Social class may also refer to any particular level in such a hierarchy.” Sociologists have given a threefold classification of classes which consists of upper class, middle class and working class. Social class, in regards to sociology usually refers to the primary system of social stratification. Social stratification is “the presence [in society] of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of factors such as prestige and wealth.” (Haralambos and Holborn.
Review Questions What is the Davis-Moore thesis? It is a thesis that states social stratification has good consequences for society. They argued that societies have many different occupations or take in them and jobs differ in their importance to society. List and define three different systems of stratification in society. It's based off of wealth, property, and power.
RUNNING HEADER: Comparison and contrast of Social stratification Systems SS144-01 June 9, 2011 Comparison and contrast of Social stratification Systems Social stratification--the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative property, power and prestige; applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society or other group. People are broken down in to groups based on their privileges; every society stratifies its people, some societies have greater social inequalities than others do, which mean social stratification is universal. It does not matter where in the world a person lives, social stratification has more to do with property, power and prestige. There are three systems of social stratification: Slavery, caste and social class. Two of the three have their similarities and their differences, slavery and caste.
Do classical approaches to class remain relevant to contemporary societies? Your answer should refer to the work of Marx and/or Weber. ‘The word class has been used to describe broad and diffuse groupings within a national population that are seen as forming a set of layers or strata in a hierarchy, as in the terms ‘upper’, ‘middle’ and ‘lower’ class’. (Crompton and Scott, 2000, pg.1) Class has been a key subject in sociological debate. Recently however the debate has shifted from the classical questions that Marx and Weber were asking over a century ago- How is class defined?
Race and class together shape the social world. In the United States, every page of American history was written where race was the foundation of creating class in society that brought conflicts within a race and between racial groups in a social, political, and economic level. Throughout any society, here in the U.S., classification played a big role in creating a system of order. From the medicine cabinet
The second party is of patronage, it helps and individual building his way up in society. It is obvious that these powers are interconnected. An individual from the higher class will have more opportunities to access a high legal power due to relations with people from the high society. Nevertheless, someone from a lower class can build his way up in classes using his social prestige
Classical Sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), recognizes several interlinked relational patterns that lead to stratification; whereas Marxists reduce all inequality to economics (the differences in access to and use of wealth—all of one’s financial assets—between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat), Weber expands stratification into three related yet distinct components: Class, Status, and Party. “We may speak of a ‘class’ when (1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, in so far as, (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of
This is done by using a weighting system. Points are distributed for various characteristics, then the points are added up and the individuals within certain ranges of points are assigned to certain categories. By using the weighting system, people are organized into the typical class divisions of the wealthy class, upper middle class, lower middle class, working class, working poor class, and the underclass. Based on the power point shown in class, the United States social class structures concludes of: 5 % of the wealthy class, 20% of the upper middle class, 40% of the lower middle class, 20% of the working class, 15% of the working class poor, and 5.2% of the
After-Shock and Social Conflict Theory Social Conflict theory, or approach, is a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. (Macionis J., 2011) Just as Macionis describes this social conflict in the book Society, The Basics—11th Edition, that this approach highlights how factors such as class, race, ethnicity, gender and age are linked to inequality in terms of money, power, education and social prestige, there are many examples of this in Robert B. Reich’s After-Shock, The Next Economy and America’s Future. In chapters two and three of Reich’s After-Shock, he describes situations and compares both the great depression of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s with the recession of the late 2000’s and the years prior to each describing what the economy was like and the situation the people of America were in at these times. During these 2 chapters, Reich points out several elements of social conflict theory between the people of different classes and the money and wealth that separates them. During this essay I will point out a couple examples of these elements of social conflict theory in Reich’s analysis and I will also point out some of the data that he draws upon to make this argument.
b. This was also embodied in the notion of the “Gospel of Wealth” which stated that the wealthy should give back to charities and help people who were in need. People believed the Ideology of Success and Gospel of Wealth both encompassed the so called American Dream and people wanted the believe they could be successful no matter what race, religion, gender, etc. they were as long as they were willing to work hard. c. While the above doctrines emphasized individualism and free will to success, Social Darwinism, which was embraced by big business, believed that wealth, leadership, success, and prosperity were more determined by evolutionary superiority (survival of the fittest) and that once all the weak species died off only the superior race would be left.