Sociologie I_H12_211123 (2).pdf

# Understanding power and stratification This section introduces the core concepts of power and social stratification within sociology, exploring their definitions, historical context, and various theoretical perspectives. ### 1.1 Power #### 1.1.1 Definition of power Power is a central concept in sociological thought. It is defined as the possibility of getting what one wants, even if it means going against the will of others. More broadly, power is understood as the ability to employ valuable resources to direct the behavior of others, even against their will. The distribution of valuable resources is a direct consequence of the application of power [5](#page=5) [6](#page=6). #### 1.1.2 Historical context of power Sociological thinking has evolved through societal structures such as slave societies, estate societies, and class societies. Karl Marx, a key figure in conflict sociology, emphasized that class differences are primarily differences in power [5](#page=5). #### 1.1.3 Types of power and their legitimacy bases Power can be categorized based on its source of legitimacy [7](#page=7). * **Sanction power:** This involves the ability to reward or punish [7](#page=7). * **Economic power:** This is the control over scarce (material) resources [7](#page=7). * **Political power:** This is authority connected to a position or the legitimate use of force [7](#page=7). * **Social power:** This is based on trust and mutual identification [7](#page=7). * **Cultural power:** This involves the ability to appeal to values and activate value loyalty [7](#page=7). > **Tip:** Understanding the different bases of legitimacy is crucial for analyzing how power is maintained and challenged within societies. ### 1.2 Stratification #### 1.2.1 Definition of stratification Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in a society based on their access to valued resources and social standing. It describes the dimensions of inequality within a collective [8](#page=8). #### 1.2.2 Dimensions of inequality Inequality is situated within a specific collective. The dimensions of inequality are relevant for describing the positions of individuals within any collective. However, it is important to note that power does not always have the same scope or reach [8](#page=8). > **Example:** While economic power might be concentrated in the hands of a few, political or cultural power might be distributed differently, impacting various aspects of social life. --- # Dimensions and perspectives of social stratification This section explores different sociological perspectives on social stratification, moving beyond a purely economic definition to embrace multi-dimensional frameworks. ## 2 Dimensions and perspectives of social stratification Sociological approaches to understanding social stratification vary, with key distinctions arising from Marxist and Weberian frameworks, particularly concerning the concept of class and status [9](#page=9). ### 2.1 Uni-dimensional perspectives on stratification #### 2.1.1 The traditional Marxist class analysis The traditional Marxist view of class is uni-dimensional, primarily focusing on economic power within the production process. In this framework, "class" is defined by the ownership of the means of production and the ability to extract surplus value [9](#page=9). #### 2.1.2 Erik Olin Wright's broadened class concept Erik Olin Wright expanded the traditional Marxist understanding of class by incorporating additional criteria beyond just ownership of the means of production. His broadened class concept considers [9](#page=9): * **Economic power:** This is based on the possession of capital and one's position in the production process [9](#page=9). * **Political power:** This relates to one's position in the authority hierarchy [9](#page=9). * **Cultural power:** This is derived from knowledge, skills, and experience [9](#page=9). However, Wright's framework, while broader than traditional Marxism, remains largely confined to the production process itself [9](#page=9). > **Tip:** Erik Olin Wright's work, particularly his book "Understanding Class," provides valuable insights into these multi-dimensional class analyses. #### 2.1.3 Critiques of occupational classifications While occupational classifications have been used as a proxy for understanding stratification, they face several criticisms [11](#page=11) [12](#page=12): * The hierarchical ordering of occupations is often debatable [12](#page=12). * It can be difficult to definitively place specific occupations within a given category [12](#page=12). * Occupations are complex and can encompass various forms of power, which may not be solely derived from the occupation itself [12](#page=12). * Not everyone in society has a formal occupation, limiting the universality of this approach [12](#page=12). These critiques suggest that measuring the four dimensions of power directly might be a more effective approach than relying solely on occupational status [12](#page=12). ### 2.2 Max Weber: The basis of the multi-dimensional approach Max Weber laid the groundwork for a multi-dimensional approach to social stratification, moving beyond a singular focus on economics. He identified three primary dimensions of social stratification: class, status, and party [13](#page=13). #### 2.2.1 Class Weber defined class as a collectivity of individuals who share a similar economic position. This is determined by one's market situation, including income, labor market position, risk of unemployment, wealth, and savings [13](#page=13) [14](#page=14). #### 2.2.2 Status (Stand) Status, or "Stand" in Weber's terminology, refers to a collectivity of individuals who share similar levels of social honor and prestige. This is often associated with similar lifestyles and social interactions. Empirical indicators of status include educational attainment, cultural practices, possession of cultural goods, occupational prestige, and position within social networks [13](#page=13) [14](#page=14). #### 2.2.3 Party The "party" dimension in Weber's model refers to a collectivity that is consciously aware of its shared interests and organizes itself for political action. This dimension relates to power within organizations and the ability to influence decision-making, indicated by power positions held due to a function, such as a managerial role [13](#page=13) [14](#page=14). ### 2.3 Multi-dimensionality of stratification: Weber's framework Weber's multi-dimensional view posits that social stratification can be understood through the interplay of economic (class), cultural/social (status), and political (party) dimensions [14](#page=14). | Form of power | Dimension of Weber | Empirical indicators | | :------------ | :----------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Economic | Class | Income, labor market position, unemployment risk, wealth, savings | [14](#page=14). | Cultural | Status | Educational level, cultural practices, possession of cultural goods | [14](#page=14). | Social | Status | Prestige (occupational prestige), position in social networks, social participation | [14](#page=14). | Political | Party | Power positions held due to a function (e.g., managerial roles) | [14](#page=14). --- # Poverty and social mobility This section examines the multifaceted nature of poverty, its measurement, and the dynamics of social mobility, particularly through the lens of education. ### 3.1 Understanding poverty Poverty is recognized as a multidimensional concept, encompassing economic, cultural, social, and political aspects [16](#page=16). #### 3.1.1 Measuring poverty Various methods are employed to measure economic poverty: * **Budget or basket method:** This approach assesses poverty based on a defined minimum standard of living, often involving a basket of essential goods and services. * **Deprivation method:** This method focuses on the lack of certain essential resources or opportunities. * **Relative method:** Poverty is defined in relation to the prevailing living standards in a society. Common norms include the EU norm and OECD norm [18](#page=18). **Equivalent income calculation:** A formula used to adjust income for household size and composition is: $$ \text{Equivalent income} = \frac{\text{Actual income}}{1 + 0.5 \times (\text{number of adults} - 1) + 0.3 \times (\text{number of children})} $$ * **Subjective method:** This approach relies on individuals' own perceptions of whether they are poor. * **Legal method:** Poverty is defined based on legal thresholds, often related to social welfare benefits. The percentage of people classified as poor can vary significantly depending on the measurement method employed [18](#page=18). > **Tip:** Understanding the different measurement methods is crucial because they can lead to different conclusions about the extent and nature of poverty in a population. **Example:** The relative EU method defines poverty as having an income below 60% of the median income. Data from Eurostat in 2023, using income from 2021, illustrates the percentage of the population in income poverty according to this method [19](#page=19). #### 3.1.2 Multidimensional indicators of poverty Beyond income, multidimensional indicators offer a broader perspective. The "Kansarmoede index" (Opportunity Poverty Index) in Flanders, for instance, uses six key indicators to measure opportunity poverty in families with young children [21](#page=21): * Available monthly income [21](#page=21). * Parents' education level [21](#page=21). * Parents' employment status [21](#page=21). * Low stimulation level (likely referring to the home environment) [21](#page=21). * Poor housing conditions [21](#page=21). * Health problems of family members [21](#page=21). ### 3.2 Social mobility Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals or groups between different social positions. This movement can be categorized as [22](#page=22): * **Upward social mobility:** Moving to a higher social status. * **Downward social mobility:** Moving to a lower social status. * **Intergenerational social mobility:** Changes in social position between different generations (e.g., between parents and children). * **Intragenerational social mobility:** Changes in social position within an individual's lifetime. Empirical research on social mobility often examines changes in education, occupation, and income. The "status attainment model" is a fundamental framework used in this research [22](#page=22). #### 3.2.1 Models of status attainment These models explore how parental background influences an individual's educational and occupational achievements. **Example:** A model for Flemish men born between 1923 and 1969 illustrates the pathways: * The father's education has a coefficient of 0.36 on the son's education. * The father's occupational status has a coefficient of 0.57 on the son's education. * The son's education has a coefficient of 0.15 on his first occupation. * The son's education has a coefficient of 0.62 on his occupational status. * The father's occupational status has a coefficient of 0.10 on the son's occupational status. * The son's first occupation has a coefficient of 0.41 on his occupational status. * The son's education has a coefficient of 0.32 on his first occupation [23](#page=23). This indicates that parental background, particularly occupational status, strongly influences a son's educational attainment, which in turn significantly shapes his occupational outcomes [23](#page=23). #### 3.2.2 Evolution of stratification systems and social mobility Research by De Graaf and Luijkx in the Netherlands suggests a trend where the influence of a father's occupational prestige on a son's occupational prestige has decreased. Simultaneously, the effect of a son's educational level on his occupational prestige has increased. The influence of parental characteristics on children's educational attainment has also diminished, indicating a move towards more equal opportunities where achieved status plays a larger role than ascribed status [24](#page=24). However, cultural characteristics of the family remain important. Pelleriaux found similar conclusions for Belgium, noting that the influence of parental characteristics on educational attainment did not decrease, and the effect of parents' education level was even greater. These trends remain relevant for the Netherlands and Belgium in the 21st century. Notably, downward mobility has been observed in Eastern European countries [24](#page=24). The importance of "social capital" has also become more pronounced [24](#page=24). ### 3.3 The increasing importance of education in social mobility In societies that are becoming "more open," status is increasingly attained rather than ascribed. Education has become the primary mechanism for status attainment [25](#page=25). Key conclusions regarding the role of education in social mobility include: * **Education as a gateway:** Educational qualifications are becoming more critical for future life chances [25](#page=25). * **Intergenerational transmission:** The educational level and broader cultural capital of parents serve as significant conduits for intergenerational transmission of advantage [25](#page=25). * **Decline of the "self-made man":** The narrative of achieving success solely through personal effort is diminishing [25](#page=25). * **21st-century dynamics:** The 21st century sees increased competition at the top for qualifications, with educational attainment also becoming increasingly important for securing middle-class occupations [25](#page=25). > **Tip:** Recognize that while societies may aim for greater equality of opportunity, educational attainment remains a powerful determinant of social mobility, and parental background continues to play a significant role. --- # The concept and consequences of meritocracy Meritocracy, while appearing to be a system of advancement based on individual talent and effort, carries significant unintended consequences that can exacerbate social inequalities [26](#page=26) [27](#page=27). ### 4.1 The origin and conceptualization of meritocracy The concept of meritocracy was first introduced by British sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 science fiction novel of the same name. Young's work presented a dystopian future where a rigid meritocratic system led to social unrest, with "populists" rebelling against the elite. This raises the question of whether such a system is a distant reality or an emerging one [26](#page=26). ### 4.2 Unintended consequences of meritocracy Pierre Rosanvallon highlighted several predictable exclusionary effects of meritocracy. These include a lack of economic opportunities for the low-skilled, the increasing importance of the service economy, and a widening gap between those with low and high levels of education. The emphasis on personal effort and skill can lead to the rise of populism and a devaluing of parliamentary democracy [27](#page=27). #### 4.2.1 Meritocracy as a myth or ideology Some scholars argue that the meritocracy we live in is imperfect, with education acting as both a means of social mobility and a tool for reproducing existing inequalities. It can be seen as a myth or ideology used to legitimize existing inequalities, as suggested by McNamee and Miller or even as a "trap" in the words of Markovits [28](#page=28). #### 4.2.2 The hidden pain of "equality" Within a meritocratic framework, privilege can be perceived as a direct result of one's own abilities, while disadvantage can become stigmatized as a personal failing. This creates a "hidden pain of equality" where individuals may feel shame or inadequacy if they do not achieve success based on their perceived merit [28](#page=28). ### 4.3 New forms of inequality The rise of meritocracy can lead to perverse effects for low-skilled individuals, increasing their risk of social exclusion. They are increasingly characterized as lacking in "merit," "effort," "talent," or "motivation". International competition and delocalization disproportionately affect the low-skilled [30](#page=30). #### 4.3.1 The risk of an underclass There is a risk of creating an "underclass" characterized by permanent and multiple forms of exclusion. This is compounded by the potential clustering of disadvantage with one's background or origin [30](#page=30). #### 4.3.2 The existence of a "cognitive class" The discussion also raises the question of whether a "cognitive class" is emerging, potentially further stratifying society based on cognitive abilities and skills valued within a meritocratic system [30](#page=30). > **Tip:** When studying meritocracy, it's crucial to distinguish between the *ideal* of a society where success is based on merit and the *reality* of how such systems often function in practice, leading to unintended consequences [28](#page=28). > > **Example:** Consider how individuals who do not succeed in education or the job market might be blamed for their lack of effort or talent, rather than examining the structural barriers or systemic inequalities they face, which is a consequence of meritocratic ideology [28](#page=28) [30](#page=30). --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Power | The possibility of imposing one's will on others, even against their resistance, or the ability to use valuable resources to direct the behavior of others. | | Social stratification | The hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in a society based on various dimensions of inequality, such as economic position, status, and political influence. | | Inequality | Differences in the distribution of valuable resources, opportunities, and social positions within a society, leading to disparities between individuals and groups. | | Legitimation basis | The foundation upon which power or authority is accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it, encompassing various forms such as economic control, political office, or social trust. | | Economic power | The capacity to control scarce material resources, which can be used to influence the behavior of others through reward or punishment. | | Political power | Authority derived from a position within a hierarchy, often associated with the legitimate use of force or decision-making influence. | | Social power | The ability to influence others based on trust, mutual identification, and the activation of shared values, often stemming from social connections and perceived influence. | | Cultural power | The possibility of appealing to values and beliefs to exert influence or achieve desired outcomes, often leveraging shared cultural norms and ideologies. | | Class | A social group defined by a similar economic position, particularly concerning ownership of the means of production and their place within the labor market. | | Status | A social group defined by similar prestige and social standing, often involving patterns of social interaction and shared lifestyle preferences. | | Party | A social group that becomes aware of its commonalities and organizes for collective political action, aiming to influence power structures. | | Poverty | A multidimensional state characterized by a lack of economic, cultural, social, and political resources, leading to deprivation and exclusion. | | Relative poverty | A measure of poverty that compares an individual's or household's income to the median income of the population, typically defined as a percentage of that median. | | Deprivation method | A method of measuring poverty that assesses the extent to which individuals or households lack access to essential goods, services, and living conditions. | | Social mobility | The movement of individuals or groups between different social positions or strata within a society over time. | | Intergenerational social mobility | Changes in social status between different generations, for instance, comparing a child's social position to that of their parents. | | Intragenerational social mobility | Changes in social status that occur within an individual's own lifetime, reflecting advancements or declines in their career or social standing. | | Meritocracy | A social system where advancement is based on individual ability, talent, and effort, rather than on social class, wealth, or family background. | | Ascribed status | Social position that is assigned at birth or assumed involuntarily, such as race, gender, or inherited social class. | | Achieved status | Social position that is earned or chosen through an individual's own efforts, skills, and accomplishments, such as educational attainment or career success. |