the literate population, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims for communion with divine forces, for the possession of truth, for the expression of the state interest have existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this regard is occupied by those who have the best opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can prove their rights to true understanding better than others, own the best symbolic capital.
Simplifying the picture somewhat, we can say that theocratic manipulation is more typical for pre-industrial societies, partocratic manipulation for industrial ones, and technocratic manipulation for post-industrial ones.
Finally, the last, ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural and normative. Here, differentiation is built on differences in respect and prestige that arise from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior followed by a given person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental labor, consumer tastes and habits, manners of communication and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “them”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble - ignoble”, “decent - dishonorable”, “elite - ordinary people - the bottom”).
The noble manners of a gentleman, the idle pastime of an aristocrat, the selfless asceticism of a religious ascetic, the oratory of an ideological leader are not only signs of a high social position. They often turn into normative guidelines, models of social action and begin to perform the functions of moral regulation, which determines this type of stratification relations.
And this concerns not only the isolation of the elite, but also the differentiation of all the middle and lower strata. In the peasant community, where formally everyone is equal, there are "serviceable owners" who live "according to custom", "according to conscience", and loafers, renegades, "tumbleweeds". There is its own normative culture, its own patterns of behavior and its own "aristocracy" at the very "bottom", inside the criminal world. The emergence of countercultures and so-called "anti-social behavior", by the way, is also largely a product of moral regulation and ideological control carried out in a given society.
The list of stratification systems is not completely exhausted by the indicated nine types. One can, for example, raise the question of a special socio-territorial type, where groups are differentiated by their place of residence and the type of settlements, and the differences are determined by the system of citizenship, passport regime, housing policy, etc. Our approach provides sufficient scope for creativity.
One of the main watersheds between stratification systems is the heritability or non-heritability of the respective positions in the hierarchy. Slave, estate and caste systems include elements of lifelong and formal legal inheritance. Other systems, at least, do not provide for the formally life-long nature of statuses, nor for their inheritance.
However, this watershed is mobile. On the one hand, there are limits to the rigidity of formal legal stratification boundaries. So, slaves can be released or redeemed for freedom. Representatives of the merchant class, going bankrupt, descend into a lower petty-bourgeois class (for Russia in the 19th century, this is a common case). Conversely, under certain conditions, one can earn (and sometimes buy) an honorary hereditary title. And even with the most rigid caste system, there are still opportunities for vertical social mobility.
On the other hand, the higher groups in all stratification systems strive to consolidate their position, to make it not only monopoly, but also inheritable. In the class system, such inheritance is ensured by the principle of primacy (transfer of the main property to the eldest heir), which is typical, say, for ancient India, Western Europe of the 11th-13th centuries. or Russia until 1917 (The rest of the relatives in this case actually go down the class ladder.) In the etacratic system, the official does not formally have the right to transfer his chair and authority to his own children, but he is able, through patronage, to provide them with an equally enviable place in institution of similar rank. The position in the socio-professional, cultural-symbolic and cultural-normative strata is often really transmitted through education and upbringing, the transfer of experience and secrets of mastery, the sanctioning of certain codes of conduct (professional dynasties are not the only, but a vivid example). As for the physical-genetic system, it stands somewhat apart, because inheritance occurs here often, but not as a result of any social mechanisms, but purely biologically.
We emphasize once again that all nine types of stratification systems are nothing more than "ideal types". Any real society is their complex mixture, combination. In reality, stratification types are intertwined and complement each other.