Search

IN A RECENT paper Mr. Runciman concludes by inviting replies to his argument that it is logically and conceptually useful to employ the tripartite distinction between `class' `status' and `power' in the analysis of social stratification. Mr. Runciman does not, of course, deny the existence of links between these three dimensions, but suggests that such links must be seen contingent empirical relationships and not necessary logical ones. I hope that the following paper will provide such a reply. It must be clear that the following criticism is directed, in the main, to those parts of the paper in which Mr. Runciman is concerned with the logical and conceptual problem. The essay in question also contains a clear and valuable assessment of the problems encountered in any attempt to measure the three types of inequality. In the first part of the paper I propose to give a critical assessment of certain central aspects of Mr. Runciman's argument and, in the second part, I will put forward a very brief formulation of what I consider to be a more meaningful alternative view of the relationships between class, status, and power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is intended as a contribution to the formal theory of stratification systems. The paper has five sections. In Section I, a method for analytically inducing an order over a multi-dimensional status is discussed. It is believed that such a technique can aid in the specification of conceptual tasks within stratification theory, as well as serve as a baseline in actual measurements. It is subsequently employed in the axiomatic work of Sections 3 and 4. In Section 2, there is a brief discussion of the axiomatic method as a prelude to the system developed in the following two sections. In Section 3, the axioms are stated. In Section 4, various elementary consequences of the axioms are shown; most importantly, various concepts which are intuitively important in stratification theory are shown to be definable (e.g., a class system with a determinate number of classes). Finally, in Section s, there is a concluding discussion of the picture of stratification which emerges within this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on castes, outcastes and the sociology of stratification. In this paper an attempt will be made to explore in necessarily preliminary terms the reasons for the occurrence of caste structures and their most extreme manifestations, untouchable groups, in so many different places and in so many different socio-cultural contexts. Obviously, unless one is to believe in multiple cases of unique social causation, societies displaying caste characteristics may be suspected of having structural properties in common which predispose them to develop along such lines once the right combination of historical events takes place. The study of caste groups is but a particular aspect of the study of social stratification and social stratification is to be found is one form or another in almost all human societies. Outcastes are, of course, simply a variety of caste group, despite the misleading implications of the word used to designate them, their presence in a society announces that caste in one of its more rigid manifestations is to be found there. Their presence also announces in the case of Asia, that a mingling has occurred between certain indigenous social institutions of the society and what the author refers to as the 'Hindu Ethic' which have been introduced by the process of historical diffusion.

The Index of Class Position (ICP) described in this article was developed to provide an easily applied intercommunity measure of stratification that would improve upon the accuracy of estimating an individual's position in the class structure. The need for such a measure arose from research being done in the college setting, which often makes existing stratification procedures--impracticable. Hollingshead's two-factor Index of Social Position (ISP) remains the only procedure in common use possibly exempt from these deficiencies. Nevertheless, the utility of ISP is seriously reduced for purposes by its inclusion of education as a component. One consequence is that the effect of education can no longer be analyzed independently of social class. This poses a serious limitation in the study of college students. A second consequence is to exacerbate the tendency of most indices to elevate the prestige of the professional. For instance, the weight given education means that all college professors are operationally defined as class I. The result is a confounding of the upper and upper-middle classes which can be a source of significant measurement error, especially in those more selective institutions where a substantial proportion of the students are from the upper class. This paper has introduced an improved intercommunity measure of social stratification, offered a rationale for its development, and presented evidence confirming the validity of its use.

The article focuses on transformations of class structure and social stratification in Poland. The structure of classes and strata has undergone major transformations in People's Poland. The individual classes and social strata are internally diversified and divided into various social groups, each with different socially significant traits. Although both workers and peasants are formally co-owners of the nation's property, the former, unlike the latter, work predominantly in the socialized sector of the economy, where they hold a dual position as both hired labor and collective owners at the same time. An intermediate position in the working class is occupied by so-called peasant workers, a category of people who live on private farms and work chiefly or exclusively outside agriculture either in town or country. The intelligentsia in Poland does not basically differ from the workers as regards its relation to the means of production, although certain segments of the intelligentsia (managerial groups) have a larger direct influence on the administration of means of production.

This article reviews the impress of the American ideology in the American sociological literature on social stratification. Social stratification is defined as the institutionalization of power arrangements that perpetuate intergenerational economic, political, and social inequality among collectivities. The ideology of students of American stratification has remained optimistic, individualistic, and evolutionary. Belief that the stratification system selects for mobility those who are biologically and socially most fit has generally prevailed since the inception of the discipline. Sociologists have also believed that rates of occupational mobility have tended to verify the dominant ideology because the relatively high rates have reduced extremes of economic, social, and political inequality and have created a middle-class society. A corollary of this basic functional argument suggests that status differences become increasingly important as economic equality and political enfranchisement become more widespread. The dominant American ideology has generally permeated most sociological thinking about social stratification, and advances in stratification theory have tended to be systematically ignored in research.

This article analyzes the dynamics of social stratification systems. It is assumed that both structural and cultural variables are essential for the sociological approach to stratification and that it is necessary to find some way of relating these two categories of variable. The fundamental characteristic of the concept stratification is that it involves ranking ordering units in a hierarchy. The sociologist can impose any criterion of ranking onto society and thus divide the units up into classes.

Parsons' conceptual analysis of social stratification is representative of the several well-known functional analyses of stratification. A heated controversy has occurred over the functional approach to stratification, yet almost no analysis of Parsons' contribution appears in the literature. Since Parsons' work on stratification is beset by problems similar to other functional analyses of stratification, a critical analysis of Parsons' approach may also help to clarify some of the problems faced by other functional analyses. Our concern here, however, is particularly with Parsons and specifically with his "Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification." Our task will be to examine in detail Parsons' revised theory and to offer some comments upon it. Analysis of the theory and comments will be strictly separated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is an attempt to add empirical relevance to some of the theories which pertain to relationships between types of family and forms of social stratification. In addition, it makes new contributions to this segment of sociological theory. Using a worldwide sample, it was found that there is a relationship between these two variables. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the lineal family is positively associated with complex systems of social stratification. In addition, the current theory—that the independent family is associated with complex systems of social stratification—is refuted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]