- Introduction
- Marxian Approach to Stratification
- Concept of Class
- Basic Assumptions of Social Stratification
- Social Stratification in History
- Comprehension about Social Stratification
- Critical Evaluation
Introduction
No society in the world is truly equal. In reality, inequality exists, while absolute equality remains an idealistic notion. Since the dawn of human civilization, people have envisioned an egalitarian society where all individuals have the same status, free from hierarchies of superiority or inferiority. In such a society, no one would face the humiliation of being in a position of low respect, and wealth would be evenly distributed among all. However, this vision has never been fully realized. In every society, from the simplest to the most complex, some level of social inequality persists. Power and prestige are never equally shared among individuals and groups.
In an egalitarian society, the divide between the rich and the poor would cease to exist. The phrase “power to the people” would become a reality, eliminating structures where some wield authority over others. Exploitation and oppression would become relics of the past, irrelevant in modern social contexts. However, in most societies, wealth is distributed unequally, encompassing assets such as land, livestock, property, money and other resources. While the extent and nature of inequality may vary, all societies experience some form of social stratification.
Marxian Approach to Stratification
Karl Marx, born on May 5, 1818, in Trier, Prussia, was one of nine children of Heinrich and Henrietta Marx. He pursued higher education at the universities of Berlin and Bonn in Germany. A German philosopher and revolutionary socialist, Marx is best known for his critical works on capitalism, including The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, which laid the foundation for Marxist theory. He passed away in London on March 14, 1883.
During his university years, Marx was influenced by the Young Hegelians and began developing his socio-political ideas. He later became a journalist, and his radical socialist views led to his expulsion from Germany and France. In 1848, he collaborated with Friedrich Engels to publish The Communist Manifesto. Subsequently, he moved to London, where he spent the rest of his life writing and completing the first volume of Das Kapital.
Marx made significant contributions to the study of social stratification, analyzing how economic structures shape societal divisions. He argued that class was central to understanding society, emphasizing the role of economic factors in determining social hierarchy. While later sociologists have critiqued aspects of Marx’s theory, his ideas influenced neo-Marxist perspectives on social stratification.
Marxist sociology is based on the idea that social organization primarily exists to fulfill fundamental human needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. According to Marx, the mode of production is the key determinant of social structure, leading to the formation of different social classes arranged in a hierarchy. He asserted that class divisions stem from economic systems, making the production process the foundation of social stratification.
Social Stratification in History
Karl Marx strongly opposed the functionalist perspective, asserting that economic factors, rather than societal necessity, were responsible for dividing society into different segments. He argued that social stratification stemmed from economic realities, particularly the production process, which led to the formation of two primary classes: those who owned the means of production and those who laboured within it.
To support his argument, Marx drew upon historical evidence. He viewed primitive communism as an ideal societal state where no stratification existed due to the absence of class distinctions. During this era, which was characterized by hunting and food gathering, resources were collectively owned and shared, reinforcing a system of communal ownership.
Over time, as societies evolved and the division of labour became more complex, the increase in trade and surplus production led to the shift from communal to private ownership. The assignment of value to goods and resources enabled individuals to exert control over others, thereby establishing ownership over economic assets. This accumulation of material wealth created a power imbalance, with those possessing greater resources holding more authority compared to those with limited access to economic assets. The demand for more labor to sustain resource ownership resulted in a clear division between two groups: the owners and the workers.
As a consequence, society became divided into two dominant classes—those who exercised control and those who were subject to control. This hierarchical structure created a relationship of dependence, where power dynamics favored the ruling class. According to Marx, except for the stage of primitive communism, every phase of human development witnessed social stratification, which was fundamentally shaped by economic conditions and the prevailing relations of production.
Concept of Class
To comprehend Karl Marx’s perspective on social stratification, it is essential to explore key concepts related to the system of production. These include:
1. Modes of Production: The mode of production is a fundamental concept in Marxist theory, referring to how a society organizes itself to produce goods and services. It is comprised of two main components:
1.1 Forces of Production: Forces of production encompass all the elements necessary for the production process. This includes natural resources such as land and raw materials, sources of energy like fuel, human labour and skills, as well as machinery, tools, and industrial facilities.
1.2 Relations of Production: Relations of production define the social and economic relationships among individuals as they engage with the forces of production. These relationships determine how decisions are made regarding the use and distribution of resources. Marx used this concept to analyze historical variations in economic systems, identifying different modes of production such as Neolithic, Asiatic, ancient slavery, feudalism and capitalism.
2. Means of Production: The means of production refer to the tangible and non-financial resources involved in generating economic value. These encompass raw materials, machinery, infrastructure, and tools that contribute to the production of goods and services. The means of production can be classified into three broad categories:
2.1 Instruments of Labour: This category includes all tools, equipment, factories, and infrastructure utilized in the production process.
2.2 Subjects of Labour: Subjects of labour refer to the materials and resources that are processed or transformed during production. This includes both natural resources and raw materials essential for manufacturing or other forms of economic activity.
2.3 Means of Distribution: Beyond production, the means of distribution also play a vital role in the economic system. This encompasses infrastructure such as transportation networks, communication systems, retail outlets, and digital platforms like the internet, which facilitate the movement of goods and services to consumers.
Based on the above explanation, it can be asserted that the process of production serves as the foundation of society. According to Karl Marx, society is structured into two key components:
1. Infrastructure: In Marxist theory, infrastructure refers to the economic base of society, often simply called “the base.” It constitutes the fundamental structure that includes labour, production relations, production experiences, skills and other economic interactions. Infrastructure lays the groundwork for the formation of the superstructure, influencing all aspects of social, economic and political life.
2. Superstructure: Superstructure represents the outward and observable aspects of society, encompassing various political, intellectual and state institutions. In Marxist analysis, the superstructure consists of institutions and practices that reinforce and justify the prevailing social and economic order established by the infrastructure. This includes elements such as the legal system, educational institutions, mass media, religious organizations and the military, all of which contribute to maintaining existing power structures.
Within the broader framework of socio-cultural materialism, the term “superstructure” also refers to the shared beliefs, values, ideologies and cultural narratives that shape society’s perception of the world. It can be further divided into cultural and mental components, which influence how individuals interpret their social reality.
Social Classes in Marxist Theory
Marx also categorized society into distinct classes based on their relationship to the means of production. In Das Kapital, he identified three primary classes:
- Capitalists: Those who own the means of production and derive profit from them.
- Workers: Individuals employed by others who earn wages for their labor.
- Landowners: Those who receive income in the form of rent, whom Marx viewed as remnants of the feudal system rather than capitalists.
Marx acknowledged variations within these classes, such as the petty bourgeoisie, a transitional group. Economic forces in a capitalist society could push this group in different directions—some integrating into the proletariat (working class), while others ascended to join the ranks of the capitalists.
Class Consciousness and Social Struggle
Marx distinguished between different levels of class awareness, which he described as:
1. Class in Itself (Objective Reality): This refers to a situation where individuals belong to a class based on their position in the economic system but lack awareness of their collective interests. Workers in this stage may focus only on securing better wages rather than recognizing the broader class struggle. As a result, they engage in competition and rivalry within their own class rather than challenging the dominant capitalist class.
2. Class for Itself (Subjective Awareness): This stage occurs when class members develop a collective consciousness and recognize their shared economic interests. Once workers understand their exploitation and unite to challenge the ruling class, the class struggle emerges in full force. According to Marx, this transformation is essential for revolutionary change.
By analyzing class relations in this way, Marx aimed to explain how economic structures shape society and how the emergence of class consciousness could lead to social and political change.
Karl Marx on Stratification
Karl Marx viewed class as a fundamental concept in understanding social stratification. Instead of being based on income or social status, Marx defined class by an individual or group’s relationship to the means of production—such as tools, resources and facilities required for producing goods and services. This definition stems from Marx’s belief in the centrality of production, which he saw as essential for meeting societal needs. According to him, a class consists of individuals who occupy the same role within the production system. Marx identified two primary classes in capitalist society:
1. The Bourgeoisie (Capitalist Class): This group owns and controls the means of production, including industries, businesses, land and financial capital. Their ownership grants them significant influence over the economy and, by extension, the lives of workers. The primary goal of the bourgeoisie is to maximize profit, often at the expense of labourers. Their economic power also enables them to shape political systems, laws, education and cultural institutions, ensuring their dominance in society.
2. The Proletariat (Working Class): This class consists of individuals who do not own the means of production and must sell their labor to capitalists to survive. Their livelihood depends on wage labor, but the wages they receive are lower than the actual value of what they produce. The difference, known as surplus value, is appropriated by capitalists as profit. This exploitative relationship forms the basis of Marx’s critique of capitalism, highlighting the inherent conflict between these classes.
Marx’s theory simplifies the class structure in capitalist societies into two primary groups, emphasizing the tension between them. While he acknowledged other social classes, such as small business owners and the middle class, he predicted that these groups would diminish over time as capitalism progressed.
Based on this framework, society can be understood as being divided between those who own and control production—such as factories, money and resources—and those who do not. The dominant class maintains control because the lower class lacks the financial means to alter their social position. The ruling class also shapes societal norms and values in a way that legitimizes their dominance, making the distribution of resources appear justified. Various mechanisms, including laws, religious institutions, education systems, political policies, and state enforcement (such as the police or military), help sustain their control. The working class remains vulnerable to exploitation unless they develop class consciousness—an awareness of their shared struggle and subordinate position in relation to the means of production. However, according to Marx, class consciousness does not emerge automatically; it requires deliberate effort and collective action.
Basic Assumptions of Social Stratification
Karl Marx outlined fundamental principles of social stratification that explain how societies are structured:
- Every society is divided into two primary classes—one that possesses economic resources and another that lacks ownership.
- The foundation of this societal division, known as social stratification, is rooted in economic factors.
- The two classes exist in an unequal hierarchical relationship, leading to inherent conflicts that, when intensified, can unite the oppressed and potentially result in a revolution.
- In modern industrial societies, social stratification primarily manifests as a divide between the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat), though additional sub-groups may exist between these major classes.
- A shift toward communism and collective ownership is proposed as a means to transform stratified societies.
Comprehension about Social Stratification
Marxists view social stratification as a source of division rather than cohesion within society. They argue that social strata emerge based on shared interests, leading to and reinforcing systemic inequalities. However, Marxists see this inequality as part of a superstructure that serves to uphold the fundamental economic base of society.
The core of this relationship is economic, where one group owns and controls the means of production while another group lacks such ownership. The former represents the dominant or ruling class, whereas the latter constitutes the subordinate or working class. In this perspective, social stratification is essentially a reflection of economic class divisions and their relative power and status.
These divisions manifest across different sectors of the economy. In agriculture, for instance, society is divided between landowners and landless labourers. In a handicraft-based economy, the distinction exists between master artisans and workers. Similarly, industrial economies see a separation between capitalists and the working class, all following a structured hierarchy.
Marxist thinkers challenge the Functionalist perspective on stratification, rejecting the idea that social inequality is a functional necessity for societal stability. Marx explained this through his theory of dialectical materialism, offering a historical analysis of class structures. He asserted that, aside from the era of primitive communism—where equality prevailed due to uniformity in individual roles—societies have always been divided into two primary groups based on economic factors. These groups emerged from ownership of the means of production, forming a binary class system: those who possess the means and those who provide labor.
Throughout history, this division has taken different forms. In ancient times, societies were structured around Masters and Slaves, while during the medieval period, Feudal Lords controlled land while Serfs worked it under obligation. With the advent of industrialization, these divisions evolved into the modern economic classes of Capitalists (Bourgeoisie) and Workers (Proletariat), shaping contemporary socio-economic dynamics.
Critical Evaluation
Marxist scholars, in their critique of the Functionalist Perspective proposed by Davis and Moore, have adopted a dialectical approach to understand social stratification, emphasizing ‘material conditions’ as its foundation. This perspective enables an analysis of stratification through the evolution of class structures from ancient and medieval times to modern industrial societies.
According to this viewpoint, social stratification arises from an economic system based on exploitation, which is expected to intensify with unchecked capitalist expansion. As exploitation increases, the working class (proletariat) may unite and lead a revolution to establish a classless society founded on communal ownership. This transformation, anticipated by Karl Marx and later Marxist scholars, represents the shift they envisioned. However, despite the dialectical materialist critique of functionalism, many scholars argue that the proposed transition oversimplifies social stratification. Some key points of critique include:
1. Complexity of Social Inequality: Observing global social structures suggests that inequality is not solely rooted in class divisions. Social stratification is far more intricate than the binary classification of proletariat and bourgeoisie. Numerous intermediate or transitional categories exist, complicating the simplistic class-based framework that Marx had envisioned. Industrial societies have evolved in ways that were perhaps beyond Marx’s original scope.
2. Ralf Dahrendorf’s Perspective: Dahrendorf’s critique of Marx’s concept of conflict is particularly relevant in contemporary society. While conflict is an undeniable aspect of social structures, it is not universally driven by economic factors. Conflicts arise from diverse causes, each with its own context and hierarchy of importance. Relying solely on economic determinism can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions.
3. India as a Unique Case: Unlike many other societies where economic class plays a dominant role in determining social hierarchy, India presents a different reality. Here, social stratification is not exclusively based on economic status. While economic conditions influence social divisions to some extent, power dynamics are deeply intertwined with religion. In Indian society, religious authority often dictates social status, making it a more significant determinant than economic class—contrary to Marx’s framework, where economic conditions form the base of social structures. In India, economic factors may function as a superstructure, while religion serves as the fundamental base shaping societal norms.
4. Lewis Coser’s Interpretation of Conflict: Coser expands upon conflict theory by identifying two potential outcomes of conflicts within groups: integration or disintegration. The effect of conflict depends on whether it challenges the core assumptions of the group. Furthermore, conflicts exist at both internal and external levels. Interestingly, it has been observed that external conflicts, particularly violent ones, can strengthen internal cohesion. This indicates that conflict may be constructive in some cases while disruptive in others.
5. Dahrendorf’s Emphasis on Power: Dahrendorf builds upon Marxist ideas by emphasizing the role of power in shaping societal norms, culture, and beliefs. He argues that the dominant class has the ability to impose its worldview, while the perspectives of subordinate groups are marginalized. Consequently, conflict does not always lead to social transformation; instead, its impact depends on the nature and intensity of the struggle.
In summary, while Marxist thought provides valuable insights into social stratification, contemporary critiques highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of social divisions, particularly in diverse and complex societies.
References and Readings:
Sociological Theory, by Ritzer G, https://amzn.to/3Da3pcm
Sociology by C.N. Shankar Rao, https://amzn.to/41A3Wh4