An Introduction to Social Stratification

Social stratification is at the core of sociological analysis and research, and so it is important for anyone taking a sociology course to develop a firm understanding of it. A solid definition of social stratification is as follows. Social stratification is the emergent and or purposeful categorization of people and groups which are used to establish and or reinforce differences in relative social worth, that is, social ranks. This definition contains two key assertions. I want to take a moment to deconstruct each one. The first assertion states that social stratification involves the emergent and or purposeful categorization of people and groups. It is important to point out that categorization is the fundamental feature of social stratification. And this leads us to the question, what constitutes a social category? Reviewing a few real-world examples will provide a basic understanding of the kinds of reference points that are used to develop social categories. One innate basis for social categories stems from male and female reproductive roles. That is, the categories mother and father, and grandmother and grandfather, and aunt and uncle, and so on, all stem from categories that are tied to human reproduction. Another innate basis for categorical distinction is age. Humans use time since birth as a marker for where one's ranking in society is. Indeed. There are multiple categories that are used to describe human's age. We have infants, we have toddlers, we have children, we have teenager, and we have young adult, we have middle-aged adults, and we even have elderly adults. A final example are the categories associated with a person's economic role within society, that is, occupation. One's occupation places him or her into different economic categories that can be ranked on several dimensions. perhaps the most important being one's economic value. The main point then is that social stratification starts when people or groups are categorized and when those categories are used to determine social rank. In addition to categorization, the other important component to social stratification is that it involves either the emergent and or purposeful categorization of people and groups. That is, categories can be created intentionally and unintentionally. With this said, I want to provide you with examples of each. Let's start with a category that emerged unintentionally. In American society, and perhaps around the world, being a rock star grants an individual social prestige that can amount to real-world wealth and even power. Rock stars are truly in a category of their own since they rank above other musicians and above most other people. While researching the origins of the category rock star, I discovered that it appears to have emerged with an American pop culture starting with Elvis Presley in 1956. In that year, Elvis'meteoric rise to rock stardom began when he appeared on television six times. I want you to watch two clips from his appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show. The first clip is from his first appearance, and the second clip is from his second appearance. I want you to listen closely to the audience's reaction the first time versus the second time. Ladies and gentlemen, yes, that's right, Elvis Presley! And now here is Elvis Presley! As you can hear from the screaming female fans, Elvis became very famous very fast. In just a few short months... He became a rock and roll music sensation. In less than two years, Elvis became what many argue was the first true rock star. Yet Elvis did not set out to become a rock star in 1956. The category simply did not exist at the time. Instead, becoming a rock star was a pleasant surprise. In short, the category rock star emerged spontaneously and in response to a host of social actions like those of Elvis, and from other developments like the diffusion of television and record players. Together, these social forces were behind this surge in the popularity of rock and roll music. In other words, the development of the category was unintentional. There are instances where categories are purposefully created in order to impose ranks on people or groups. A good example of this are the white and black categories that underlie American cultural conceptions of race. These dichotomous categories... were purposely created and popularized by the American pro-slavery movement in the South. However, the idea of white superiority didn't inform the American public's conception of race until the early 1800s. This is because the concept wasn't fully developed until the South was forced to defend the institution of slavery in the wake of the growing anti-slavery movement in the North. The core argument of the pro-slavery movement was that the most undeveloped regions of the world were inhabited by people with dark skin. The explanation for this, according to the pro-slavery scholars, was that people with dark skin were less intelligent, which explained their inability to develop a civilization that could rival Europe. Eventually, the pro-slavery movement used this argument to claim the moral high ground by suggesting that Negroes were better off as slaves in America than uncivilized heathens in Africa. This gave way to the propaganda behind the happy Negro as depicted in this pre-Civil War cartoon. But a better example of the racist scholarship behind the purposeful categorization of whites versus blacks can be read in the work of John Campbell, who in 1851 wrote the book Negromania, being an examination of the falsely assumed equality of the various races of men. Take a look at this passage. It states, it is an actual fact, a truth, a reality, as it were 5,000 years ago, so it was 4 and 3 and 2 and 1,000 years ago, so it is today, that the dark race had always to yield to the superior intellect of the white. Never at any given time, from the most infinite remote antiquity until now, has there ever appeared a race of Negroes, that is, men with woolly heads, flat noses, thick and protruding lips, who has ever emerged from a state of savagism or barbarism. As you can see, there are instances where categories are intentionally created as a means to rank one group above another. The white-black racial categories developed by the pro-slavery movement are exactly that, purposeful and intentional. Before moving on, I want to go back to the second concept contained in the definition, which asserted that social stratification involves the creation of categories that are used to establish and or reinforce differences in relative social worth. The important assertion here is that the purpose of categorization is to establish ranks that help people organize society or maintain the existing organization of society. In some instances, This can be good and necessary, like the emergence of the category Rockstar that was used to rank Elvis. In other instances, however, it can be detrimental to a group, especially if the category is used to reinforce a lower social rank. Oftentimes, the use of categories to reinforce lower social ranks is done so in not-so-obvious ways. This aspect of social stratification is of particular interest to sociologists, especially when they are tied to social inequalities as shown here. This is a topic that will be addressed in greater detail at the conclusion of this video. Now that we have discussed and deconstructed the definition of social stratification, I want to examine three universal features that make it a central component of any and all sociological research and analysis. The first universal feature is that every society, regardless of its size, complexity, or culture, generates categories that are ranked. In other words, social stratification is universal. In simple societies, which tend to be small in size, there are some members who are categorized and ranked higher and valued more than others. In this picture, we see a tribal leader who is dressed in such a way as to signify his elevated rank within the tribe. In modern societies, which have large and complex economies, Social categories tend to be more diverse and interdependent. As a result, the most important categories within modern societies tend to be those that link people to their economic rank. In most cases, the ranking of a specific occupation is based on its economic value. The main point, then, is that every society creates categories that are ranked, making social stratification a human universal. The second universal feature is that the value or rank of a given category, whether emergent or purposeful, can change over time. For instance, take the shift in the relative social worth of England's royal family. Early on in England's history, kings played a direct role in shaping the kingdom's economic, political, and social policies. In several instances, kings rose to power because they were the ones who led armies into battle. and physically fought to win the crown. This is far from the case today. In modern times, England still has a royal family, but the prestige and rank of the family has changed. The family is still wealthy, and it has a high degree of prestige, but its members are cultural figureheads and have virtually no political power. So just like the royal family, categories and their ranks within stratification systems are always subject to change, even when they are the most or least powerful categories. The third and final universal feature is that categories and their ranks are directly and indirectly linked to social inequality. In order to demonstrate this to you, I want to discuss a specific kind of social stratification known as gender stratification. If we think about the categories male and female in our society, it is clear that there are attributes that all of us associate with male that we do not associate with female and vice versa. When people associate non-reproductive attributes with a given sex category, male or female, sociologists refer to this as gender. Take a look at this chart listing the ideal gender attributes for males and females. No person matches the ideal, but each of us are ranked according to our ability to display at least some of these qualities, and we rank others using the same list. Why is this important? Well, the attributes used to categorize men and women often overlap with other categories that are associated with higher or lower rankings, especially those tied to economic positions and positions of power. As a result, adhering to masculine or feminine qualities can directly or indirectly impact a person's ability to fill another desirable category. A primary example of this is if we look at the position of leader. I did a simple search for the word leader using Bing. Out of all the pictures that I found with people in them, the most common theme was a man standing in front of women and other men. Take a look at a few of these examples. What this demonstrates is that people taking, requesting, and tagging these photos are conceptualizing men as leaders rather than women. This is not accidental. If we go back to the gender attributes discussed earlier, it is not difficult to understand why. Each of the qualities that we're associated with being masculine are qualities that we associate with good leaders. Strong, confident, assertive, analytical, forceful, ambitious, etc. If we look at the attributes associated with female, we find that none of them are attributes that we would want in a leader except for maybe loyalty. Therefore, when women adhere to ideal feminine attributes, they are essentially excluding themselves from the category of leader. And when women adhere to ideal masculine attributes, which coincide with the leadership attributes, they are either labeled a bitch or cold-hearted. In short, it is much more difficult for women to be categorized as leaders when there is social pressure for them to display feminine attributes. For men, displaying masculine attributes only helps to reinforce their ability to assume leadership roles. Given what we have just covered, It is easy to understand how and why women are excluded from high-ranking occupations and positions of power. Perhaps the most evident example of this is the male monopolization of power in American society. Every single president, the person who has the most political and social power in the United States, has been male. Again, the overlap between the category male and leader is not coincidental. Take a look at this final example. which offers a real-world demonstration of how gender stratification manifests as gender inequality. I discovered this picture while searching for the term rich. I wasn't surprised to find a picture of business people. But as a sociologist, as someone trained to see social stratification and link it to social inequality, the photo speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about the link between gender stratification and gender inequality. If you look at the photo, you will notice that a majority of the men are lined up in the front. They stand out more so than the women, and the men are positioned in such a way as to show that they are important. The women on the other hand, are either in the second row, or they are in the back with several being obscured by the men in front of them. We can only assume that if one of the women held a high ranking position, she would be more pronounced and more central in the photo. But none of the women are. Gender stratification has played a direct role in the actual placement of the men and women in this photo. In other words, this photo provides us with a peek into the way that gender stratification manifests as gender inequality. To conclude, social stratification is at the heart of sociological research and analysis. When sociologists talk about social stratification, they are referring to the intentional or unintentional categorization of people as a means to establish differences in rank or social value between groups or people within society. All societies, regardless of their size or complexity, create categories that place people into ranks which are assigned different values. Categories and their social values can change over time. especially when new categories emerge in response to other social changes. All categories, however, are associated with social inequalities. Sometimes the link is obvious, and sometimes it's intentional, and sometimes it's hidden, and sometimes it's unplanned. Thus, it is up to sociologists to identify the inner workings of stratification systems, how they change over time, and how they are directly and indirectly linked to social inequality.

The first assertion states that social stratification involves the emergent and or purposeful categorization of people and groups. It is important to point out that categorization is the fundamental feature of social stratification. And this leads us to the question, what constitutes a social category? Reviewing a few real-world examples will provide a basic understanding of the kinds of reference points that are used to develop social categories.

One innate basis for social categories stems from male and female reproductive roles. That is, the categories mother and father, and grandmother and grandfather, and aunt and uncle, and so on, all stem from categories that are tied to human reproduction. Another innate basis for categorical distinction is age. Humans use time since birth as a marker for where one's ranking in society is.

Indeed. There are multiple categories that are used to describe human's age. We have infants, we have toddlers, we have children, we have teenager, and we have young adult, we have middle-aged adults, and we even have elderly adults.

A final example are the categories associated with a person's economic role within society, that is, occupation. One's occupation places him or her into different economic categories that can be ranked on several dimensions. perhaps the most important being one's economic value. The main point then is that social stratification starts when people or groups are categorized and when those categories are used to determine social rank.

In addition to categorization, the other important component to social stratification is that it involves either the emergent and or purposeful categorization of people and groups. That is, categories can be created intentionally and unintentionally. With this said, I want to provide you with examples of each.

Let's start with a category that emerged unintentionally. In American society, and perhaps around the world, being a rock star grants an individual social prestige that can amount to real-world wealth and even power. Rock stars are truly in a category of their own since they rank above other musicians and above most other people.

While researching the origins of the category rock star, I discovered that it appears to have emerged with an American pop culture starting with Elvis Presley in 1956. In that year, Elvis'meteoric rise to rock stardom began when he appeared on television six times. I want you to watch two clips from his appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show. The first clip is from his first appearance, and the second clip is from his second appearance. I want you to listen closely to the audience's reaction the first time versus the second time.

Ladies and gentlemen, yes, that's right, Elvis Presley! And now here is Elvis Presley! As you can hear from the screaming female fans, Elvis became very famous very fast.

In just a few short months... He became a rock and roll music sensation. In less than two years, Elvis became what many argue was the first true rock star. Yet Elvis did not set out to become a rock star in 1956. The category simply did not exist at the time. Instead, becoming a rock star was a pleasant surprise.

In short, the category rock star emerged spontaneously and in response to a host of social actions like those of Elvis, and from other developments like the diffusion of television and record players. Together, these social forces were behind this surge in the popularity of rock and roll music. In other words, the development of the category was unintentional.

There are instances where categories are purposefully created in order to impose ranks on people or groups. A good example of this are the white and black categories that underlie American cultural conceptions of race. These dichotomous categories...

were purposely created and popularized by the American pro-slavery movement in the South. However, the idea of white superiority didn't inform the American public's conception of race until the early 1800s. This is because the concept wasn't fully developed until the South was forced to defend the institution of slavery in the wake of the growing anti-slavery movement in the North. The core argument of the pro-slavery movement was that the most undeveloped regions of the world were inhabited by people with dark skin. The explanation for this, according to the pro-slavery scholars, was that people with dark skin were less intelligent, which explained their inability to develop a civilization that could rival Europe.

Eventually, the pro-slavery movement used this argument to claim the moral high ground by suggesting that Negroes were better off as slaves in America than uncivilized heathens in Africa. This gave way to the propaganda behind the happy Negro as depicted in this pre-Civil War cartoon. But a better example of the racist scholarship behind the purposeful categorization of whites versus blacks can be read in the work of John Campbell, who in 1851 wrote the book Negromania, being an examination of the falsely assumed equality of the various races of men. Take a look at this passage.

It states, it is an actual fact, a truth, a reality, as it were 5,000 years ago, so it was 4 and 3 and 2 and 1,000 years ago, so it is today, that the dark race had always to yield to the superior intellect of the white. Never at any given time, from the most infinite remote antiquity until now, has there ever appeared a race of Negroes, that is, men with woolly heads, flat noses, thick and protruding lips, who has ever emerged from a state of savagism or barbarism. As you can see, there are instances where categories are intentionally created as a means to rank one group above another.

The white-black racial categories developed by the pro-slavery movement are exactly that, purposeful and intentional. Before moving on, I want to go back to the second concept contained in the definition, which asserted that social stratification involves the creation of categories that are used to establish and or reinforce differences in relative social worth. The important assertion here is that the purpose of categorization is to establish ranks that help people organize society or maintain the existing organization of society. In some instances, This can be good and necessary, like the emergence of the category Rockstar that was used to rank Elvis.

In other instances, however, it can be detrimental to a group, especially if the category is used to reinforce a lower social rank. Oftentimes, the use of categories to reinforce lower social ranks is done so in not-so-obvious ways. This aspect of social stratification is of particular interest to sociologists, especially when they are tied to social inequalities as shown here.

This is a topic that will be addressed in greater detail at the conclusion of this video. Now that we have discussed and deconstructed the definition of social stratification, I want to examine three universal features that make it a central component of any and all sociological research and analysis. The first universal feature is that every society, regardless of its size, complexity, or culture, generates categories that are ranked. In other words, social stratification is universal.

In simple societies, which tend to be small in size, there are some members who are categorized and ranked higher and valued more than others. In this picture, we see a tribal leader who is dressed in such a way as to signify his elevated rank within the tribe. In modern societies, which have large and complex economies, Social categories tend to be more diverse and interdependent.

As a result, the most important categories within modern societies tend to be those that link people to their economic rank. In most cases, the ranking of a specific occupation is based on its economic value. The main point, then, is that every society creates categories that are ranked, making social stratification a human universal.

The second universal feature is that the value or rank of a given category, whether emergent or purposeful, can change over time. For instance, take the shift in the relative social worth of England's royal family. Early on in England's history, kings played a direct role in shaping the kingdom's economic, political, and social policies.

In several instances, kings rose to power because they were the ones who led armies into battle. and physically fought to win the crown. This is far from the case today.

In modern times, England still has a royal family, but the prestige and rank of the family has changed. The family is still wealthy, and it has a high degree of prestige, but its members are cultural figureheads and have virtually no political power. So just like the royal family, categories and their ranks within stratification systems are always subject to change, even when they are the most or least powerful categories. The third and final universal feature is that categories and their ranks are directly and indirectly linked to social inequality. In order to demonstrate this to you, I want to discuss a specific kind of social stratification known as gender stratification.

If we think about the categories male and female in our society, it is clear that there are attributes that all of us associate with male that we do not associate with female and vice versa. When people associate non-reproductive attributes with a given sex category, male or female, sociologists refer to this as gender. Take a look at this chart listing the ideal gender attributes for males and females. No person matches the ideal, but each of us are ranked according to our ability to display at least some of these qualities, and we rank others using the same list.

Why is this important? Well, the attributes used to categorize men and women often overlap with other categories that are associated with higher or lower rankings, especially those tied to economic positions and positions of power. As a result, adhering to masculine or feminine qualities can directly or indirectly impact a person's ability to fill another desirable category.

A primary example of this is if we look at the position of leader. I did a simple search for the word leader using Bing. Out of all the pictures that I found with people in them, the most common theme was a man standing in front of women and other men. Take a look at a few of these examples. What this demonstrates is that people taking, requesting, and tagging these photos are conceptualizing men as leaders rather than women.

This is not accidental. If we go back to the gender attributes discussed earlier, it is not difficult to understand why. Each of the qualities that we're associated with being masculine are qualities that we associate with good leaders. Strong, confident, assertive, analytical, forceful, ambitious, etc.

If we look at the attributes associated with female, we find that none of them are attributes that we would want in a leader except for maybe loyalty. Therefore, when women adhere to ideal feminine attributes, they are essentially excluding themselves from the category of leader. And when women adhere to ideal masculine attributes, which coincide with the leadership attributes, they are either labeled a bitch or cold-hearted. In short, it is much more difficult for women to be categorized as leaders when there is social pressure for them to display feminine attributes.

For men, displaying masculine attributes only helps to reinforce their ability to assume leadership roles. Given what we have just covered, It is easy to understand how and why women are excluded from high-ranking occupations and positions of power. Perhaps the most evident example of this is the male monopolization of power in American society.

Every single president, the person who has the most political and social power in the United States, has been male. Again, the overlap between the category male and leader is not coincidental. Take a look at this final example. which offers a real-world demonstration of how gender stratification manifests as gender inequality.

I discovered this picture while searching for the term rich. I wasn't surprised to find a picture of business people. But as a sociologist, as someone trained to see social stratification and link it to social inequality, the photo speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about the link between gender stratification and gender inequality.

If you look at the photo, you will notice that a majority of the men are lined up in the front. They stand out more so than the women, and the men are positioned in such a way as to show that they are important. The women on the other hand, are either in the second row, or they are in the back with several being obscured by the men in front of them. We can only assume that if one of the women held a high ranking position, she would be more pronounced and more central in the photo.

But none of the women are. Gender stratification has played a direct role in the actual placement of the men and women in this photo. In other words, this photo provides us with a peek into the way that gender stratification manifests as gender inequality. To conclude, social stratification is at the heart of sociological research and analysis.

When sociologists talk about social stratification, they are referring to the intentional or unintentional categorization of people as a means to establish differences in rank or social value between groups or people within society. All societies, regardless of their size or complexity, create categories that place people into ranks which are assigned different values. Categories and their social values can change over time.

especially when new categories emerge in response to other social changes. All categories, however, are associated with social inequalities. Sometimes the link is obvious, and sometimes it's intentional, and sometimes it's hidden, and sometimes it's unplanned.

Thus, it is up to sociologists to identify the inner workings of stratification systems, how they change over time, and how they are directly and indirectly linked to social inequality.

Transcript for: An Introduction to Social Stratification

Transcript for:
An Introduction to Social Stratification