1.

1 Inequality and Social Stratification

The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities.

Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and rewards among individuals or
groups in a society. This inequality can lead to social stratification, which is the division of a society into
layers or Strata based on factors such as wealth, power, & status.

There are several ways in which inequality can lead to social stratification.

 Inequality in access to resources such as education, health care & job opportunities can lead to
stratification. Those who have access to more resources are at the top, & those with fewer resources
are at the bottom.
 Inequality in social status can also lead to stratification. Those who have higher Social Status are given
more opportunities and privileges than those who have lower social Status.
 Inequality in power can also lead to stratification. Those who have more power are often able to
influence decisions ate & control resources.

Biology and Inequality

Many stratification systems are accompanied by beliefs which state that social inequalities are biologically
based. Such beliefs are often found in systems of racial stratification where, for example, whites might claim
biological superiority over blacks, and see this as the basis for their dominance.

The eighteenth-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) provided one of the earliest
examinations of this question. He refers to biologically based inequality as: 'natural or physical, because it is
established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind
or the soul: By comparison, socially created inequality: consists of the different privileges which some men
enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful, or even in a
position to exact obedience.

Rousseau believed that biologically based inequalities between people were small and relatively unimportant
whereas socially created inequalities provide the major basis for systems of social stratification. However, it
could still be argued that biological inequalities, no matter how small, provide the foundation upon which
structures of social inequality are built

“Differences lead to inequality, inequality, in the institutionalized form leads to stratification."

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It involves the division of the population into
unequal layers (upper and lower layers) or strata based on income, wealth, gender, ethnicity, power, status,
age, or some other characteristic. Its basis and very essence consist in an unequal distribution of rights and
privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values and forfeitures, and social power and influences among
the members of society.
According to Raymond W. Murry, “social stratification is a horizontal division of society into ‘higher’ and
‘lower’ social units”.

Kurt B. Mayer defined it as, “an arrangement of positions in a graded hierarchy of socially superior and
inferior ranks”.

Mike O’Donnell defined it as “Stratification is the division of society or group into hierarchically ordered
layers. Members of each layer are considered broadly equal but there is inequality between the layers”.

Anthony Giddens writes: “Stratification can be defined as structured inequalities between different groupings
of people.”

The term ‘stratification’ in sociology is usually applied to the phenomena of structured social inequality which
arise as unintended consequences of social processes and relationships. It is a hierarchical ordering of people
in a society differentiated according to power, privileges and status. The term ‘structured’ indicates an
arrangement of elements—the inequality is not random but follows a pattern, displays relative constancy and
stability and is backed by ideas that legitimize and justify it.

Social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular stratum have a common
identity, similar interests and a similar lifestyle. They enjoy or suffer the unequal distribution of rewards in
society as members of different social groups. There is a tendency for members of each stratum to develop
their subculture, that is certain norms, attitudes and values which are distinctive to them as a social group.

Strata subcultures tend to be particularly distinctive when there is little opportunity to move from one stratum
to another. This movement is known as social mobility, social mobility can be upward, for example moving
from the working to the middle class, or downward.

Stratification systems that provide little opportunity for social mobility may be described as closed; those with
a relatively high rate of social mobility as open. In closed systems an individual's position is largely ascribed:
often it is fixed at birth and there is little he or she can do to change status: Caste provides a good example of
a closed stratification system. By comparison, social class, the system of stratification in capitalist industrial
society, provides an example of an open system.

A person's position in a stratification system may have important effects on many areas of life. It may enhance
or reduce life chances, that is their chances of obtaining those things defined as desirable and avoiding those
things defined as undesirable in their society.

In brief, the term ‘stratification’ refers to the system of ranking of persons that a society adopts. In this system,
the rank of some strata is higher, some lower. Their sum constitutes the stratification system of that particular
society. It indicates the location of a person in society.
Principles of Stratification: -

(1) Social Stratification is a characteristic of Society. It is not just an individual phenomenon. but a
Characteristic of society as a whole. It is a way of organizing society based on differences in wealth,
power, & status.
(2) Social Stratification persists over generations. Because it is reinforced by social institutions such
as education, government, & the economy. These institutions tend to reproduce social inequality by
providing advantages to those who are already privileged.
(3) Social Stratification is universal but variable. It exists in all societies, but specific forms of
inequality can vary from one society to another. India's Caste System. USA’ Racism.
(4) Social stratification involves both inequality & beliefs. It is not just about differences in wealth,
power, & status, but also about the beliefs & values that people hold.

Social Mobility

Social mobility refers to the movement within the social structure, from one social position to another. It means
a change in social status. All societies provide some opportunity for social mobility. However, the societies
differ from each other to an extent in which individuals can move from one class or status level to another.

It is said that the greater the amount of social mobility, the more open the class structure. The concept of social
mobility has fundamental importance in ascertaining the relative “openness” of a social structure. The nature,
forms, direction and magnitude of social mobility depend on the nature and types of social stratification.
Sociologists study social mobility to find out the relative ‘openness’ of a social structure.

Any group that improves its standards will also improve its social status. However, the rate of social mobility
is not uniform in all countries. It differs from society to society from time to time. In India, the rate of mobility
is naturally low because agriculture is the predominant occupation and the continuity of the caste system as
compared to the other countries of the world.

Social mobility is of two types: (i) Vertical mobility; and (ii) Horizontal mobility

(i) Vertical mobility: It refers to the movement of people from one stratum to another or from one status to
another. It brings changes in class, occupation and power. It involves movement from lower to higher or higher
to lower. There are two types of vertical mobility. One is upward and the other is downward mobility.
When an individual moves from a lower status to a higher status, it is called upward mobility. For example, if
the son of a peon joins a bank as an officer, it is said to be upward social mobility but if he loses the job due
to any other reason or inefficiency, he is downwardly mobile from his previous job. So downward mobility
takes place when a person moves down from one position to another and changes his status.

(ii) Horizontal Mobility: It refers to the movement of people from one social group to another situated on the
same level. It means that the ranks of these two groups are not different. It indicates a change in position
without a change in status. For example, if a teacher leaves one school and joins another school a bank officer
leaves one branch to work in another or a change of residence is horizontal mobility.

Apart from the above two broad types of social stratification, there are two other types of social stratification
in terms of the dimension of time. They are:

(i) Inter-generational mobility: When status changes occur from one generation to another, it is called
intergenerational mobility. For example, if the son changes his status either by taking upon occupation of
higher or lower rank than that of his father, inter-generational mobility takes place.

(ii) Intra-generational mobility: When status changes occur within one generation, it is called intra-
generational mobility. For example, the rise and fall in the occupational structure of a family which leads to
change in its social status within one generation is called intra-generational mobility.

Stratification and Caste: Under the caste system status is hereditary. It is based on birth, it is purely an
ascribed status. Once such positions are assigned, they can not advance and improve their social status in any
way. Hence, caste as a major type of social stratification does not facilitate vertical social mobility.

Social Stratification and Class: Class is an “open” system. Under this system, vertical mobility is free.
Movement from one status to another has no barrier. Status is based on achievement. It is determined by the
talents, wealth, money, intelligence, power, education, income, etc. of a person. There is no inheritance of
parental status.

1.2 Functionalist Perspective of Social Stratification

Functionalist theories of stratification must be seen in the context of functionalist theories of society. When
functionalists attempt to explain systems of social stratification, they set their explanations in the framework
of larger theories that seek to explain the operation of society as a whole. They assume that society has certain
basic needs or functional prerequisites that must be met if it is to survive. They therefore look to social
stratification to see how far it is. meets these functional prerequisites.

Functionalists assume that the parts of society form an integrated whole and thus they examine how the social
stratification system is integrated with other parts of society. They maintain that a certain degree of order and
stability is essential for the operation of social systems. They will therefore consider how stratification systems
help to maintain order and stability in society. In summary, functionalists are primarily concerned with the
function of social stratification: with its contribution to the maintenance and well-being of society.

Like many functionalists, Talcott Parsons believed that order, stability and cooperation in society are based
on value consensus a general agreement by members of society concerning what is good and worthwhile.
Parsons argued that stratification systems derive from common values. If values exist, then it follows that
individuals will be evaluated and placed in some form of rank order. In Parsons's words, 'stratification, in its
valuational aspect, then, is the Tanking of units in a social system in accordance with the common value
system.

In other words, those who perform successfully in terms of society's values will be ranked highly and they
will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. At a minimum, they will be accorded high prestige because they
exemplify and personify common values.

Because different societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining a high position will vary from
society to society. Parsons argued that American society values individual achievement, and efficiency and
'puts primary emphasis on productive activity within the economy. Thus, successful business executives who
have achieved their position through their initiative, ability and ambition, and run efficient and productive
businesses, will receive high rewards.

Parsons's argument suggests that stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies. If value consensus
is an essential component of all societies, then it follows that some form of stratification will result from the
ranking of individuals in terms of common values. It also follows from Parsons's argument that there is a
general belief that stratification systems are just, and proper because they are an expression of shared values.
Thus, American business executives are seen to deserve their rewards because members of society place a
high value on their skills and achievements

Parsons saw social stratification as both inevitable and functional for society.

1. It is inevitable because it derives from shared values which are a necessary part of all social systems.

2. It is functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society.

Power and prestige differentials are essential for the coordination and integration of a specialised division of
labour. Without social inequality, Parsons found it difficult to see how members of society could effectively
cooperate and work together. Finally, inequalities of power and prestige benefit all members of society since
they serve to further collective goals that are based on shared values.

The most famous functionalist theory of stratification was first presented in 1945, in an article by the American
sociologists Davis and Moore entitled Some Principles of Stratification.
Effective role allocation and performance Davis and Moore began with the observation that stratification exists
in every known human society. They attempted to explain 'in functional terms, the social universal necessity
that calls forth stratification in any social system. They argued that all social systems share certain functional
prerequisites that must be met if the system is to survive and operate efficiently. One such functional
prerequisite is effective role allocation and performance. This means that:

1. All roles must be filled

2. They must be filled by those best able to perform them
3. The necessary training for them must be undertaken
4. The roles must be performed conscientiously.

Davis and Moore argued that all societies need some 'mechanism' for ensuring effective role allocation and
performance. This mechanism is social stratification, which they saw as a system that attaches unequal rewards
and privileges to the different positions in society.

If the people and positions that make up society did not differ in important respects there would be no need
for stratification. However, people differ in terms of their innate ability and talent, and positions differ in terms
of their importance for the survival and maintenance of society. Certain positions are more functionally
important than others. These require special skills for their effective performance and the number of
individuals with the necessary ability to acquire such skills is limited.

A major function of stratification is to match the ablest people with the functionally most important positions.
It does this by attaching high rewards to those positions. The desire for such rewards motivates people to
compete for them, and in theory, the most talented will win. Such positions usually require long periods of
training that involve certain sacrifices, such as loss of income. The promise of high rewards is necessary to
provide an incentive to encourage people to undergo this training and to compensate them for the sacrifice
involved. It is essential for the well-being of society that those who hold the functionally most important
positions perform their roles diligently and conscientiously. The high rewards built into these positions provide
the necessary inducement and generate the required motivation for such performance. Davis and Moore
therefore concluded that social stratification is a 'device by which societies ensure that the most important
positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons!

Functional importance

Davis and Moore realized that one difficulty with their theory was showing clearly which positions are
functionally most important. A position may be highly rewarded without necessarily being functionally
important. They suggested that the importance of a position can be measured in two ways.

1. It can be measured by the “degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being no other
positions that can perform the same function satisfactorily”. Thus, it could be argued that doctors are
 functionally more important than nurses since their position carries with it many of the skills necessary
to perform a nurse's role but not vice versa.
2. The second measure of importance is the “degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in
question”. Thus, it may be argued that managers are more important than routine office staff since the
latter are dependent on direction and organization from management.

To summarize, Davis and Moore regarded social stratification as a functional necessity for all societies. They
saw it as a solution to a problem faced by all social systems, that of placing and motivating individuals in the
social structure: They offered no other means of solving this problem and implied that social inequality is an
inevitable feature of human society. They concluded that differential rewards are functional for society because
they contribute to the maintenance and well-being of social systems.

1.3 Conflict Perspective of Social Stratification

Conflict or Marxist perspectives provide a radical alternative to functionalist views of the nature of social
stratification. They regard stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure. They see it as a
mechanism whereby some exploit others, rather than as a means of furthering collective goals. According
to conflict theory, capitalist economic competition unfairly privileges the rich, who have the power to
perpetuate an unfair system that works to their advantage.

Marxists focus on social strata rather than social inequality in general. The view of social stratification is
central to Marxist theory. From a Marxist perspective, systems of stratification derive from the relationships
of social groups to the means of production. Marx used the term 'class' to refer to the main strata in all
stratification systems. From a Marxist viewpoint, a class is a social group whose members share the same
relationship to the means of production.

For example, in a feudal epoch, there are two main classes distinguished by their relationship to land (means
of production in an agricultural society). They are the feudal nobility who own the land, and the landless serfs
who work on the land. Similarly, in a capitalist era, there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie or capitalist
class, which owns the means of production, and the proletariat or working class, whose members own only
their labour which they hire by the bourgeoisie in return for wages.

According to Karl Marx in all stratified societies, there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a
subject class. The ruling class derives its power from its ownership and control of the forces of production.
The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result, there is a basic conflict of interest between
the two classes. The various institutions of society such as the legal and political system are instruments of
ruling class domination and serve to further its interests.

Marx believed that Western society developed through four main epochs - primitive communism; ancient
society; feudal society; and capitalist society. Primitive communism is represented by the societies of pre-
history and provides the only example of a classless society. From then all societies were divided into two
major classes - masters and slaves in ancient society; lords and serfs in feudal society; and capitalist and wage
labourers in capitalist society.

Marx distinguished between a 'class in itself' and a 'class for itself. A class in itself is simply a social group
whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. Marx argued that a social group only
fully becomes a class when it becomes a class for itself. At this stage, its members have class consciousness
and class solidarity. Members of a class then develop a common identity, recognize their shared interests and
unite.

The work of the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) represents one of the most important
developments in stratification theory since Marx. Weber believed that social stratification results from a
struggle for scarce resources in society. Although he saw this struggle as being primarily concerned with
economic resources, it can also involve struggles for prestige and political power.

Like Marx, Weber saw class in economic terms. He argued that classes develop in market economies in which
individuals compete for economic gain. He defined a class as a group of individuals who share a similar
position in a market economy, and by virtue of that fact receive similar economic rewards. Thus, in Weber's
terminology, a person's 'class situation' is their 'market situation: Those who share a similar class situation also
share similar life chances. Their economic position will directly affect their chances of obtaining those things
defined as desirable in their society, for example, access to higher education and good-quality housing.

Like Marx, Weber argued that the major class division is between those who own the forces of production and
those who do not. Thus, those who have substantial property holdings will receive the highest economic
rewards and enjoy superior life chances. However, Weber saw important differences in the market situation
of the propertyless groups in society. In particular, the various skills and services offered by different
occupations have differing market values. For instance, in a capitalist society, managers, administrators and
professionals receive relatively high salaries because of the demand for their services.

Weber distinguished the following class groupings in capitalist society: the propertied upper class; The
propertyless white-collar workers; the petty bourgeoisie; and the manual working class.

According to Weber factors other than the ownership or non-ownership of property are significant in the
formation of classes. In particular, the market value of the skills of the property varies and the resulting
differences in economic returns are sufficient to produce different social classes. Weber sees no evidence to
support the idea of polarization of classes. He argues that the white-collar middle class expands rather than
contracts as capitalism develops. He maintained that capitalist enterprises and the modern nation-state require
a rational bureaucratic administration that involves large numbers of administrators and clerical staff. Thus,
Weber sees a diversification of classes and an expansion of the white-collar middle class rather than
polarization. He rejects the view of the inevitability of the proletarian revolution. He sees no reason why those
sharing a similar class situation should necessarily develop a common identity recognize shared interests and
take collective action to further those interests. A common market situation may provide a basis for collective
class action but he sees this only as a possibility. Finally, he rejects the Marxian view that political power
necessarily derives from economic power. The class forms only possible basis for power and the distribution
of power in society is not necessarily linked to the distribution of class inequalities. In many societies class
and status situations are closely linked. Weber notes that property as such is not always recognized as a status
qualification but in the long run, it is and with extraordinary regularity. However, those who share the same
class situation will not necessarily belong to the semi-status group. The nouveau riches are sometimes
excluded from the status groups of the privileged because their tastes, manners and dress are defined as vulgar.
Status gross may create division within classes.

Weber's observations on status groups are important since they suggest that in certain situations status rather
than class provided the basis for the formation of a social group whose members perceive common interests
and a group identity. In addition, the presence of different status groups within a single class and of status
groups out across class divisions can weaken class solidarity and reduce the potential force of class
consciousness. These points are illustrated by Weber's analysis of parties. He defines parties as groups that are
specifically concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in the interest of their membership. In
Weber's words parties are concerned with the acquisition of social power. Parties include a variety of
associations from the mass political parties of Western democracies to the whole range of pressure or interest
groups which include professional associations, trade unions, automobile associations etc. Parties often
represent the interest of classes or status groups but not necessarily in Weber's words, parties may represent
interests determined through class situations or status situations in most cases they are partly class parties and
partly status parties. Weber presents that the evidence provides a more complex and diversified picture of
social stratification.

1.2 & 1.3 CONFLICT AND FUNCTIONAL THEORIES COMPARISON

The conflict theory of social stratification has emerged as an antithesis of the functionalist approach. The
conflict theory is a different approach somewhat opposed to the functional theory of stratification.

According to the functionalists, social stratification arises out of the needs of the society, and not out of the
needs or desires of particular individuals. By contrast, conflict theorists approach the problem of social
inequality from the standpoint of the position of various classes and groups within society. Their needs and
desires, rather than the needs of society as a whole, become the root cause of social inequality. Conflict
theorists see social inequality as arising out of the monopolistic control over goods and services by a minority
of people. The means by which scarce goods and services are produced are owned by the capitalists.

Secondly, the conflict theory of social stratification differs from the functional approach on the question of
change and stability in society. The functionalists 'justify' social stratification declaring it as a functional
necessity. As such social stratification performs certain positive functions in all societies. Therefore, social
stratification is not only indispensable to all human societies, but it is also a great source of stability. However,
conflict theorists look at social inequality and class hierarchy as the main source of social change.

Functional theorists also believe that the social system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Various aspects of social
stratification such as class, power status and 'orders' of social relations, hence social stability becomes their
main concern. In contrast, the conflict theory outlines that society is inherently unstable because of its inherent
contradictions and class antagonism. According to this approach conflicts emanating from social inequality
lead to changes in the structure of society.

Finally, the main concern of the functionalists is to know how different aspects of society are interrelated with
each other and how this brings about cohesion and stability in the system. So far as social stratification is
concerned role-allocation is made based on societal needs and ability of the incumbents. Rewards are
differentially given based upon a man's position in the society.

In short, while the functionalists highlight the common goals shared by the members of a society: the conflict
theorists stress upon the basic factors, that divide the society into the rich and the poor people. The
functionalists stress upon the common advantages, that are brought out from social relationships: the conflict
theorists emphasize the domination exercised by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Furthermore, while the
functionalists consider consensus as the basis of social unity the conflict theorists observe that coercion of the
poor by the rich is the cause of social inequality. Finally, whereas the functionalists look at human society as
a social system, the conflict theorists consider it as a stage in the evolution of the struggle for power and
privilege. This is, however, not to emphasize that all the conflict theorists deny the validity of the functionalist
approach. Some functionalists acknowledge the importance of Conflict in human society. In fact, 'conflict is
seen as the necessary background phenomenon in the emergence of 'integration, and similarly, integration is
viewed as the basis of conflict by developing inconsistencies and contradictions.

1.4 Feminist Perspective of Social Stratification

The development of feminism has led to attention being focused on the subordinate position of women in
many societies. Feminist sociologists have been mainly responsible for developing theories of gender
inequality, yet there is little agreement about the causes of this inequality, nor about what actions should be
taken to reduce or end it. More recently, the focus has changed from an emphasis on inequality to one on
difference.

Several feminist approaches can be broadly distinguished -

Radical Feminism

Radical feminism blames the exploitation of women on men. To a radical feminist, it is primarily men who
have benefited from the subordination of women. Women are seen to be exploited because they undertake
unpaid labour for men by carrying out childcare and housework, and because they are denied access to
positions of power.

Radical feminists see society as patriarchal - it is dominated and ruled by men. From this point of view, men
are the ruling class, and women are the subject class. The family is often seen by radical feminists as the key
institution oppressing women in modern societies.

Radical feminists tend to believe that women have always been exploited and that only revolutionary change
can offer the possibility of their liberation. However, there are disagreements within this group about both the
origins of women's oppression and the possible solutions to it. Some radical feminists, such as Shulamith
Firestone (1972), believe women's oppression originated in their biology, particularly in the fact that they give
birth. Others do not see biology as so important; they see male rule as largely a product of culture. Some stress
rape and male violence towards women as the methods through which men have secured and maintained their
power.

Marxist And Socialist Feminism

Marxist and socialist feminists do not attribute women's exploitation entirely to men. They see capitalism
rather than patriarchy as being the principal source of women's oppression, and capitalists as the main
beneficiaries. Like radical feminists, they see women's unpaid work as housewives and mothers as one of the
main ways in which women are exploited. Although men in general benefit, it is primarily capitalists who gain
from women's unpaid work since new generations of workers are reproduced at no cost to the capitalist. Thus,
Marxist and socialist feminists relate women's oppression to the production of wealth. Marxist feminists also
place much greater stress on the exploitation of women in paid employment. The disadvantaged position of
women is held to be a consequence of the emergence of private property and subsequently their lack of
ownership of the means of production, which in turn deprives them of power.

Marxist feminists share with radical feminists a desire for revolutionary change; however, they seek the
establishment of a communist society. In such a society (where the means of production will be communally
owned) they believe gender inequalities will disappear. This view is not shared by radical feminists who
believe that women's oppression has different origins and causes, and therefore requires a different solution.

Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism aims are more moderate and its views pose less of a challenge to existing values. Liberal
feminists aim for gradual change in the political, economic and social systems of Western societies.

To the liberal feminist, nobody benefits from existing gender inequalities; both men and women are harmed
because the potential of females and males alike is suppressed. For example, many women with the potential
to be successful and skilled members of the workforce do not get the opportunity to develop their talents,
while men are denied some of the pleasures of having a close relationship with their children. The explanation
of this situation, according to liberal feminists, lies not so much in the structures and institutions of society,
but in its culture and the attitudes of individuals. Socialization into gender roles has the consequence of
producing rigid, inflexible expectations of men and women. Discrimination prevents women from having
equal opportunities.

The creation of equal opportunities, particularly in education and work, is the main aim of liberal feminists.
They pursue this aim through the introduction of legislation and by attempting to change attitudes. They try
to eradicate sexism and stereotypical views of women and men from children's books and the mass media.
They do not seek revolutionary changes in society: they want reforms that take place within the existing social
structure, and they work through the democratic system. Since they believe that existing gender inequalities
benefit nobody (although they are particularly harmful to women), liberal feminists are willing to work with
any members of society who support their beliefs and aims.

The liberal view could still lead to considerable social change. At the very least, the changes it supports could
lead to women having the same access as men to high-status jobs.

Postmodern Feminism

Postmodern feminists believe that gender is not determined by biology, but rather by culture and society. They
argue that women have been oppressed not because they are biologically inferior to men, but because they
have been socially and politically marginalized.

Postmodern feminism began in the 1970s as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Second-wave feminism was
based on the belief that women were oppressed due to their biology (i.e., their sex). This led to a focus on
issues like reproductive rights and equal access to education and employment.

However, postmodern feminists argued that these issues were not enough to liberate women from oppression.
Instead, they believed that women’s oppression was the result of social and political factors (Waugh, 2012).
Postmodern feminism is associated with thinkers as diverse as Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Donna
Haraway.

Post-modern feminists assume that the modernist conception of feminism emphasizes gender differences
between women and men whilst ignoring the differences within each gender. For example, while all women
may be oppressed by patriarchy, not all women experience this oppression in the same way. White, middle-
class women, for example, may have more privilege than women of colour or working-class women. Similarly,
lesbians may experience different forms of oppression than heterosexual women (Waugh, 2012).

Postmodern feminists also critiqued the notion of a unified “sisterhood” among all women. They pointed out
that there are many factors that divide women along the lines of race, class, sexuality, and other categories. As
such, they argued that it was important to focus on the unique experiences of each group of women

Firestone, Ortner and Rosaldo all agree that women's subordination to men is universal. They all to some
extent agree that the ultimate source of inequality between the sexes is biology, or the interpretation placed on
biology. These views are not accepted by all sociologists. Marxist and socialist feminists question the view
that women's subordination has always been universal. They claim that it is necessary to examine history to
find out how and why inequality between the sexes came about.

For radical feminists, patriarchy is the most important concept for explaining gender inequalities. Although
it means 'rule by the father', radical feminists have used it more broadly to refer to male dominance in society.
From this point of view, patriarchy consists of the exercise of power by men over women. Kate Millett was
one of the first radical feminists to use the term and to provide a detailed explanation of women's exploitation
by men.

To Sylvia Walby as well, the concept of patriarchy remains central to a feminist understanding of society. She
says that "patriarchy" is indispensable for an analysis of gender inequality. However, her definition of
patriarchy is different from that of other feminists. She argues that there are six patriarchal structures which
restrict women and their life chances and help men maintain male domination. These are: paid work;
patriarchal relations within the household; patriarchal culture; sexuality; male violence towards women; and
the state.

2.1 Social Class

A social class is made up of people of similar social status who regard one another as social equals. Each class
has a set of values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour norms which differ from those of the other classes.
According to Giddens (2000), “a class is a large-scale grouping of people who share common economic
resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they can lead”. Horton and Hunt (1968) write:
“A social class is defined as a stratum of people of a similar position in the social status continuum.” A
stratum is a collection of people occupying similar positions in the hierarchical order.

Max Weber has defined class in terms of life chances and said, “A class is several people sharing one or
more causes of life chances”. By life chances he meant “the typical chances for a supply of goods, external
living conditions, and personal life experience”. Karl Marx, another main theorist of class, has defined it as
“a class is a group of people who stand in a common relationship to the means of production”.

Thus, a social class is an aggregate of people who have the same status, rank or common characteristics
(lifestyle). This aggregate of people is identified based on their relationship to the economic market who have
differential access to wealth, power and certain styles of life. Ownership of wealth together with occupation
are the chief criteria of class differences but education, hereditary prestige, group participation, self-
identification and recognition by others also play an important part in class distinction.

Divisions of Social Classes:

Classes are not sharply defined status groups like castes. Social status varies along a continuum. The several
social classes may be viewed as points on this continuum. Consequently, the number of social classes is not
fixed, nor do any definite boundaries separate them.
Earlier scholars of social class broke up the status continuum into three main classes—upper, middle, and
lower. Later scholars found this division unsatisfactory and often used a six-fold classification (Warner &
Lunt) by breaking each of these three classes into an upper and lower section.

The most commonly used classification is of J.H. Goldthrope who developed it in his study Social Mobility
and Class Structure in Britain (1980). Goldthrope identifies eleven social class categories, which may be
compressed into three major social classes—service, intermediate and working.

Recently, Giddens (2000) developed a four-fold classification that exists in Western societies. These are the
upper class (the wealthy, employers, and industrialists, plus top executives); the middle class (which includes
most white-collar workers and professionals); and the working class (those in blue-collar or manual jobs).
In some of the industrialised countries, such as France or Japan, a fourth class— peasants (people engaged
in traditional types or agricultural production)—has also until recently been important.

In addition to these four classes, there is one more class known as “underclass”, which is composed of ethnic
majority and underprivileged minorities. Members of the underclass have worse working conditions and living
standards than the majority of the population.

The following are the principal characteristics of the class system:

1. A system of hierarchy of status.

2. A system of social ranking based primarily on economic position.
3. A system marked by unequal distribution of wealth and power.
4. A system more mobile than a caste system.
5. A system in which status is achieved by one’s efforts rather than ascribed, assigned or inherited.
6. A system having some degree of permanency of the class structure.
7. A system based on stratum (class) consciousness and solidarity.
8. A system having distinctive modes of life (lifestyle) and cultural expressions of each class.
9. A system based on the recognition of superiority and inferiority about those who stand or below in the
social hierarchy.
10. A system in which boundaries between classes are fluid and are less precisely defined.
11. A system in which social classes act as sub-cultures—each social class is a system of behaviour, a set
of values and a way of life.

Nature of Social Class

1. Class is an economic group: Although a social class is mostly determined based on the location of
the production and distribution of social wealth, they are not mere economic groups or divisions. It
also includes both subjective and objective criteria such as class consciousness, class solidarity and
wealth, property, income, education and occupation. Marx considered class on an economic basis.
2. Class is also a status group: Class is also related to the status dimension. The consideration of the
class as a status group is applied to a society which has many strata. Status groups are composed of
persons having the same lifestyle and receiving the same social honour from others. Therefore, the
status consciousness separates the individuals both physically and psychologically.
3. An achieved pattern: Status is achieved in a class system and not ascribed. As such, birth is not the
basis of the acquisition of one’s status and one’s status is not fixed throughout life. One may improve
his status if he acquires the capability and talent necessary for that. On the other hand, one may also
lose his status, if he fails to maintain his ability and talent.
4. The class system is universal: As a universal phenomenon class system is prevalent in all the
modern and complex social systems. However, small, simple and primitive societies are mostly free
from such a pattern of stratification.
5. Feeling of class consciousness: Feeling of class consciousness is experienced among the members
of a particular class at three levels. First, the members feel a sense of equality within their class.
Secondly, the feeling of inferiority inheres in the minds of those who occupy the lower status in the
socio-economic hierarchy. Thirdly, the members of a class experience a feeling of superiority over
those who are placed in the lower range in the hierarchy. Such feelings cause class consciousness and
finally result in strengthening the basis of class.
6. Prestige dimension: Wealth, income, education and occupation are some of the basic determinants
of class. As it is an open system, anyone who satisfies the basic criteria can become its member.
Therefore persons belonging to a particular class develop status consciousness and this is reflected
through the status symbols of different class groups. The status symbols of the upper classes are
considered prestigious, whereas the status symbols of the middle classes are considered less
prestigious.
7. Relatively stable group: A class is characterised by an element of stability, unlike a crowd or mob
of course, social mobility is possible due to the openness of the system, nevertheless it cannot be
interpreted as transitory. Under certain extraordinary situations, the class is subject to rapid
transformation. Such circumstances include crises in the social, economic and political spheres,
revolutions, movements, wars etc.
8. Open to social mobility: An open system of stratification is characterised by a vertical mobility
pattern in which upward and downward movements of individuals in the social hierarchy are possible.
This is not to say that there is no resistance at all, but the resistance is mild and not so severe as found
in the caste system.
9. Varieties of lifestyles: A particular social class is marked off from the other classes by its ‘lifestyles’
which comprises the mode of living such as the dress pattern, the type of house and the social
environment, where the members live, the leisure time activities, the mode of consumption, the pattern
of relationship between the spouses and their off-springs, the exposure to media, the circle of
 friendship, the mode of conveyance and communication, ways of behaving etc. All these make
differences between different classes and exhibit class- values and caste preferences.

2.2 The Caste System

The caste system, the joint family system and the village system of life—are often regarded as the three basic
pillars of the Indian social system. The caste system as a form of social stratification is peculiar to India. The
caste is an inseparable aspect of the Indian society. It is peculiarly Indian in origin and development. There is
no comparable institution elsewhere in the world for the caste system.

Caste is closely connected with the Hindu philosophy and religion, customs and tradition, marriage and family,
morals and manners, food and dress habits, occupations and hobbies. The caste system is believed to have had
a divine origin and sanction. It is endlessly supported by rituals and ceremonies. It is a deep-rooted and long-
lasting social institution in India. India is a classical land of the caste. It is here, in India, that we find more
than 2800 castes and sub-castes with all their peculiarities. Of these, the major caste (previously known as
varnas) such as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras (or depressed caste) are found in almost all the
states

The term 'caste' is derived from the Spanish (also Portuguese) word "caste" meaning "breed" or "lineage".
The Portuguese used the term 'caste' first to denote the divisions in the Indian caste system. The word 'caste'
also signifies 'race' or 'kind, The Sanskrit word for caste is 'Varna' which means 'colour'. Races and colour
seem to be the basis of Indian caste in addition to the division of labour and occupation. The popular equivalent
of caste is 'Jati"

The caste stratification of the Indian Society has had its origin in the "Chaturvarna' system. According to the
Chaturvana doctrine, (the Hindu society was divided into four main varnas namely: the Brahmins, the
Kashtriyas, the Vaishyas, and the Shudras). The Varna system which was prevalent during the Vedic period
was mainly based on the division of labour and occupation. The Caste system owes its origin to
the Varna system.

Sir Herbert Risely: Caste is a "collection of families, bearing a common name, claiming a common descent,
from a mythical ancestor, human and divine, professing to follow the same hereditary calling and regarded by
those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homogeneous community”.

C.H. Cooley: "When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary, we may call it a caste."

A. W. Green: "Caste is a system of stratification in which mobility up and down the status ladder, at least
ideally may not occur".

D.N. Majumdar & T.N. Madan have said that caste is a 'closed group'

Factors that Facilitated the Growth of the Caste System in India

 1. The geographic isolation of the Indian Peninsula for a long time made the people foster old customs,
mores, traditions and superstitious beliefs which in turn encouraged the caste system to grow.
2. The influence of religion is one of the main factors that caused the continuation of the caste system.
The Hindu Caste system is looked upon as a divinely ordained institution. Beliefs in reincarnation and
the doctrine of Karma also further strengthened the caste system.
3. The existence of many races in the country led to the formulation of many strict laws concerning
discrimination since each race endeavoured to maintain its purity.
4. The rural social structure has an impact on the caste. The unchanging, static rural social structure of
India favoured the growth of the caste system.
5. The unwillingness of rulers to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom and their readiness to
recognise the varying customs of different groups as valid, also facilitated the growth of the caste
system.
6. Lack of education has contributed in no small measure to the growth of the caste system. Illiteracy
and ignorance have made the people to become orthodox and to implicitly accept the caste rules and
restrictions;
7. Further, factors such as the hereditary occupations: the desire of the Brahmins to keep themselves pure:
ideas of exclusive family, ancestor worship, the sacramental meal, the deliberate economic and
administrative policies followed by the various conquerors, particularly the British, clash of races,
colour prejudices and conquest, etc., also have contributed to the growth of caste system in India.

Characteristics of Caste

The caste system is highly complex. As Dr. G.S. Ghurye says, any attempt to define caste is 'bound to fail
because of the complexity of the phenomenon. He describes the characteristics of caste in his "Caste and Class
in India 1950-56 [also in his Caste, Class and Occuption-1961 and Caste and Race in India-1970]. The
following have been the main traditional features of the caste system :

1. Caste as a hierarchical division of society: The Hindu society is a gradational one. It is divided into several
small groups called castes and subcastes. A sense of highness' and 'lowness' or 'superiority' and 'inferiority' is
associated with this gradation or ranking. The Brahmins are placed at the top of the hierarchy and are regarded
as 'pure', supreme or superior. The degraded caste or the so-called 'untouchables' [Harijans] have occupied the
other end of the hierarchy.

2. Caste as a Segmental Division of Society: Castes are groups with defined boundaries of their own. The
status of an individual is determined by his birth and not by selection or by accomplishments. No amount of
power, prestige and pelf can change the position of man. The membership of the caste is hence unchangeable,
unacquirable, inalienable, unattainable and nontransferable. Further, each caste in a way, has its way of life.
Each caste has its customs, traditions, practices and rituals. It has its own informal rules, regulations and
procedures. There were caste councils or 'caste panchayats' to regulate the conduct of members. The caste
used to help its members when they were found in distress. Indeed, the caste was its ruler. The castes and
subcastes together make up the Hindu social system. Still, in some respects, each is isolated from the other. It
is in a way semi-sovereign. The castes are a 'complete world in themselves for their members. The members
are expected to be loyal to the caste. Caste feeling is hence very strong. It is much stronger in rural areas than
in urban areas. It is because of this the amount of community feeling is restricted.

3. Restrictions on food habits: The caste system has imposed certain restrictions on the food habits of the
members, they differ from caste to caste. Who should accept what kind of food and from whom? is often
decided by the caste. For example, in North India, a Brahmin would accept 'pakka' food [cooked in ghee] only
from some castes lower than his own. But he would accept 'kachcha' food (prepared with the use of water] at
the hands of no other caste except his own. As a matter of rule and practice, no individual would accept
'kachcha' food prepared by an inferior caste man. Generally, any kind of food that is prepared by the Brahmins
is acceptable to all the caste people Even today, some traditional Brahmins do not consume onions, garlic,
cabbage, carrot, beetroot, etc. Eating beef is not allowed except for the Harijans.

4. Restrictions on social relations: The caste system puts restrictions on the range of social relations. The
idea of pollution makes this point clear. It means a touch of a lower caste man (particularly Harijan) would
pollute or defile a man of a higher caste. Even his shadow is considered enough to pollute a higher caste man.
This has resulted in the practice of untouchability. This practice has made the lower caste people to be
segregated completely from the higher caste

5. Social and religious disabilities of certain castes: In the traditional caste society some lower caste people
[particularly the Harijans) suffered from certain civil or social and religious disabilities. Generally, the impure
castes are made to live on the outskirts of the city or the village. Socially. Harijans or the so-called
'untouchables' are separated from other members. Even today, in many places they are not allowed to draw
water from the public wells. During the early days, public places like hotels, hostels, public lecture halls,
schools, temples, and theatres were not kept open for the lower caste people. Entrance to temples and other
places of religious importance was forbidden for them. Educational facilities; legal rights and political
representation were denied to them for a long time.

6. The civil and religious privileges of certain castes: If the lower caste people suffer from certain
disabilities, some higher caste people like the Brahmins enjoy certain privileges. Nowhere do the Brahmins
suffer from the disabilities cited above. They are given more liberty because they are believed to be born 'pure
and superior. The Brahmins never saluted others, but they always had the privilege of being saluted by others.
They never even bowed to the idol of the lower caste people. Education and teaching were almost the
monopoly of the higher caste people. Chanting the Vedic Mantras was a great privilege for the Brahmins. The
upper caste people in general, enjoyed social, political, legal and religious privileges.

7. Restrictions on occupational choice: In the caste-ridden society there is a gradation of occupations also.
Some occupations are considered to be superior and sacred while certain others are degrading and inferior.
For a long time, occupations were very much associated with the caste system. Each caste had its specific
occupation. The caste members were expected to continue the same occupations. Occupations were almost
hereditary Weaving, shoe-making, oil-grinding, sweeping, scavenging, curing, hides tanning, washing clothes,
barbering pottery, etc. were considered to be somewhat degrading'. Learning, priesthood, and teaching were
the prestigious professions which mostly the Brahmins pursued,

8. Restrictions on marriage: The caste system imposes restrictions on marriage. Caste is an endogamous
group. Endogamy is a rule of marriage according to which an individual has to marry within his or her group.
Each caste is subdivided into several subcastes, which are again endogamous. Intercaste marriages were
strictly forbidden then. Even at present, intercaste marriages have not become popular Violation of the rule of
endogamy was strictly dealt with during the early days.

Caste in Independent India [After 1947]

The political independence of the country, besides the process of industrialisation, urbanisation, secularisation
etc. brought in a series of changes in the caste system.

Caste has assumed a different form in the modern times. Some of the traditional features [described earlier]
have been radically altered. Here is a brief survey of the changes that have taken place in the caste system
after Independence.

1. The religious basis of the caste has been attacked. Caste is no longer believed to be divinely
ordained. It is being given more of a social and secular meaning than a religious interpretation.
2. Restrictions on food habits have been relaxed. The distinction between 'pakka' food and 'kachcha'
food has almost vanished. Food habits have become more a matter of personal choice than a caste rule.
Still, commensal taboos are not completely ignored especially in rural areas. Inter-dining has not
become the order of the day.
3. Caste is not very much associated with hereditary occupations. Caste no longer determines the
occupational career of an individual. Occupations are becoming more and more "caste-free". Even
Brahmins are found driving taxis, dealing with foot-wear running non-vegetarian hotels and bars and
so on,
4. Endogamy, which is often called the very essence of the caste system, still prevails. Intercaste
marriages though legally permitted, have not become the order of the day. As KM Kapadia says, "There
is an indifference to the intercaste marriages if not tacit acceptance by the society".
5. The special civil and religious privileges which the Brahmins enjoyed are no more being enjoyed
by them. The Constitution of India has removed all such privileges and made all castes equal. Most
of the legal, political, educational, economic and other disabilities from which the lowest caste people
had suffered, have been removed by the constitutional provisions. They are given special protection
also. Adult franchises and "reservations" have given them a strong weapon to protect their interests.
 6. Caste continues to be a segmental division of Hindu society. Caste with its hierarchical system
continues to ascribe statuses to the individuals. However, the twin processes of Sanskritisation and
Westernisation have made possible mobility both within and outside the framework of caste.
7. Caste panchayats, which used to control the behaviour of caste members, have either become very
weak or disappeared. Though they are often found here and there in the village areas, they are almost
non-existent in the urban areas.
8. Restrictions imposed by the caste on social intercourse are very much relaxed. The distinction
between "touchable' and 'untouchable' is not much felt especially in the community of literate people.
However, instances of untouchability
9. Other Important Changes
 Though the dominance of caste is still found in villages it no longer depends upon its ritual status.
 Casteism which is associated with caste, instead of disappearing in the wake of modernism, has
become still stronger.
 The 'jajmani' system which is used to govern inter-caste relations, especially in the villages has become
very weak. In many places, it has vanished. In place of inter-caste dependence, inter-caste strifes are
found.
 Caste has lost much of its hold over the social usages and customs practised by its members.
 Caste today does not dictate an individual's life nor does it restrict newly valued individual freedom.
Hence it no longer acts as a barrier to the progress of an individual.

Causes For the Changes In the Caste System

The caste system has undergone vast changes in modern times. Factors that contributed to the changes in the
caste system are briefly examined here.

(1) Uniform legal system: The uniform legal system introduced by the British made the Indians feel that
"all men are equal before the law". Several legislations which the British introduced also struck at the
root of the caste system. Independent India followed the same legal system. The Constitution of India
has not only assured equality to all but also declared the practice of untouchability unlawful [Articles
15 and 16]. Articles 16, 164, 225, 330, 332, 334,335,338 and the 5th and 6th Schedules of the
Constitution provide for some special privileges to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to
enable them to come up to the level of other upper castes.
(2) Impact of modern education: The British uniformly introduced the modem secular education
throughout India. In independent India educational facilities are extended to all the caste people. The
lowest caste people are also entitled to avail themselves of these facilities. Modern education has given
a blow to the intellectual monopoly of a few upper castes. It has created an awareness among people
and weakened the hold of caste over the members. It does not, however, mean that the modern educated
people are completely free from the hold of the caste.
(3) Industrialisation, urbanisation and Westernisation: Due to the process of industrialisation, several
non-agricultural job opportunities were created. This new economic opportunity weakened the hold of
the upper caste people who owned vast lands. People of different castes, classes, and religions started
working together in factories, offices, workshops etc. This was unthinkable two centuries ago. The
growth of cities has drawn people of all castes together and made them stay together ignoring many of
their caste restrictions. The upper caste people started looking to the West to modify their lifestyle to
the model of the West. Thus they became more and more westernised without bothering much about
caste inhibitions.
(4) Influence of modern transport and communication: Modern means of transport such as trains,
buses, ships, aeroplanes, trucks etc. have been of great help for the movement of men and materials.
Caste rules relating to the practice of purity pollution and untouchability could no longer be observed.
Modern means of communication, such as newspapers, post, telegraph, telephone, radio, television
etc., have helped people to come out of the narrow world of caste.
(5) Freedom struggle and the establishment of democracy: The freedom struggle waged against the
British brought all the caste people together to fight for a common cause. The establishment of a
democratic type of government soon after Independence gave yet another blow to the caste by
extending equal socio-economic opportunities to all without any discrimination.
(6) Rise of the non-brahmin movement: A movement against Brahmin supremacy was launched by
Jyothirao Pooley in 1873. This movement became popular over time, particularly in the South. It
created an awareness among the lower castes and instilled in them the feeling of "self-respect". This
movement which became a great political force, brought pressure upon the government to establish
Backward Classes Commissions at Central and State levels. The recommendations made by these
commissions and their implementation provided vast scope for the lower castes to achieve progress.
(7) Other Important Causes:
 Social Legislations. A series of social legislations introduced by the British as well as by the Indian
governments [such as the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1872, The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955,
The Untouchability Offences Act of 1956 etc.] directly and indirectly altered the nature of the caste
system.
 Social Reform Movements. Various social reform movements [such as Satyashadhak Samaj, Brahma
Samaj, Arya Samaj, Sri Ramakrishna Mission etc.] launched during the second half of the 19th and
the beginning of the 20th centuries have been able to remove the rigidity and some of the evil practices
associated with the caste system.
 Impact of the West. Influence of the Western thought and particularly the ideas of- rationalism,
liberalism, humanitarianism, egalitarianism etc., made the educated Indians come out of the clutches
of the caste.
 Threat of Conversion. Social disabilities imposed on the lower castes made some of them get
themselves convert to either Christianity or Islam. Pressure tactics and temptations further added to
 this conversion process. The threat of conversion compelled the upper castes to relax many of the caste
rigidities so that they could hold back the lower caste people who were getting ready for conversion.
 Improvement in the Status of Women, Evolution of New Social Classes. [working class, middle
class and capitalist class] and radical changes in the system of division of labour especially in the rural
areas have further loosened the roots of the caste system.

2.3 Elite

There has been no singular definition of the two elites or the masses - however, what remains common to the
multiple - perspectives concerning the two concepts is that one is always understood as the result of the other.
The classical thinkers of 'elitism', Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels present their arguments from a
structural perspective. According to them, the numerical smallness of the ruling class works in their favour
as they are easy to organise for the coordination of actions and interests, in comparison to the numerous
majorities, which are very difficult to organise, leading to their incompetence.

But the theory of elites draws the most significantly from the scholarship of their predecessor Vilfredo Pareto.
His book The Mind and Society (1935) contributes to the debate, by describing the distinction that exists
within the elites. In this, he says that societies, universally, are not just divided into elites and the masses
owing to their innate qualities, but the class of elites itself is further divided into - the governing and the
non-governing elites. He based this tripartite distinction between the governing elite, non-governing elite and
the non-elites on the premise that individuals in any given society are unequal in their qualities, yet new
members may navigate from the masses to join in the elite stratum based on their achievements and merits.

Taking his arguments forward, C. Wright Mills in his The Power Elite (1956) sets the terms for the debate
in the American power structure. He arranges the American society into three levels - the power elite,
consisting of the military, corporate and political leadership; the middle stratum, consisting of the local or
regional elites, members of Congress and other organised groups; and the unorganised masses. Individuals
in the elite stratum have common social origins and maintain their connections to achieve a qualitative shift
from the non-elites or the masses. For Mills, the elites act like a cohesive unit, in which they accept and
understand each other, and even think alike. So, for Mills, the power lies within the institutions and not
with the individuals. Even the masses can join such institutions motivated by their talents until it destabilises
the institution.

Thus, initially, the elites and the masses were understood as the two distant ends of the social spectrum,
gradually they were seen more as malleable categories with not-so-strict boundaries. While the masses remain
the ruled and the unorganised majority, individual merit is placed at the heart of the scope of their mobility
into the elite stratum.
Types of Elites

The nature of elites, according to The Social Sciences Encyclopaedia, was traditionally understood as a group
of a handful of people who are set apart from the rest of the society by virtue of possessing some special
talents, meeting a crucial need or fulfilling some historical mission. However, the newer approach looks at
them as influential figures in the governance of any section of society, be it an institutional structure, a
trans-local community or a geographic locality. And idiomatically, elites are simply the same as leaders,
influencers or decision-makers.

Now, owing to the advent of modernity, there emerged elites not only in the different segments of society but
also with differentiated degrees of power. There can thus, be elites in almost any and every sphere in the
society - bureaucratic elites, legislative elites, oligarchic elites, media elites, educational elites, financial elites,
ascriptive elites, or credentialed elites. Now, in this section let us explore three different types of elites, which
are the broader categories, to which these mentioned elites of these different types, in some further detail.

1. Ruling Elite:- This category was first introduced by Pareto. According to him, while some individuals are
superior in their abilities, others remain inferior to them in their attributes - thus, they are non-elites. The
superior ones are "elite" to him. He further bifurcates these elites into two classes, based on their functions in
the society - governing or the ruling elite; and the non-governing elite. As the name suggests, the governing
elite plays a significant role; directly or indirectly, in the functioning of the government and its political
processes. Now, the ruling elite are of further two types - the foxes and the lions. Foxes are those who rule by
the virtue of cunningness, manipulation and deceit. On the other hand, lions are those who rule through
homogeneity, smaller bureaucracies, established norms and centralised processes. Thus, lions are
comparatively more conservative than the foxes. For you, to better understand these bifurcations, a figure is
given below.

History, according to Pareto, is a pendulum shift of power between lions and the foxes. To explain this, he
proposed the idea of "circulation of elites". In this, he suggested two ways in which ruling elites in a given
society remain dynamic and not a constant, in which the decay of one paves the way for the rise of the other.
Firstly, according to him, there is a circulation of individuals between the elite and the non-elite strata of
society. The ruling elites are replaced when those from the non-elite classes start infiltrating their stratum.
Secondly, the circulation of elites may ensure the replacement of one set of elites by the other, when the latter
may rise in its possession of attributes that are central to the ruling elites, while the former starts showing the
signs of degeneration of such attributes. Thus, aristocracies with the ruling at the top do not last.

2. Economic Elite :- James Burnham adopts an economic approach to define elitism, in which power is seen
as a means to identify who is elite and who is not. In this dynamic, the elites draw their power in accordance
with their degree of control over the means of production and distribution. This power gives them influential
positions in society, in comparison to those on the other end of the social spectrum with no such access to the
means of production or distribution. According to this understanding, the easiest way of discovering who the
dominant elite or the ruling group of the society is to explore which group gets the maximum income. Even
to possess political power in a given society, one must possess economic power first, as political power too
flows from having economic control. To substantiate this case, he offers an example of capitalism. In this, he
argues that capitalism would gradually be replaced by an economic and political system, run by managerial
elites because the capitalists have passed the control of their business to those in the capacity of professional
managers. This would occur as a result of a managerial revolution, in which owing to the state support manager
and the bureaucrat would become interchangeable.

3. Power Elites :- Taking forward the purely economic basis of elite power as explained by Burnham, C.
Wright Mills added that it is not just the economic power but also its social counterpart, which come together
to form the basis of the elite in a given society. So, for him, power elites are those who occupy the topmost
positions in the institutions. The same power elites also make it to the leading positions of power even in the
political sphere or the government. Here, institutions, according to Mills are strategic hierarchies, in which
power and rule are important to possess elitism, as compared to possessing sources of legitimacy. Thus,
according to his institutional power approach, the source of power lies not with an individual or a particular
class, but rather with the institution.

The power that flows from an institution, determines the status, position, influence and authority of the elites
in a contemporary society. With the power that an institution bestows upon the elites, they get in the position
to determine the role of the others - the middle stratum and the masses. Thus, Mills suggested that it was the
innate traits that make an elite out of an individual, it is rather the institution he is related to. Referring to
American society, he said the corporations, the military and the government are three such elite institutions.
The decision-makers at these elite institutions act in coherence with each other to maintain and strengthen the
elitism of each other

2.4 Gender

Regarding gender, Aristotle called males active, and females passive. In his view, “the biological inferiority
of a woman makes her inferior also in her capacities, her ability to reason and, therefore, her ability to
make decisions”. Because man is superior and woman inferior, “he is born to rule and she to be ruled”. He
said, “The courage of man is shown in commanding a woman to obey”.
A very important explanation for the origin of gender division was given by Frederick Engels in 1884 in his
book, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. He says both the division of classes and
the subordination of women developed historically. Engels believed that “women’s subordination began
with the development of private property when according to him, the world's historical defeat of the
female sex took place”.

Gender stratification was not among the preferred themes of analysis in social sciences until the 1970s. Until
the 1970s, the differences between men and women were considered as “natural” and mainly based on
biological origin. For the majority of sociologists until that period, sex/gender, or even women, were
completely invisible to the analysis of class stratification. Social class was considered to be based on the unit
of the family. Goldthorpe is one of the strongest defenders of the argument that “women should not be
included separately in a class analysis as they take the class of their father first and of their husband
later”.

With the emergence of the feminist perspective in sociology and the introduction of the concept of gender, the
household was no longer seen as the “locus of harmonious integration but as forms of social organization
structured around hierarchies of gender and generation”. This change of perspective in sociology made
possible the analysis of inequalities inside the family, including the sources of this inequality, as well as
analyses of the labour market from a gender perspective.

Housework started to be seen as unpaid work “carried on within a hierarchical relationship within which
women serviced men’s needs and at the same time contributed to the economy through preparing their
husbands and themselves for work in the labour market”.

An early author dealing with the intersection of class and sex was Shulamith Firestone (1974), who argued
that all women are in one class and all men are in another. In her analysis, sex is class. Inequalities between
women and men are produced by their position regarding reproduction – pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding,
child care, and so on.

In contrast, Christine Delphy (1984) argued that housewives and breadwinning husbands constitute two
separate classes. They have a relation of economic difference and of social inequality, where the housewives
are the producing class, engaged in domestic labour, and husbands are the nonproducing class, expropriating
the labour of their wives.

As of the mid-2010s, gender stratification is defined as “the degree to which men and women who are
otherwise social equals are nonetheless unequal in their access to the scarce and valued resources and
opportunities of their society”- (Chafetz 2006).

A common general definition of gender stratification refers “to the unequal distribution of wealth, power,
and privilege between the two sexes”. It is a form of social inequality where men and women are assigned
different roles and responsibilities, and women often experience disadvantageous treatment compared
to men. The unequal distribution is illustrated by unequal figures regarding employment, participation in
politics, education, land ownership, household work, and so on. “Most wealth is in the hands of men, most
big institutions are run by men, most science and technology is controlled by men”. Crudely, it could be
summarized by paraphrasing the popular expression "Remember the Golden Rule – he who has the gold
makes the rules”.

Some of the definitions of gender stratification rely specifically on the structuring power of gender as a
hierarchical division between women and men embedded in both social institutions and social practices.

The feminist perspective of gender stratification more recently takes into account intersectionality, first
highlighted by feminist-sociologist Kimberlé Crenshaw, “intersectionality suggests that various
biological, social and cultural categories, including gender, race, class and ethnicity, interact and
contribute towards systematic social inequality”. Therefore, various forms of oppression, such as racism or
sexism, do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression are interrelated, forming
a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination.

In short, gender stratification is a socially constructed stratification system, embedded in the individual,
interactional, and institutional dimensions of society.

Throughout most of recorded history and around the globe, women have taken a “back seat” to men. Generally
speaking, men have had, and continue to have, more physical and social power and status than women,
especially in the public arena. This leads to males holding public office, creating laws and rules, defining
society, and—some feminists might add—controlling women. Male dominance in a society is termed
patriarchy.

Behind much of the inequalities seen in education, the workplace, and politics is sexism (i.e.) prejudice and
discrimination because of gender. It has caused some women to avoid pursuing successful careers typically
described as “masculine”—perhaps to avoid the social impression that they are less desirable as spouses or
mothers, or even less “feminine.” Sexism has also caused women to feel inferior to men or to rate themselves
negatively.

Here are some examples of gender stratification:

1. Occupational segregation: Various job sectors tend to be heavily dominated by either men or women.
For example, women are disproportionately represented in low-paying, less prestigious occupations
such as caregiving, cleaning, and clerical work, while men dominate high-paying professions like
engineering, finance, and technology. This occupational segregation leads to gender pay gaps and
limits the upward mobility of women.
2. Gender pay gap: Women consistently earn less than men across various industries and positions. This
pay disparity is influenced by factors such as occupational segregation, implicit biases, and
 discrimination. On average, women tend to earn around 80-85 cents for every dollar earned by men,
illustrating the persistent gender-based wage gap.
3. Unequal representation in leadership positions: Women are often underrepresented in leadership
roles, both in politics and corporate positions. This phenomenon is known as the "glass ceiling effect,"
where women face difficulty in advancing to higher positions despite having the same qualifications
as men. This lack of representation limits women's influence and decision-making power in society.
4. Gender-based violence: Women worldwide are significantly more likely to experience physical,
sexual, and emotional violence compared to men. This violence includes domestic violence, sexual
assault, harassment, and trafficking. The prevalence of such violence reflects a deeply entrenched
gender stratification that perpetuates the notion of women's inferiority and male dominance.
5. Unpaid domestic work: Women often bear the primary responsibility for household chores, child-
rearing, and caregiving tasks. This unpaid work is undervalued and not recognized as contributing to
the economy. Women's disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic labour limits their participation in
paid employment, hampers their career progression, and reinforces gender inequalities.
6. Limited reproductive rights: In many societies, women's access to reproductive healthcare and
contraceptive methods is restricted or limited. These restrictions undermine women's autonomy and
control over their reproductive choices, reinforcing traditional gender roles and inequalities.
7. Cultural practices and norms: In various cultures, gender stratification is upheld through norms and
practices that promote gender inequality. This includes practices like female genital mutilation, forced
marriages, dowry systems, and honour killings. These practices restrict women's agency and perpetuate
gender-based discrimination.

3.1 Stratification in Rural India

The Agrarian class structures in India have been shaped by historical and political-administrative processes.
The traditional Indian society was organised around Caste lines. The agrarian relations were governed by the
norms of the Jajmani System. However, the Jajman relations began to disintegrate after colonial rulers
introduced changes in the Indian agrarian class system. The agrarian class structure that evolved in the rural
areas during the British regime was based either on the Zamindari or the Ryotwari type of land system. The
process of modernisation and development that was introduced by the Indian state during the post-
independence period further weakened the traditional social class structure in rural India.

In an agrarian country like India where the majority of the population still lives in its villages and is directly
or indirectly linked with agriculture as a means of livelihood, monopolies over ownership of land and rural
assets continue along with caste-based discrimination and oppression. The monopoly over land, credit and
markets is vested with a few individuals leading to a social stratification characterized by a rigid class structure
linked to land and land relations.
According to A.R. Desai (1959), while analysing class structure in rural India in the post-independence period,
we find four classes, three classes in the agricultural field are of land-owners, tenants, and labourers, while
the fourth class is of non-agriculturists.

Daniel Thorner (1956) has analysed agrarian social structure based on three criteria, viz., (a) income
obtained from the soil (i.e., rent, own cultivation, or wages), (b) the nature of rights (i.e., ownership,
tenancy, sharecropping and no rights at all), and (c) the extent of fieldwork performed (i.e., doing no work,
doing partial work, doing total work, and doing work for others). He has analysed agrarian relations by using
three specific terms: Malik for agricultural landlords (The Malik derives his agricultural income primarily
from property rights in the soil) The Maliks are of two types those who are absentee landlords and those who
reside in the village in which they own land; Kisan for working peasants including tenants (This group was
composed of Small landowners which had small amount of land which is sufficient for their survival and substan al
tenants); and Mazdoor for agricultural labourers (Mazdoors are those landless villagers who earn their
livelihood primarily from working on other people's land).

D.N. Dhanagre has suggested a different model of agrarian classes. He has proposed five classes - landlords,
massive landowners, who derive income primarily from the land; rich peasants, i.e., medium-sized
landowners with sufficient land to support the family and who cultivate the land themselves; middle peasants,
i.e., landowners of small size holdings and tenants with substantial holdings and paying higher rent; poor
peasants, i.e., land-owners with holdings insufficient to maintain a family, and therefore forced to rent others'
land; and (d) landless labourers, i.e., landless villagers who earn their livelihood primarily from working on
other people's land.

Multi-Dimensional understanding of Indian Rural Stratification

‘Caste’ was at the ‘core’ of the rural social structure. No aspect of rural society could be explained without
understanding caste equations. K.L. Sharma comments that ‘the caste system remained an important pillar of
the system of stratification India’. K.L. Sharma notes that “family prestige, caste and class are structural
loci of status determination and stratification in the village community”.

Rural India remains a caste-based society. Anthropologists and sociologists have long emphasised the notion
of a ‘dominant’ caste to understand rural stratification in India. M N Srinivas defined the term ‘dominant
caste’ to refer to the caste in the village which is numerically strong and also wields the greatest economic and
political power.

Ram Ahuja (Society in India), while explaining rural stratification on the basis of Power Structure,
classified four power-holding groups, a) those who have power based on the ownership and control of land,
(b) those who have power based on their caste, (c) those who have power based on numerical strength, and
(d) those who have power because of the positions they hold, eg, in panchayats, etc.
Correlation between caste and class:

Rural caste and class have been analysed from both Weberian and Marxian perspectives. But if one tries to
apply only the Marxian perspective to understand the class structure, he cannot do so successfully. Caste and
class are a mixed phenomenon in India’s rural society.

In rural India, there exists a strong correlation between class and caste, which has been deeply ingrained within
the social fabric of the country for centuries. Caste, a system of social stratification, is based on hereditary
occupational specialization and is accompanied by notions of purity and pollution. Class, on the other hand,
refers to socioeconomic differences and variations in access to resources and opportunities.

Caste, as a social structure, is divided into four main categories known as varnas - Brahmins (priests and
scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (labourers and
servants). Outside of these varnas, there are groups referred to as Dalits or the Scheduled Castes, who have
been historically marginalized and face severe discrimination and social exclusion. This rigid caste system
defines the social roles, occupations, and even the personal lives of individuals.

In rural areas, the correlation between class and caste is often intertwined, making it difficult to separate one
from the other. Certain castes, particularly the upper castes such as Brahmins and Kshatriyas, tend to belong
to higher social classes, resulting in greater economic and social privileges. They often own vast amounts of
land, have access to quality education, and occupy influential positions in society. This allows them to maintain
their dominance and perpetuate discrimination against lower-caste members.

In contrast, lower-caste communities, mainly Dalits, often find themselves situated in the lower socioeconomic
classes in rural areas. Due to historical marginalization and oppression, they have limited access to education,
healthcare, sanitation facilities, and formal employment opportunities. Consequently, they are often forced to
pursue labour-intensive and menial jobs with little upward mobility, such as manual scavenging, agricultural
labour, or domestic work.

Moreover, the intersections of class and caste further perpetuate systemic inequalities. For example, even
within a particular caste, there may be variations in socioeconomic status. Affluent individuals from lower
castes may enjoy certain privileges and opportunities akin to their upper-caste counterparts. However, they
may still face social discrimination and prejudice based on their caste identity, limiting their social mobility
and opportunities for advancement.

Overall, the correlation between class and caste in rural India remains deeply entrenched, perpetuating social
hierarchies and accentuating inequalities. The interplay between these two factors limits access to resources,
opportunities, and social mobility, particularly for lower-caste individuals.
The Main Features of Stratification in Rural India:

1. Caste System: The caste system is a significant feature of stratification in rural India. It categorizes
individuals into different hierarchical social groups called castes, determining their social, economic,
and political status. The caste system is rigid and hereditary, leading to social inequalities and
discrimination.
2. Land Ownership: Ownership and control of land play a crucial role in rural stratification. A small
section of the rural population, often belonging to higher castes and classes, owns most of the land,
while a majority depends on agricultural labour or landless labour. Land ownership influences social
status, economic opportunities, and political power.
3. Economic Disparities: Rural India faces significant economic disparities, with a small elite class
enjoying immense wealth and the majority struggling with poverty and lack of resources. The rural
poor have limited access to healthcare, education, sanitation, and other basic amenities, further
widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
4. Gender Inequality: Gender-based stratification is prevalent in rural India, with women facing lower
social and economic status compared to men. Women often have limited access to education,
healthcare, and employment opportunities. Discrimination against women is rooted in cultural norms,
traditions, and patriarchal beliefs.
5. Rural-Urban Divide: Stratification in rural India also takes into account the divide between rural and
urban areas. Rural areas generally have a lower standard of living, limited infrastructure, and fewer
employment opportunities, creating disparities in income, education, and access to resources compared
to urban areas.
6. Social Exclusion: Certain marginalized communities, such as Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and
Scheduled Tribes (Adivasis), face social exclusion and discrimination in rural India. They are often
denied basic rights, and access to resources, and suffer from lower social status, leading to economic
disparities and limited opportunities.
7. Political Influence: The stratification in rural India also affects political power and representation.
Historically, dominant castes have enjoyed greater political influence, leading to caste-based politics
in rural areas. This influences resource distribution, public policies, and decision-making processes,
often favouring the interests of the privileged castes and classes.

Overall, stratification in rural India is characterized by a complex interplay of multiple factors that contribute
to social inequalities, economic disparities, and the marginalization of certain communities.
3.2 Stratification in Urban-Industrial India

Urban industrial social stratification is characterized by ‘professional’ and ‘working’ classes to a large extent.
Professionalism requires training to acquire skills for performing specific roles. It imparts values of rationality,
objectivity and pragmatism. Professional classes reflect social and structural differentiation or changes from
tradition to modernity in the fields of occupation, industry and economy. The emergence of professional
classes becomes a measure of social mobility in the persisting social stratification.

Navalkha (1971) reports that as compared to other Asian countries the professional classes in India constitute
a less significant proportion of all workers. Navalkha also highlights the uneven growth of professions
revealing the pattern of recruitment process heavily biased in favour of the upper castes, urban dwelling groups
and the metropolitan population. It is evident from several other accounts as well that caste is not a rural
phenomenon alone and class is not simply found in urban India. Both have coexisted in rural and urban
industrial formations though in different forms and proportions.

Urban-industrial social stratification consists of the following classes : (i) upper class, (ii) upper middle class,
(iii) lower middle class, and (iv) working class, These classes are generally formed on the basis of ‘income’
and ‘occupation’.

D’Souza (1968) analyses the ‘bases of social organization’ in the city of Chandigarh taking into consideration
kinship, caste, class, religion and displaced or non-placed condition of the inhabitants. D’Souza finds that the
educational, occupational and income hierarchies are significantly correlated with each other. However, the
correlation of each of them with the operational caste hierarchy is not significant.

In a recent study, Mishra (1991) observes that local institutions such as caste and kinship play a significant
role in recasting the relationship between man and machine without dislocating the traditional social structure
and also without affecting adversely the process of industrialization.

Theoretically, an industrial society is characterized by a very open view of status, role and power allocation.
Open relationships, competition, radicalism, innovation and utilitarianism-rationalism are the main features
of an industrial society.

Studies of urban-industrial social stratification in India have come up mainly as a reaction to the studies of
rural-agrarian relations, migration from rural to urban areas, social mobility and an increasing number of
urban-industrial towns. The studies of urban-industrial social stratification have concentrated mainly on class
and caste, occupation, income, education and class, social mobility and elite formation, professionals and
working classes, middle classes, processes of social change and status-crystallization, dissonance and
inconsistency, professional associations and trade unions.

A detailed annotated bibliography and analysis of trends in industrial sociology in India by Sheth and Patel
(1979) and Patel (1985) examine the impact of society on industrialization and the effects of industrialization
on society. The sociology of industrialization incorporates workers, supervisors and managers as the major
human components along with trade unions, informal groups and owners of industry. Industrialization has
fragmented Indian society into ‘classes’ by weakening the caste system. The economic fragmentation created
by industrialization has brought about both vertical and horizontal change, thereby a change is being registered
in the persisting criteria of status-evaluation (Panini,1986). Industrialization can transform the lives of the
people, means of production, surplus labour, etc. Rubin (1986) writes: “And industrialization can produce the
professional employments and affluent style of life to which urban middle and upper classes aspire “.

Stratification in urban India refers to the social and economic hierarchy that exists within urban areas of the
country. This pattern of stratification is shaped by various factors such as caste, class, religion, education,
occupation, and gender. It has significant implications for individuals' access to resources, opportunities, and
social mobility within urban society.

Caste-based stratification has historically been a dominant feature in Indian society, and it continues to have
a profound impact on urban communities. The caste system segregates people into predefined hierarchical
groups based on their birth. While urban areas are relatively more cosmopolitan and diverse, caste identities
often persist and influence social interactions, marriages, and access to resources. Although constitutional
provisions abolish discrimination based on caste, it is still deeply ingrained in societal norms, norms that affect
education, employment, and politics.

A crucial aspect of stratification in urban India is the economic divide. The unequal distribution of wealth and
resources leads to the formation of distinct economic classes, often resulting in stark disparities in living
conditions. The higher strata of society includes affluent industrialists, business owners, and professionals
who have access to quality education, healthcare, and amenities. In contrast, the lower-income strata struggle
to make ends meet, residing in slums and facing challenges such as limited access to basic services and
opportunities.

Education plays a critical role in the stratification of urban India. Children from financially disadvantaged
backgrounds often attend under-resourced public schools, while those from affluent families aim for
prestigious private institutions or even study abroad. Education opens doors to better job prospects and higher
incomes, exacerbating social inequality. Additionally, educational institutions can perpetuate discrimination
by maintaining caste-based reservations and quotas, leading to further stratification.

Another dimension of stratification in urban India is religion. Urban areas are home to diverse religious
communities, with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and others coexisting. While religious harmony
generally prevails, there can be instances of tensions and discrimination along religious lines. Cultural
practices, places of worship, and social networks are often influenced by religious affiliations, further
deepening social divisions.

Occupation and employment also contribute to stratification in urban India. White-collar professionals and
high-skilled workers usually occupy higher socio-economic positions, earning higher wages and enjoying
better living conditions. In contrast, lower-skilled workers, informal laborers, and domestic helpers face
precarious employment, low wages, and limited social security benefits. Occupational stratification intersects
with class, education, and caste, creating complex dynamics of inequality within urban society.

Gender is a crucial factor influencing stratification in urban India. Women often face discrimination and
limited opportunities, both in employment and social participation. Gender-based violence, unequal pay, and
limited career prospects pose significant challenges for women in urban areas. Cultural norms regarding
women's roles, domestic responsibilities, and limited mobility further reinforce gender-based stratification.

In conclusion, urban India exhibits a complex pattern of stratification shaped by multiple factors, including
caste, class, religion, education, occupation, and gender. While efforts have been made to address these
inequalities through affirmative action policies, economic reforms, and social awareness, more work is needed
to create inclusive urban spaces that offer equal opportunities and social mobility for all.

3.3 Stratification in socialist society

In a socialist society, the stratification system refers to the division of societal resources (i.e.) the hierarchical
division of individuals into different social classes based on their access to resources and opportunities.

While socialism aims to establish a classless society by abolishing private property and ensuring the means of
production are controlled by the working class, various factors contribute to the formation of a stratified
society. These factors can include political power, economic privilege, and social status, among different
groups of individuals.

Karl Marx, one of the most influential figures in socialist thought, argued that capitalism inherently creates
a class-based society where a small ruling class exploits the working class. In his theory of class struggle,
Marx identified two main social classes: the bourgeoisie (capitalists or owners of the means of production)
and the proletariat (working-class individuals who only possess their labour power). According to Marx, the
bourgeoisie extracts surplus value from the labour of the proletariat, leading to the exploitation of the latter.
This exploitation contributes to the unequal distribution of wealth and power, resulting in the perpetuation of
a social stratification system.

The existence of a stratification system is a topic of debate and analysis within Marxist and Socialist theorists.
It is argued by some that social stratification is a phenomenon peculiar to capitalist societies alone and that
society is not stratified in socialist countries in which the means of production are communally owned or
controlled. The basic assumption of such an assertion is that communal ownership of the forces of production
paves the way toward an egalitarian society. Classes based on relations of production would disappear, because
all would share the same relationship to the forces of production, viz., that of ownership.

While socialism aims to promote equality and reduce social disparities, it is important to recognize that some
degree of stratification can still exist within these societies. The following social strata have been identified in
socialist societies :-
1. Party Elite: One notable stratification group found in socialist societies is the party elite. These individuals
hold high-ranking positions within the ruling political party and have significant power and influence over
policy-making and resource distribution. They often enjoy privileges such as access to better housing,
healthcare, education, and other benefits. For instance, in countries like China, the Communist Party is
composed of a small group of officials who hold considerable authority and enjoy various advantages
compared to the general population.

2. Nomenklatura or White-collar intelligentsia: Another stratification group consists of the nomenklatura,

who are individuals appointed to key positions in the government, state-owned enterprises, and other sectors.
They possess substantial economic and political power and are often granted perks, such as higher wages,
better housing, and access to exclusive amenities. This group's members usually have easier access to
education and job opportunities for their children. In the former Soviet Union, the nomenklatura played a
significant role in maintaining the socialist regime's stability and enjoyed privileges above the average
citizenry.

3. Technocratic and Skilled Professionals: Socialist societies also tend to have stratification linked to skills
and professional expertise. Individuals with technical or scientific expertise are often given preferential
treatment in terms of employment opportunities, income, and access to resources. For instance, in Cuba,
professionals such as doctors and engineers have better housing, higher salaries, and access to goods not
available to the general population. The state invests heavily in their education and training as they are
considered vital for the country's development.

4. Workers and Proletariat: Within socialist societies, there can also be stratification among the working
class itself such as “Lower white-collar workers” and “Unskilled manual workers”. While socialism
advocates for the rights and welfare of workers, distinctions can arise based on factors such as job type,
skills, and urban-rural divide. Workers in more critical sectors, such as heavy industries or strategic sectors,
may receive better pay, benefits, and social protections compared to those in less valued fields. Moreover,
rural workers or agricultural labourers might face more challenges due to limited access to resources and
opportunities for advancement. An example would be the differentiation in treatment between urban and
rural workers in Maoist China.

One of the key debates within Marxist theory revolves around the existence of an elite class within socialist
societies. Critics argue that socialist societies may face a similar problem of power concentration among a
select few individuals, who become an elite class due to their control over the state apparatus.

Eric Olin Wright, a prominent contemporary socialist thinker, developed a theory called "contradictory
class locations" to address this issue. Wright argued that under socialism, there can be individuals occupying
positions that do not fit neatly into either the bourgeoisie or proletariat categories. He identified these
individuals as "managers," who have some decision-making power but do not own the means of production.
Examples can be found in countries that have adopted socialist ideologies such as the Soviet Union, China
and Vietnam.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced a turbulent transition from a command to a
market-oriented economy. This transition resulted in the privatization of state-owned assets and the emergence
of a new capitalist class. A considerable concentration of wealth and power was observed, leading to a
significant social stratification in Russia.

For instance, Ochrana, a Russian think tank, conducted a study revealing that the top 1% of Russia's
population controlled around 74% of all financial assets in 2019, indicating a high level of income inequality
and the emergence of a wealthy elite. This class comprises individuals who have accumulated fortunes through
lucrative business ventures, often in sectors such as energy, finance, and natural resources.

Additionally, political power has become intertwined with economic privilege in contemporary Russia. The
term "oligarchs" or “political bureaucrats” is commonly used to describe influential individuals who hold
control over vast economic resources, and who often hold positions of power within the government. This
confluence of politics and business contributes to a stratified society, contradicting the goal of a classless
society envisioned by Marx.

China, after embracing market-oriented reforms in the late 1970s, witnessed significant economic growth,
leading to the emergence of new socioeconomic classes. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has managed
this transition by allowing limited private enterprise and economic liberalization.

However, China's socioeconomic structure exhibits substantial inequality. The wealthiest individuals in China
are part of the "red capitalists" class, made up of entrepreneurs who have often benefited from close ties to
the CPC. These individuals have accumulated significant wealth and occupy influential positions within the
government or state-owned enterprises, creating a close relationship between political power and economic
privilege.

Moreover, a growing urban-rural divide is evident in China. While urban areas have experienced rapid
socioeconomic development, rural regions lag in terms of income, access to education, and healthcare. This
disparity leads to a stratified society where different socioeconomic classes exist, with rural residents often
relegated to lower social and economic statuses.

Focusing on the modern context of Russia and China, it is evident that a stratified society has emerged in both
countries, challenging the initial intentions of socialist theory. Despite their socialist roots, both countries have
undergone significant transformations, resulting in the rise of new socioeconomic classes.

Similarly, in Vietnam, the Doi Moi economic reforms in the 1980s resulted in a shift toward a socialist-
oriented market economy. This has led to the growth of a new capitalist class, which consists of entrepreneurs
and business elites who have benefited from economic liberalization and foreign investments.

While these examples highlight the potential for the emergence of an elite class in socialist societies, it is
important to note that not all socialist countries necessarily follow this path. Socialism, as a broad ideology,
encompasses a range of interpretations and practices. Some socialist experiments have successfully
implemented measures to prevent the concentration of power and wealth, ensuring a more equitable
distribution of resources.

In conclusion, the stratification system in a socialist society is a complex and debated topic within Marxist
and socialist theories. While there is recognition that socialism aims to address inequality and exploitation,
the potential for the emergence of an elite class remains a concern. Marx and other socialist writers have
provided insights into the dynamics of class struggle and the contradictions inherent in socialist societies. The
historical examples of the Soviet Union and China illustrate the challenges of achieving a truly equal society.
However, socialism is a diverse and evolving ideology, and different approaches may yield different outcomes
in terms of social stratification.