G.

Social and Political Stratification

Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing.

Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of

Social stratification is a kind of social differentiation whereby members of society are grouped
into socioeconomic strata, based upon their occupation and income, wealth and social status, or
derived power (social and political). As such, stratification is the relative social position of
persons within a social group, category, geographic region, or social unit.

Each country had different Social stratification.

If country 1 had ABCDEF and F is the lowest social status, Country 2’s lowest status couldn’t be
F.

You may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct vertical layers
found in rock, called stratification, are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers
are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The
people who have more resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification.
Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower
layers of our society.

In modern Western societies, social stratification is typically defined in terms of three social
classes: (i) the upper class, (ii) the middle class, and (iii) the lower class; in turn, each class can be
subdivided into strata, e.g. the upper-stratum, the middle-stratum, and the lower
stratum.[1] Moreover, a social stratum can be formed upon the bases of kinship, clan, tribe or caste,
or all four.

Factors that define stratification vary in different societies. In most societies, stratification is an
economic system, based on wealth, the net value of money and assets a person has,
and income, a person’s wages or investment dividends. While people are regularly categorized
based on how rich or poor they are, other important factors influence social standing. For
example, in some cultures, wisdom and charisma are valued, and people who have them are
revered more than those who don’t. In some cultures, the elderly are esteemed; in others, the
elderly are disparaged or overlooked. Societies’ cultural beliefs often reinforce the inequalities
of stratification.

If social stratification usually refers to the kind and degree of distribution of resources (e.g.,
wealth, status, prestige, and privilege) within a social system, then political stratification is best
understood as the extent to which such inequalities are encapsulated in, or influenced by,
political structures and processes (i.e., involving influence, authority, or power). In this sense
power is understood not only in relation to achieving desired results, even against opposing
interest, but also in terms of the ability to frame and set agendas. Conceived of and measured as
an absolute, or relative, entity, political stratification is often used in studies on societal change,
egalitarian opportunity structures, democratization, the distribution of power and equality, and
the efficiency of social and political justice. Linking political, economic, and social inequality
structures, the concept is central to the social sciences and social policy.

In addition, political stratification is totally different but they do have something in common,
the concept.
From an institutional perspective political stratification can be related to norms, values, class
structures, status groups, associations, and laws, which structure the relations between
individual and collective actors. For example, this perspective would suggest that associations
are based on social and economic interests, which in turn give rise not only to a stratification
order due to differential capacities and influence, but also to cooperation and conflict according
to these pursuits.

Based on differing relations to the means of production, the German political philosopher Karl
Marx (1818–1883) predicted that the bourgeoisie would protect its economic interests by
repressive laws. This would create a class consciousness; cause the resolution of regional,
ethnic, and other conflicts among the proletariat; lead to a unified and politically organized
labor movement; and ultimately result in the overthrow of the capitalist system by revolution,
to be replaced by a classless, communist society. Critics argue that class theory fails to account
for the growing presence of a strong middle class, the absence of antagonistic relations between
classes, the continued success of elites to set agendas, and the triumph of capitalism over
socialism as an economic-political system. This criticism is not as convincing as it appears at
first. On the one hand neo-Marxists are able to overcome at least part of these criticisms by
emphasizing the exploitative nature of economic interactions also within the growing middle
class, which, based on differential access to wealth, authority, skills, or credentials, become at
once exploiters and exploited within a capitalistic system. Beyond this, systematic economic
exploitations and political paternalism continue to take place based on differential access to
resources between nations of differing economic development levels, social groups
differentiated by ethnicity or gender, and the transfer of advantage and privilege from one
generation to another. On the other hand there exist other class theories that do not share the
assumptions of Marxist class structures. For example, class structure can relate to the social
positions of actors as identified by their integration into the labor market. This is distinct from a
social hierarchy, and usually borrows from German sociologist Max Weber’s (1864–1920)
notions of class. In this sense, class does not imply a single hierarchical dimension. A
nonhierarchical class schema as developed by, for instance, British sociologist John Goldthorpe
and his colleagues, differs from class schemata based on some vertical (i.e.,
ascending/descending) dimension. For example, skilled industrial workers, small proprietors,
and minor officials may occupy a similar position in a hierarchy, but may be separated by class
in that they are subjected to very different technical and economic realities due to innovations
or governmental policies. A second Weberian approach to institutional structures consists of his
distinction between different authority-types: traditional, legitimated by heredity and
traditions; charismatic, based on inspirational leaders; and legal-rational, based on law and
rationality.