Structure of Social Stratification in the United States

Leonard Beeghley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781138467958
• eBook ISBN: 9781317343783
• Edition: 5
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book distills out of the rich vein of sociological research some of what is known about the structure of stratification in the United States. It emphasizes the importance of power for understanding the structure of stratification.

CHAPTER ONE

SOCIOLOGY AND STRATIFICATION

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STRATIFICATION

Karl Marx

Max Weber

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore

Ralf Dahrendorf

Gerhard Lenski

MODERNITY, THE AMERICAN DREAM, AND ANOMIE

A STRATEGY FOR THE STUDY OF STRATIFICATION

Historical and Cross-National Dimensions of Stratification

Levels of Analysis and Stratification

Power and Stratification

All societies display stratification. The term conveys an image of geological strata, of layers stacked one upon the other. Like geological strata, societies also display interconnected layers with what appear to be a ranked structure. The structure of social stratification can be defined as the distribution of resources in society, such as income, wealth, occupation, education, and power. In every society, these resources are allocated unequally.

Unequal possession of resources affects people’s life chances: their ability to share in the available goods and services.¹ To visualize the practical way unequal resources affect life chances in modern societies, consider the long-term possibilities of two twenty-year-old young adults: George and Peter. George’s parents are, respectively, a college professor and a clinical psychologist. In the (imperfect) classification schemes used by sociologists, they are middle class. Peter’s parents are, respectively, a janitor and a secretary. They are working class. George is more likely to become a physician than Peter, simply because George’s parents possess more resources. For example, because they have higher prestige occupations, more education, and higher incomes they can more easily provide advantages to George as he grows up. And this process will continue in the next generation as well. George’s children are more likely to become physicians than Peter’s children. The example illustrates a well-known observation: In all societies, parents pass on whatever advantages and disadvantages they have to their children.

Unequal distribution of resources also affects people’s lifestyle: the way people choose to live, as indicated by their consumption habits, use of leisure time, and fundamental values. For example, people differ in whether (and what) they smoke, the kinds of alcohol they consume, the location and size of their housing, their level of health and whether they have health insurance, whether they have a pension and its amount, and myriad other ways. They also differ in attitudes about abortion, guns, how unequal our society should be, and other important social problems. The ability to choose a lifestyle, however, constitutes a new historical phenomenon. People’s lifestyles were relatively homogeneous in preindustrial societies; in contrast, people’s lifestyles display wide variability in modern societies.

Although geological strata may appear to be static and unchanging, this is misleading. In reality, dynamic processes shape the formation of the earth, which means that understanding the geological record requires looking at both stability and change. This orientation is also necessary when studying the structure of stratification.

Inequality in the distribution of resources does not arise by chance. Conflict occurs as individuals and groups struggle to keep and expand their share (of income and wealth, for example). Levels of inequality change over time as a result. Imagine that all the goods and services available in a society are like a pie. Everyone competes, both as individuals and as members of groups, for a piece of the pie. And no one wants to diet; everyone wants a bigger piece, at least so long as it is obtained fairly (and sometimes even if it is not). People want to improve their life chances—with health insurance, for example. They want better opportunities for their children compared to themselves—to become physicians, for example. And they want better lifestyles, too, as signified (perhaps) by moving into bigger houses in nicer neighborhoods. The outcome of the struggle over resources and variations in the level of inequality that result can be expressed by a simple question: Who gets what and why?²

The answer is reflected in the three systems of domination that characterize modern societies. Think of them as like geological strata, convoluted and cross-cutting one another. Unlike geological strata, however, social systems of domination reflect the exercise of power and authority.³ Thus, the arrangement of these ranked structures indicates the ongoing struggle over the structure of stratification in the United States.

The first is by class.⁴ People in the same class tend to be equal to one another in terms of the distribution of resources. For example, those with similar levels of occupational prestige display roughly similar levels of income and education. People in different classes tend to be unequal in these same terms. Such variations affect people’s life chances and lifestyles. For example, because their occupations differ, they also differ in access to health insurance, access to first-rate schools for their children, and many other goods and services.

As a system of domination, class is rather new in history. It arose along with economic development and democracy (the two are related) over the last few centuries. Power and authority in democratic societies are based on “the will of the people” expressed in procedurally correct ways—by elections, for example. In such contexts, while individuals’ initial class placement reflects their family background (based on such factors as their parents’ education and occupation), their own educational and occupational achievements become more important over time as they compete against others. This tension between the effects of family background and one’s own achievement is unique to class systems, unique to modern societies. At the same time, even though they may not be formally organized, classes struggle for greater shares of the available resources (pieces of the pie). For example, laws providing huge tax breaks for the very rich, thereby increasing the level of inequality, reflect the class struggle: The rich have a greater ability to affect public policies to their benefit than do other social classes. Similarly, the system of employer-provided health insurance benefits the middle class, making it resistant to change even though millions of people go without health insurance, endure more health problems, and die younger as a result. The latter are mostly working class and poor. Generally, the most powerful classes benefit the most from public policies in every society, which is another way of saying they obtain more resources and have better life chances.

The second system of domination is by race and ethnicity. Members of racial and ethnic groups are often unequal to one another in terms of civil rights, infant mortality, income, occupational prestige, and other resources. For example, due to prejudice and discrimination, fewer minority group members are middle class than Whites. But even within the middle class, members of minority groups are often unequal to Whites. For example, given similar incomes, African Americans often pay higher interest rates for mortgages and auto loans, thus restricting their life chances and lifestyles. Such differences reflect the enduring impact of prejudice and discrimination, which function as mechanisms of domination by the more powerful racial and ethnic groups (Whites). Even so, racial and ethnic inequality has declined over the last two centuries as achievement-related criteria have become more important. This change results from the struggle for equal opportunity by racial and ethnic minorities, which is unique to modern societies.

The third system of domination is by gender. Women and men are unequal to one another in terms of income, occupational prestige, and other resources. Historically, discrimination in the form of traditional gender norms meant that women have not only had less access to resources than men but less autonomy in shaping their lives. Their life chances differed, and differ today as well. Such differences reflect the power and authority of men over women. But gender inequality has declined over time as both women and men are increasingly evaluated by their educational and occupational achievements. Again, this change results from struggle for equal opportunity by women, which is also unique to modern societies.

These ongoing conflicts over the structure of stratification raise important questions: How much opportunity is there to share in the available goods and services? And how do life chances vary across societies, especially in economically developed nations like the United States? In terms of the example used earlier, how much opportunity exists for Peter (who came from a working-class background) to become a physician if he is talented and works hard? And what about someone named Jane, Tamika, Julio, or Rashad? Would their opportunities be better or worse if they lived in, say, the United Kingdom or France?

One way sociologists answer these questions is by distinguishing between ascription and achievement. Ascription refers to the use of nonperformance-related criteria in evaluating a person, such as class of origin, race/ethnicity, or gender. This is a complicated way of saying that people obtain positions based on birth. For example, to the extent that certain types of people—say, white males—have advantages in seeking to become physicians indicates an emphasis on ascription. In societies emphasizing ascription, opportunity is relatively low and status (in the sense of prestige in the community) is often inherited. Achievement refers to the use of performance-related criteria that are equally applied to all persons, such as grade point averages, college degrees, or skill requirements. This is a complicated way of saying that people compete to obtain positions (such as occupations) and status based on hard work and ability. To the extent that anyone—regardless of class of origin, race/ethnicity, or gender—can become a physician based on grades and other skills indicates an emphasis on achievement. In societies emphasizing achievement, opportunity is greater.

In no society, of course, does either ascription or achievement constitute the sole basis for evaluating people. Seen as two ends of a continuum, they constitute ideal types, to use a phrase of Max Weber’s.⁵ Ideal types identify the characteristics of a social phenomenon in the purest form possible and observations reveal the degree to which societies resemble the “pure form.” As illustrated in Figure 1.1, history reveals a pattern: In many societies today, a long term movement from ascription toward achievement has occurred.

As suggested by the figure, ascriptive criteria were of much greater importance than achievement in the past. As a result, the structure of stratification in all societies was relatively rigid, displaying high levels of inequality and low mobility rates, because almost everyone obtained positions based on birth. In such contexts, of course, most people’s life chances and lifestyles were also determined at birth.

The situation differs a great deal today in that people’s positions are determined by a combination of achievement and ascription. On the one hand, economic development, democracy, and other changes that occurred over the last few centuries have lead to an increasing emphasis on achievement via competition with others. One result is that stratification structures are now less rigid, displaying varying levels of inequality from one nation to another and higher mobility rates. Increased opportunity exists in class-based systems of domination. People can now advance compared to their parents, occupationally and in other ways, based on their effort and abilities. This change means their life chances can improve and lifestyles become more varied. On the other hand, ascription remains significant. Note that in Figure 1.1, the arrow indicating “present” is located, for illustrative purposes, only halfway across the continuum. Family background in the form of class of origin, race/ethnicity, and gender all affect access to resources and, hence, people’s life chances, regardless of how much ability they have or how hard they work. Even in class-based systems of domination, it makes a difference if one is born rich or poor, white or brown, male or female. The built-in, uneasy tension between achievement and ascription in modern societies can never be resolved.

The existence of this tension, however, indicates the new historical possibilities characteristic of modern societies, with their lower levels of inequality, greater mobility, and considerable variation across nations. Where did these changes come from? How can they be understood? Theorists have tried to answer these questions.

FIGURE 1.1 The Changing Importance of Ascription and Achievement

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
ON STRATIFICATION

Economic development, capitalism, democracy, the rule of law, and other changes coalesced in the nineteenth century and shaped the modern world, including the structure of stratification. The first generation of sociologists appeared at that time as scholars sought to understand the great transformation that was occurring.⁶ In terms of the pie metaphor used earlier, with this transformation, the size of the economic pie increased—radically. There are now more resources available to everyone and most people are better off than in the past.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx (b: 1818; d: 1883), like many others, saw that inequality increased with the rise of capitalism, industrialization, and the other changes that were taking place during the first half of the nineteenth century. In this contex...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter One Sociology and Stratification
• Chapter Two Race/Ethnicity And Stratification
• Chapter Three Gender and Stratification
• Chapter Four Social Class and Stratification: Occupational Prestige and Class Identification
• Chapter Five Social Class and Stratification: Mobility and Status Attainment
• Chapter Six Political Participation and Power
• Chapter Seven The Rich
• Chapter Eight The Middle Class
• Chapter Nine The Working Class
• Chapter Ten The Poor
• Chapter Eleven The United States in Global Context
• Chapter Twelve Reflections on the Study of Social Stratification
• References
• Index