Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Ministry of General and Professional Education
of Russian Federation
Tula State University
Department of Sociology
Social Stratification and Mobility
Fulfilled by: Golopolosov Dmitry
group 220671
Checked by: Scherbakova V.P.
|
[1] Tula, 1999 [2] Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis [3] Social mobility [4] Identifying social classes [4.1] Table 1. Identifying social classes [5] Middles rank according to profession [5.0.1] Whole amount of respondents |
What is Stratification?
Social stratification is a structured ranking of individuals and groups – their grading into horizontal layers or strata.
There are two different types of stratification systems: open system and closed system. Open system is a stratification system, in which people can change their status with relative ease. Closed system is a stratification system, in which people have great difficulty in changing their status.
I think that there is a closed system in our country, because a person having nothing-valuable resources can’t change his social status. For example, ordinate engineer can’t suddenly become a bank officer with greater income. Person must have some capital, money, bank securities or intellectual capital. But, I think, nowadays there is a great tendency in our society to have more money than an intellect, i.e. money capital is more preferable than a great intellectual potential of our nation.
The study of social stratification is the study of class, caste, privilege, status that is characteristic of a particular society. It varies according to how society is organized especially in terms of production and work. We will emphasize class.
What is the connection between the question: what do you want to be when you grow up and social stratification (especially the class character of the society you live in)? Your position in society and the rewards that will be associated with it. It has an impact on your possibility of realistically meeting your opportunities for mobility. Mobility refers to the likelihood that you can achieve a class, caste different from where you come from, your roots. Mobility and stratification are related.
What image does strata invoke as a model of the social world? Strata comes the natural sciences. Dr. Brush argues that it is interesting that sociologists use a natural phenomena to talk about social phenomena. It seems to contradict the main message of the course: our world is socially constructed phenomena and not a natural process. Thus, stratification is not equal to natural accretion.
Hypothesis posed by a classmate: society needs stratification to be healthy and keep the peace. Which of the three main sociological perspectives supports this statement? The functionalist perspective. Most stratification arguments come out of this perspective. The second part of the hypothesis (to keep the peace) relates more to the conflict perspective.
Stratification and egalitarianism are related. In a sociological sense strata is a category that's associated with social hierarchy. That is, people are ranked according to their rank, class, authority. If a society has ranks then it is a stratified society. If it does not, then it is an egalitarian society. Keep in mind, that these are relative terms.
Last week we drew a picture that tells the story of how societies are organized around work. As societies move from simple to complex organization, they start to get levels of inequality that would need stratification to keep the peace. The differences are not natural, neutral nor random. They are ranked and constitute a hierarchy along the lines of race, gender, age, income among others.
Class is about how society organizes production and the outcomes that it creates for people; this a combination of a Marxian (stratification) and Weberian (organization) understanding.
Social mobility is a process, when individuals or groups can move from one level (stratum) to another in the stratification system. There are three types of social mobility:
There are three main approaches to identifying social classes: the objective method, the self-placement method, and the reputational method. Although all the approaches overlap in classes, there are appreciable differences in the results afforded by each. Moreover, each method has certain advantages and disadvantages (see Table 1).
|
Method |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Objective |
A clear-cut method for studying the correlates of social class. It is commonly the simplest and cheapest approach since data can usually be obtained from government sources. |
The method often does not yield divisions that people themselves employ in their daily lives. |
|
Self-placement |
The method can be applied to a large population since survey techniques can be employed for securing the data. A useful method for predicting political behavior since who people think they are influences how they vote. |
The class with which people identify may represent their aspirations rather than their current associations or the appraisals of other people. |
|
Reputational |
The method provides a valuable tool for investigating social distinctions in small groups and communities. It is specially useful for predicting associational patterns among people. |
The method is difficult to use in large samples where people have little or no knowledge of one another. |
|
Professionals |
Whole amount of respondents |
Middle class of Russia |
Ideal middle class |
|
1. Industrial workers |
35.2 |
25.2 |
4.2 |
|
2. Technicians, middle part managers |
14.4 |
23.4 |
20.8 |
|
3. Directors of public industries and joint-stock companies |
1.2 |
2.1 |
- |
|
4. Businessmen |
6.9 |
12.8 |
25.0 |
|
5. Accountant, financier etc. |
4.0 |
4.2 |
12.5 |
|
6. Humanitarian intelligence |
20.5 |
23.4 |
16.7 |
|
7. Workers of communal sphere |
10.2 |
8.5 |
20.8 |
|
8. Trade and supply workers |
7.6 |
- |
- |
Russian middle class: 6% of all respondents
Numerical superiority: men and citizens of big towns and Moscow.
Ideal middle class: 3.4% of all respondents (most close to middle class of advanced countries)
Citizens of big towns (21.1%) and villages (52.7%). Thus 2-3% of villagers are of middle class.
References