In sociological research, the theory of social stratification does not have a single integral form. It is based on diverse concepts relating to social inequality, the theory of classes, social masses and elites, both complementary and inconsistent with each other. The main criteria that determine the historical types of stratification are property relations, rights and obligations, the system of subordination, etc.
Basic concepts of stratification theories
Stratification is a “hierarchically organized interaction of groups of people” (Radaev V. V., Shkaratan O. I., “Social stratification”). The criteria for differentiation in relation to the historical type of stratification include:
- physical-genetic;
- slave;
- cast;
- estate;
- thiscratic;
- socio-professional;
- class;
- cultural-symbolic;
- cultural-normative.
At the same time, all historical types of stratification will be determined by their own criterion of differentiation and the method of highlighting differences. Slavery, for example, as a historical type, will highlight the rights of citizenship and property as the main criterion, and bondage and military coercion as a method of determination.
In the most generalized form, historical types of stratification can be represented as follows: table 1.
| Types | Definition | Subjects |
| Slavery | A form of inequality in which some individuals are wholly owned by others. | slaves, slave owners |
| Castes | Social groups that adhere to strict norms of group behavior and do not allow members of other groups into their ranks. | brahmins, warriors, peasants, etc. |
| Conditions | Large groups of people with the same rights and obligations, inherited. | clergy, nobles, peasants, townspeople, artisans, etc. |
| Classes | Social communities distinguished by the principle of attitude to property and the social division of labor. | workers, capitalists, feudal lords, peasants, etc. |
It should be noted thathistorical types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - do not always have clear boundaries between themselves. So, for example, the concept of caste is used mainly for the Indian stratification system. We will not find the category of Brahmins in any other social system. Brahmins (they are also priests) were endowed with special rights and privileges that no other category of citizens had. It was believed that the priest speaks on behalf of God. According to Indian tradition, the Brahmins were created from the mouth of the God Brahma. Warriors were created from his hands, the main of which was considered the king. At the same time, a person belonged to a particular caste from birth and could not change it.
On the other hand, the peasants could act both as a separate caste and as an estate. At the same time, they could also be divided into two groups - simple and rich (prosperous).
The concept of social space
The well-known Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1989-1968), exploring the historical types of stratification (slavery, castes, classes), singles out “social space” as a key concept. In contrast to the physical, in the social space, subjects located next to each other can simultaneously be located on completely different levels. And vice versa: if certain groups of subjects belong to the historical type of stratification, then it is not at all necessary that they are territorially located next to each other (Sorokin P., "Man. Civilization. Society").
Socialspace in Sorokin's concept has a multidimensional character, including cultural, religious, professional and other vectors. This space is all the more extensive, the more complex the society and the identified historical types of stratification (slavery, castes, etc.) are. Sorokin also considers the vertical and horizontal levels of the division of social space. The horizontal level includes political associations, professional activities, religious organizations, etc. The vertical level includes the differentiation of individuals in terms of their hierarchical position in the group (leader, deputy, subordinates, parishioners, electorate, etc.).
As forms of social stratification Sorokin identifies such as political, economic, professional. Within each of them there is additionally its own stratification system. In turn, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) considered the system of division of subjects within a professional group from the point of view of the specifics of their work activity. As a special function of this division is the creation between two or more individuals of a sense of solidarity. At the same time, he ascribes to it a moral character (E. Durkheim, “The Function of the Division of Labor”).
Historical types of social stratification and economic system
In turn, the American economist Frank Knight (1885-1972), who considers social stratification within economic systems, is among one ofthe key functions of economic organizations are the maintenance / improvement of the social structure, the stimulation of social progress (Knight F., "Economic organization").
The American-Canadian economist of Hungarian origin Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) writes about the special connection between the economic sphere and social stratification for the subject: guarantee their social status, their social rights and benefits. He values material objects only insofar as they serve this purpose” (Polanyi K., “Societies and Economic Systems”).
Class theory in sociological science
Despite a certain similarity of characteristics, it is customary in sociology to differentiate historical types of stratification. Classes, for example, should be separated from the concept of social strata. The social stratum is understood as social differentiation within the framework of a hierarchically organized society (Radaev V. V., Shkaratan O. I., “Social stratification”). In turn, the social class is a group of politically and legally free citizens.
The most famous example of class theory is usually attributed to the concept of Karl Marx, which is based on the doctrine of socio-economic formation. The change of formations leads to the emergence of new classes, a new system of interaction between productive forces and production relations. in the westernsociological school, there are a number of theories that define class as a multidimensional category, which, in turn, leads to the danger of blurring the line between the concepts of “class” and “stratum” (Zhvitiashvili A. S., “Interpretation of the concept of “class” in modern Western sociology”).
From the standpoint of other sociological approaches, historical types of stratification also imply a division into upper (elitist), middle and lower classes. Also possible variations of this division.
Elite class concept
In sociology, the concept of the elite is perceived rather ambiguously. For example, in the stratification theory of Randall Collins (1941), a group of people stands out as an elite, managing a lot of people, while taking into account few people (Collins R. "Stratification through the prism of the theory of conflict"). Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), in turn, divides society into an elite (the highest stratum) and a non-elite. The elite class also consists of 2 groups: the ruling and non-ruling elite.
Collins refers to the upper class as heads of government, army leaders, influential businessmen, etc.
The ideological characteristics of these categories are determined, first of all, by the duration of this class in power: “To feel ready for submission becomes the meaning of life, and disobedience is considered in this environment as something unthinkable” (Collins R., “Stratification through the prism of the theory conflict ). It is belonging to this class that determines the degree of power,possessed by the individual as its representative. At the same time, power can be not only political, but also economic, religious and ideological. In turn, form data can be linked.
Specific middle class
It is customary to include the so-called circle of performers in this category. The specificity of the middle class is such that its representatives simultaneously occupy a dominant position over some subjects and a subordinate position in relation to others. The middle class also has its own internal stratification: the upper middle class (performers who deal only with other performers, as well as large, formally independent businessmen and professionals who depend on good relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, etc.) and the lower middle class (administrators, managers - those who are at the lowest boundary in the system of power relations).
A. N. Sevastyanov characterizes the middle class as anti-revolutionary. According to the researcher, this fact is explained by the fact that the representatives of the middle class have something to lose - in contrast to the revolutionary class. What the middle class seeks to acquire can be obtained without a revolution. In this regard, representatives of this category are indifferent to the issues of restructuring society.
Working class category
Historical types of social stratification of society from the position of classes into a separate category allocate the class of workers (the lowest class in the hierarchy of society). Its representatives are not included in the organizational communication system. They are aimed atthe immediate present, and the dependent position forms in them a certain aggressiveness in the perception and evaluation of the social system.
The lower class is characterized by an individualistic attitude towards themselves and their own interests, the absence of stable social ties and contacts. This category is made up of temporary laborers, permanent unemployed, beggars, etc.
Domestic approach in the theory of stratification
In Russian sociological science there are also different views on historical types of stratification. Estates and their differentiation in society is the basis of socio-philosophical thinking in pre-revolutionary Russia, which subsequently caused controversy in the Soviet state until the 60s of the twentieth century.
With the onset of the Khrushchev thaw, the issue of social stratification falls under strict ideological control by the state. The basis of the social structure of society is the class of workers and peasants, and a separate category is the stratum of the intelligentsia. The idea of “rapprochement of classes” and the formation of “social homogeneity” is constantly supported in the public mind. At that time, the topics of bureaucracy and nomenklatura were hushed up in the state. The beginning of active research, the object of which was the historical types of stratification, is laid in the perestroika period with the development of glasnost. The introduction of market reforms into the economic life of the state revealed serious problems in the social structure of Russian society.
Characteristics of marginalized populations
Also, the category of marginality occupies a separate place in sociological stratification theories. Within the framework of sociological science, this concept is usually understood as “an intermediate position between social structural units, or the lowest position in the social hierarchy” (Galsanamzhilova O. N., “On the issue of structural marginality in Russian society”).
In this concept, it is customary to distinguish two types: marginality-periphery, marginality-transitivity. The latter characterizes the intermediate position of the subject in the transition from one social status position to another. This type can be a consequence of the subject's social mobility, as well as the result of a change in the social system in society with fundamental changes in the subject's lifestyle, type of activity, etc. Social ties are not destroyed. A characteristic feature of this type is a certain incompleteness of the transition process (in some cases it is difficult for the subject to adapt to the conditions of the new social system of society - a kind of "freeze" occurs).
Signs of peripheral marginality are: the absence of an objective belonging of the subject to a certain social community, the destruction of his past social ties. In various sociological theories, this type of population can bear such names as "outsiders", "outcasts", "outcasts" (according to some authors - "declassed elements"), etc. Within the framework of modernstratification theories, it should be noted the study of status inconsistency - inconsistency, mismatch of certain social and status characteristics (income level, profession, education, etc.). All this leads to an imbalance in the stratification system.
Stratification theory and integrated approach
The modern theory of the stratification system of society is in a state of transformation, caused both by a change in the specifics of pre-existing social categories and the formation of new classes (primarily due to socio-economic reforms).
In sociological theory, which considers the historical types of stratification of society, a significant point is not a reduction to one dominant social category (as is the case with class theory within the framework of Marxist teaching), but a broad analysis of all possible structures. A separate place should be given to an integrated approach that considers individual categories of social stratification from the point of view of their relationship. In this case, the question arises of the hierarchy of these categories and the nature of their influence on each other as elements of a common social system. The solution of such a question implies the study of various stratification theories within the framework of a comparative analysis that compares the key points of each of the theories.
