sociological concept stratification (from Latin - layer, layer) reflects the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members. social stratification - this is a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically arranged social strata (strata). A stratum is understood as a set of people united by common status features.
Considering social stratification as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized social space, sociologists explain its nature and causes of origin in different ways. Thus, Marxist researchers believe that the social inequality that determines the stratification system of society is based on property relations, the nature and form of ownership of the means of production. According to the supporters of the functional approach (K. Davis and W. Moore), the distribution of individuals into social strata occurs in accordance with their contribution to the achievement of society's goals, depending on the importance of their professional activities. According to the theory of social exchange (J. Homans), inequality in society arises in the process of unequal exchange of the results of human activity.
To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria. One of the creators of the stratification theory, P. Sorokin (2.7), identified three types of stratification: 1) economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth); 2) political (according to the criteria of influence and power); 3) professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).
In turn, the founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons (2.8) identified three groups of signs of social stratification:
- qualitative characteristics of members of society that they possess from birth (origin, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities, innate characteristics, etc.);
- role characteristics determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (education, profession, position, qualifications, various types of work, etc.);
- characteristics associated with the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, works of art, social privileges, the ability to influence other people, etc.).
In modern sociology, as a rule, the following main criteria for social stratification are distinguished:
- - income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);
- - wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);
- - power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to determine and control the activities of people using various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people affected by the decision;
- - education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. The level of education is measured by the number of years of education (for example, in the Soviet school it was accepted: primary education - 4 years, incomplete secondary education - 8 years, complete secondary education - 10 years);
- - prestige - public assessment of the significance, attractiveness of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation. Professional prestige acts as a subjective indicator of people's attitude to a particular type of activity.
Income, power, education and prestige determine the total socio-economic status, which is a generalized indicator of position in social stratification. Some sociologists offer other criteria for identifying strata in society. Thus, the American sociologist B. Barber stratified according to six indicators: 1) prestige, profession, power and might; 2) income or wealth; 3) education or knowledge; 4) religious or ritual purity; 5) the situation of relatives; 6) ethnicity. The French sociologist Touraine, on the contrary, believes that at present the ranking of social positions is carried out not in relation to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but in terms of access to information: the dominant position is occupied by the one who owns the largest amount of knowledge and information.
In modern sociology, there are many models of social stratification. Sociologists mainly distinguish three main classes: the highest, the middle and the lowest. At the same time, the share of the upper class is approximately 5-7%, the middle class - 60-80% and the lower class - 13-35%.
The upper class includes those who occupy the highest positions in terms of wealth, power, prestige, and education. These are influential politicians and public figures, the military elite, big businessmen, bankers, managers of leading firms, prominent representatives of the scientific and creative intelligentsia.
The middle class includes medium and small entrepreneurs, managers, civil servants, military personnel, financial workers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, representatives of the scientific and humanitarian intelligentsia, engineering and technical workers, highly skilled workers, farmers and some other categories.
According to most sociologists, the middle class is a kind of social core of society, thanks to which it maintains stability and stability. As the famous English philosopher and historian A. Toynbee emphasized, modern Western civilization is primarily a middle class civilization: Western society became modern after it managed to create a large and competent middle class.
The lower class is made up of people with low incomes and mainly engaged in unskilled labor (loaders, cleaners, auxiliary workers, etc.), as well as various declassed elements (chronic unemployed, homeless, vagrants, beggars, etc.).
In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W. L. Warner in his famous study "Yankee City" identified six classes:
- top - top class (representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);
- lower - upper class ("new rich" who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful tribal clans);
- upper - middle class (lawyers, entrepreneurs, managers, scientists, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and art figures);
- lower-middle class (clerks, secretaries, employees and other categories that are commonly called "white collars");
- upper - lower class (workers engaged mainly in physical labor);
- lower - lower class (chronic unemployed, homeless, vagrants and other declassed elements).
There are other schemes of social stratification. Thus, some sociologists believe that the working class constitutes an independent group that occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes. Others include highly skilled workers in the middle class, but in its lower stratum. Still others suggest distinguishing two strata in the working class: upper and lower, and three strata in the middle class: upper, middle, and lower. The options are different, but they all boil down to this: non-basic classes arise by adding strata or layers that lie within one of the three main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.
Thus, social stratification reflects the inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and acquires the character of a hierarchical ranking of various activities. The objective need for such a ranking is related to the need to motivate people to perform their social roles more effectively.
Social stratification is fixed and supported by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modernized, which is an important condition for the normal functioning and development of any society.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
social stratification is the central theme of sociology. It describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. In complex societies, inequality is very strong, it divided people by income, level of education, power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, the transition from one social stratum (stratum) to another is prohibited; there are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely allowed. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.
1. Terms of stratification
The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth's layers. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social strata (strata) also vertically. The basis is income ladder: the poor are at the bottom, the wealthy are in the middle, and the rich are at the top.
The rich occupy the most privileged positions and have the most prestigious professions. As a rule, they are better paid and are associated with mental work, the performance of managerial functions. Leaders, kings, kings, presidents, political leaders, big businessmen, scientists and artists make up the elite of society. The middle class in modern society includes doctors, lawyers, teachers, qualified employees, the middle and petty bourgeoisie. To the lower strata - unskilled workers, the unemployed, the poor. The working class, according to modern ideas, is an independent group, which occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes.
The wealthy of the upper class have a higher level of education and a greater amount of power. The lower class poor have little power, income or education. Thus, the prestige of the profession (occupation), the amount of power and the level of education are added to income as the main criterion for stratification.
Income- the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, allowances, alimony, fees, deductions from profits. Incomes are most often spent on maintaining life, but if they are very high, they accumulate and turn into wealth.
Wealth- accumulated income, i.e., the amount of cash or embodied money. In the second case they are called movable(car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable(house, artwork, treasures) property. Wealth is usually transferred by inheritance. Inheritance can be received by both working and non-working, and only working people can receive income. In addition to them, pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich may or may not work. In both cases, they are owners, because they have wealth. The main wealth of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, income is the main source of subsistence, since the first, if there is wealth, is insignificant, and the second does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, and its absence forces you to work for the sake of wages.
essence authorities- in the ability to impose one's will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power institutionalized those. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows you to make decisions that are vital for society, including laws that, as a rule, are beneficial to the upper class. In all societies, people who wield some form of power—political, economic, or religious—constitute an institutionalized elite. It determines the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction that is beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.
Prestige- the respect that in public opinion is enjoyed by one or another profession, position, occupation. legal profession more prestigious than the profession steelworker or plumber. The position of president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than that of a cashier. All professions, occupations and positions that exist in a given society can be arranged from top to bottom on ladder of professional prestige. We define professional prestige intuitively, roughly. But in some countries, primarily in the United States, sociologists measure using special methods. They study public opinion, compare different professions, analyze statistics and, as a result, get an accurate prestige scale. The first such study was conducted by American sociologists in 1947. Since then, they regularly measure this phenomenon and monitor how the prestige of basic professions in society changes over time. In other words, they build a dynamic picture.
Income, power, prestige and education determine aggregate socioeconomic status, i.e., the position and place of a person in society. In this case, the status acts as a generalized indicator of stratification. Previously, its key role in the social structure was noted. Now it turned out that he plays a crucial role in sociology as a whole. The assigned status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. Such systems include slavery and caste system. The achieved status characterizes a mobile system of stratification, or open Society, where people are allowed to move freely up and down the social ladder. Such a system includes classes (capitalist society). Finally, feudal society, with its inherent estate structure, should be reckoned among intermediate type, i.e., to a relatively closed system. Here, crossings are legally prohibited, but in practice they are not excluded. These are the historical types of stratification.
2. Historical types of stratification
Stratification, i.e. inequality in income, power, prestige and education, arose along with the birth of human society. In its embryonic form, it was already found in a simple (primitive) society. With the advent of the early state - the Eastern despotism - stratification becomes tougher, and with the development of European society, the liberalization of morals, stratification softens. The class system is freer than caste and slavery, and the class system that replaced the class system became even more liberal.
Slavery- historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and has survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It has existed in the United States since the 19th century.
Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ substantially. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family:
lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, inherited the property of the owner. It was forbidden to kill him. At the mature stage, the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. You were allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").
This is how slavery becomes slavery. When one speaks of slavery as a historical type of stratification, one means its highest stage.
Castes. Like slavery, the caste system characterizes a closed society and rigid stratification. It is not as old as the slave system, and less common. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slave system in the first centuries of the new era.
Castoy called a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to birth. He cannot move from one caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position of a person is fixed by the Hindu religion (now it is clear why castes are not widespread). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he should fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.
In total, there are 4 main castes in India: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand non-main castes and podcasts. The untouchables (outcasts) are especially worthy - they are not included in any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, while the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.
Estates. Estates are a form of stratification that precedes classes. In the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries, people were divided into estates.
Estate - a social group that has fixed custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations. The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. A classic example of a class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. society was divided into upper classes (nobility and clergy) and an unprivileged third estate (artisans, merchants, peasants). And in the X-XIII centuries. There were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia since the second half of the XVIII century. the class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on landed property.
The rights and obligations of each estate were determined by legal law and consecrated by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined by inheritance. Social barriers between the estates were quite rigid, so social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (chivalry).
The higher in the social hierarchy an estate stood, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were completely allowed, and individual mobility was also allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. Merchants acquired titles of nobility for money. As a relic, this practice has partially survived in modern England.
Russian nobility
A characteristic feature of the estates is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, jewelry, norms and rules of conduct, and a ritual of conversion. In feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. What exactly was it?
Titles are statutory verbal designations of the official and estate-generic position of their holders, briefly defining the legal status. in Russia in the 19th century. there were such titles as “general”, “state councilor”, “chamberlain”, “count”, “adjutant wing”, “secretary of state”, “excellency” and “lordship”.
Uniforms - official uniforms that corresponded to the titles and visually expressed them.
Orders are material insignia, honorary awards that complemented titles and uniforms. The order rank (cavalier of the order) was a special case of the uniform, and the actual badge of the order was a common addition to any uniform.
The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). Before Peter I, the concept of "rank" meant any position, honorary title, social status of a person. On January 24, 1722, Peter I introduced a new system of titles in Russia, the legal basis of which was the Table of Ranks. Since then, "rank" has taken on a narrower meaning, referring only to public service. The report card provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.
The civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from bottom to top, starting with the length of service of the lowest class rank. In each class it was necessary to serve a certain minimum of years (in the lower 3-4 years). There were fewer higher posts than lower ones. The class denoted the rank of the position, which was called the class rank. The name "official" was assigned to its owner.
Only the nobility, local and service, was allowed to public service. Both were hereditary: the title of nobility was passed on to the wife, children and distant descendants through the male line. Married daughters acquired the estate status of a husband. Noble status was usually formalized in the form of genealogy, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, legends, titles and orders. Thus, a sense of continuity of generations, pride in one's family and a desire to preserve it gradually formed in the minds. good name. Together, they constituted the concept of "noble honor", an important component of which was the respect and trust of others in a spotless name. The total number of the nobility and class officials (including family members) was equal in the middle of the 19th century. 1 million
The noble origin of a hereditary nobleman was determined by the merits of his family before the Fatherland. The official recognition of such merits was expressed by the common title of all the nobles - "your honor." The private title "nobleman" was not used in everyday life. Its replacement was the predicate "master", which eventually came to refer to any other free class. In Europe, other substitutions were used: "von" for German surnames, "don" for Spanish ones, "de" for French ones. In Russia, this formula has been transformed into an indication of the name, patronymic and surname. The nominal three-term formula was used only when referring to the noble estate: the use of the full name was the prerogative of the nobles, and the half-name was considered a sign of belonging to the ignoble estates.
In the class hierarchy of Russia, achieved and attributed titles were very intricately intertwined. The presence of a pedigree indicated the status attributed, and its absence indicated the status achieved. In the second generation, the achieved (granted) status turned into ascribed (inherited).
Adapted from the source: Shepelev L. E. Titles, uniforms, orders. - M., 1991.
3. class system
Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and estate-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he was in. What is called people were attributed to one or another social stratum.
In a class society, things are different. The state does not deal with the issues of social consolidation of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, incomes, lifestyles and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata is very difficult. Criteria are needed, which are chosen rather arbitrarily. That is why, in a country as sociologically developed as the United States, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes. In one there are seven, in another six, in the third five, and so on, social strata. The first typology of classes was proposed by the USA in the 40s. 20th century American sociologist L. Warner.
upper-upper class included the so-called old families. They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city.
Lower-upper class in terms of material well-being, it was not inferior to the upper - the upper class, but did not include the old tribal families.
upper-middle class consisted of owners and professionals who had less material wealth than those from the two upper classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in fairly well-maintained areas.
Lower middle class consisted of low-ranking employees and skilled workers.
upper-lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity.
lower-lower class were those who are usually called the "social bottom". These are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for life. They constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation.
In all two-part words, the first word denotes the stratum, or layer, and the second, the class to which this layer belongs.
Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper-higher, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, worker, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle, middle and lower-middle class, upper working class and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:
the main classes, whatever they are called, are only three: rich, prosperous and poor;
non-basic classes arise by adding strata, or layers, lying within one of the main classes.
More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with one more layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.
upper-upper class includes "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and amassed untold wealth over generations. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.
lower-upper class consists mainly of the “new rich”, who have not yet had time to create powerful tribal clans, who have seized the highest posts in industry, business, and politics.
Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star who receive tens of millions, but who do not have “aristocrats by blood” in their family.
upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - big lawyers, famous doctors, actors or TV commentators. The lifestyle is approaching the high society, but affording a fashionable villa on the most expensive resorts the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities they cannot.
middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, medium-paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, middle managers. It is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.
Half an hour before work starts
Barbara and Colin Williams are an average English family. They live in the suburbs of London, Watford Junction, which can be reached from the center of London in 20 minutes in a comfortable, clean train car. They are over 40, both work in the optical center. Colin grinds glasses and puts them into frames, and Barbara sells ready-made glasses. So to speak, a family contract, although they are hired workers, and not the owners of an enterprise with about 70 optical workshops.
It should not be surprising that the correspondent did not choose to visit the family of factory workers who for many years personified the most numerous class - workers. The situation has changed. Of the total number of British employed (28.5 million people), the majority are employed in the service sector, only 19% are industrial workers. Unskilled workers in the UK earn an average of £908 per month, while skilled workers earn £1,308.
The minimum base salary that Barbara can expect is £530 a month. Everything else depends on her diligence. Barbara admits that she also had "black" weeks when she did not receive bonuses at all, but sometimes she managed to receive bonuses of more than 200 pounds a week. So the average is about 1,200 pounds a month, plus "the thirteenth salary." On average, Colin receives about 1660 pounds per month.
It can be seen that the Williams cherish their work, although it takes 45-50 minutes to get to it by car during rush hour. My question, if they are often late, seemed strange to Barbara: “My husband and I prefer to arrive half an hour before work starts.” Spouses regularly pay taxes, income and social insurance, which is about a quarter of their income.
Barbara is not afraid that she might lose her job. Perhaps this is due to the fact that she used to be lucky, she was never unemployed. But Colin had to sit idle for several months, and he recalls how he once applied for a vacancy, which was claimed by another 80 people.
As someone who has worked all her life, Barbara speaks with undisguised disapproval of people on unemployment benefits without putting in the effort to find a job. “You know how many cases when people receive benefits, do not pay taxes and still work secretly somewhere,” she is indignant. Barbara herself chose to work even after the divorce, when, having two children, she could live on benefits that were higher than her salary. In addition, she refused alimony, agreeing with her ex-husband that he leaves the house with her children.
Registered unemployed in the UK is about 6%. Unemployment benefits depend on the number of dependents, averaging around £60 per week.
The Williams family spends about £200 a month on food, which is slightly below the average cost of food for an English family (9.1%). Barbara buys food for the family at a local supermarket, cooks at home, although 1-2 times a week she and her husband go to a traditional English "pub" (beer house), where you can not only drink good beer, but also have an inexpensive dinner, and even play cards .
What distinguishes the Williams family from others is primarily their house, but not in size (5 rooms plus a kitchen), but in low rent (20 pounds per week), while the “average” family spends 10 times more.
Lower middle class are made up of lower employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their work, gravitate rather not to physical, but to mental labor. A distinctive feature is a decent way of life.
The budget of the family of a Russian miner
Graudenzerstrasse in the Ruhr city of Recklinghausen (Germany) is located near the mine named after General Blumenthal. Here, in a three-story, outwardly nondescript house, at number 12, the family of the hereditary German miner Peter Scharf lives.
Peter Scharf, his wife Ulrika and their two children Katrin and Stefanie occupy a four-room apartment with a total living area of 92 m 2 .
In a month, Peter earns 4382 marks in the mine. However, the printout of his earnings shows a pretty decent deduction: DM 291 for medical care, DM 409 for a pension fund contribution, DM 95 for unemployment benefits.
So, in total, 1253 marks were retained. Seems like too much. However, according to Peter, these are contributions to the right cause. For example, health insurance provides preferential care not only for him, but also for his family members. And this means that they will receive many medicines for free. He will pay the minimum for the operation, the rest will be covered by the health insurance fund. For example:
removal of the appendix costs the patient six thousand marks. For a member of the cash register - two hundred marks. Free dental treatment.
Having received 3 thousand marks in his hands, Peter pays 650 marks monthly for an apartment, plus 80 for electricity. His expenses would have been even greater if the mine, in terms of social assistance, did not provide each miner annually with free seven tons of coal. Including retirees. Who does not need coal, its cost is recalculated to pay for heating and hot water. Therefore, for the Scharf family, heating and hot water are free.
In total, 2250 marks remain on hand. The family does not deny themselves food and clothing. Children eat fruits and vegetables all year round, and they are not cheap in winter. They also spend a lot on children's clothing. To this must be added another 50 marks for a telephone, 120 for life insurance for adult family members, 100 for insurance for children, 300 for car insurance per quarter. And he, by the way, is not new with them - a 1981 Volkswagen Passat.
1,500 marks are spent monthly on food and clothing. Other expenses, including rent and electricity - 1150 marks. If you subtract this from the three thousand that Peter gets his hands on at the mine, then there are a couple of hundred marks left.
Children go to the gymnasium, Katrin - in the third grade, Stefanie - in the fifth. Parents don't pay for education. Paid only notebooks and textbooks. There are no school lunches in the gymnasium. Children bring sandwiches with them. The only thing they are given is cocoa. Worth the pleasure of two marks a week for each.
Ulrika's wife works three times a week for four hours as a saleswoman in a grocery store. Receives 480 marks, which, of course, are a good help to the family budget.
Do you put anything in the bank?
- Not always, and if it weren’t for my wife’s salary, then we would go through zeros.
The tariff agreement for miners for this year states that each miner will receive the so-called Christmas money at the end of the year. And this is neither more nor less than 3898 marks.
Source: Arguments and Facts. - 1991. - No. 8.
upper-lower class includes medium and low-skilled workers employed in mass production in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in behavior significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, secondary specialized), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive use of alcohol and non-literary vocabulary.
lower-lower class are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for life. They either do not have any education, or have only an elementary education, most often they are interrupted by odd jobs, begging, they constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the "social bottom", or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.
The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two layers: lower-middle and upper-lower. All knowledge workers, no matter how little they get, are never enrolled in the lower class.
The middle class (with its layers) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower one, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lower stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled workers. mental labor - employees.
Another option is possible: skilled workers are not included in the middle class, but they make up two layers in the general working class. Specialists are included in the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of “specialist” implies at least a college education.
Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - the very rich (wealth - 200 million dollars or more) and the very poor (income less than 6.5 thousand dollars a year), constituting approximately the same proportion of the total population, namely 5% , is part of the population, which is commonly called the middle class. In industrialized countries, it makes up the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.
It is customary to classify doctors, teachers and teachers, engineering and technical intelligentsia (including all employees), the middle and petty bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs), highly skilled workers, managers (managers) as the middle class.
Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet moved to the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with high-tech production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the income of the Russian population is immeasurably lower than in Western European society, so the representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be rich, and our middle class drags out an existence at the level of the European poor).
The author is convinced that each culture and each society should have its own, reflecting national specifics, model of the middle class. The point is not in the amount of money earned (more precisely, not only in them alone), but in the quality of their spending. In the USSR, most workers received more intelligentsia. But what was the money spent on? For cultural leisure, education, expansion and enrichment of spiritual needs? Sociological studies show that money was spent on maintaining a physical existence, including the cost of alcohol and tobacco. The intelligentsia earned less, but the composition of the expenditure items of the budget did not differ from what the money was spent on by the educated part of the population of Western countries.
The criterion of a country's belonging to a post-industrial society is also doubtful. Such a society is also called an information society. The main feature and the main resource in it is cultural or intellectual capital. In a post-industrial society, it is not the working class that rules the show, but the intelligentsia. She can live modestly, even very modestly, but if she is numerous enough to set the standards of life for all segments of the population, if she has made it so that the values, ideals and needs she shares become prestigious for other layers, if the majority seeks to get into her ranks population, there is reason to say that a strong middle class has formed in such a society.
By the end of the existence of the USSR, there was such a class. Its boundaries still need to be clarified - it was 10-15%, as most sociologists think, or still 30-40%, as can be assumed based on the criteria stated above, this still needs to be discussed and this issue still needs to be studied. After Russia's transition to the full-scale construction of capitalism (which one is also a matter of debate), the standard of living of the entire population, and especially of the former middle class, dropped sharply. But has the intelligentsia ceased to be such? Hardly. A temporary deterioration in one indicator (income) does not mean a deterioration in another (level of education and cultural capital).
It can be assumed that the Russian intelligentsia, as the basis of the middle class, did not disappear due to economic reforms, but, as it were, hid and waits in the wings. With the improvement of material conditions, its intellectual capital will not only be restored, but also multiplied. It will be in demand by time and society.
4. Stratification of Russian society
Perhaps this is the most controversial and unexplored issue. Domestic sociologists have been studying the problems of the social structure of our society for many years, but all this time their results have been influenced by ideology. Only recently have the conditions appeared for an objective and impartial examination of the essence of the matter. In the late 80s - early 90s. sociologists such as T. Zaslavskaya, V. Radaev, V. Ilyin and others have proposed approaches to the analysis of the social stratification of Russian society. Despite the fact that these approaches do not converge in many ways, they still allow us to describe the social structure of our society and consider its dynamics.
From estates to classes
Before the revolution in Russia, the official division of the population was class, not class. It was divided into two main classes - taxable(peasants, philistines) and exempt(nobility, clergy). Within each estate there were smaller estates and layers. The state granted them certain rights enshrined in legislation. The rights themselves were guaranteed to the estates only insofar as they performed certain duties in favor of the state (they grew bread, were engaged in crafts, served, paid taxes). The state apparatus, officials regulated relations between estates. This was the benefit of bureaucracy. Naturally, the estate system was inseparable from the state. That is why we can define estates as social and legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.
According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million Russians, was divided into the following classes: nobles - 1.5% to the entire population, clergy - 0,5%, merchants - 0,3%, tradesmen - 10,6%, peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged estate in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest of the estates were not privileged. The nobles were hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners, many were in the public service, which was the main source of livelihood. But those nobles who were landowners constituted a special group - the class of landowners (among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% of the landowners).
Gradually, classes also appear within other estates. The once united peasantry at the turn of the century stratified into the poor (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), prosperous (12,9%), fists(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, who together accounted for one third. The philistines were a heterogeneous formation - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. Russian industrialists, petty, middle and big bourgeoisie came out of their midst and from the peasantry. True, yesterday's merchants predominated in the latter. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.
By 1917 the process of class formation not finished, he was at the very beginning. The main reason was the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, as was the country's domestic market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasants, who, even after Stolypin reform never became free farmers. The working class, numbering about 10 million people, did not consist of hereditary workers, many were semi-workers, semi-peasants. By the end of the XIX century. The Industrial Revolution was not fully completed. Manual labor was never supplanted by machines, even in the 80s. XX V. it accounted for 40%. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat did not become the main classes of society. The government created huge privileges for domestic entrepreneurs, limiting free competition. The lack of competition strengthened the monopoly and held back the development of capitalism, which never passed from an early to a mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers. Thus, per capita income in Russia in 1900 was equal to 63 rubles a year, while in England - 273, in the USA - 346. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, and in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. There were no objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class acting as a stabilizer of society in Russia.
classless society
The October Revolution, carried out by non-class and non-class strata of the urban and rural poor, led by the combat-ready Bolshevik Party, easily destroyed the old social structure of Russian society. On its ruins it was necessary to create a new one. She was officially named classless. So it was in fact, since the objective and only basis for the emergence of classes - private property - was destroyed. The process of class formation that had begun was eliminated in the bud. The official ideology of Marxism did not allow restoring the estate system, officially equalizing everyone in rights and financial position.
In history, within the framework of one country, a unique situation arose when all known types of social stratification—slavery, castes, estates, and classes—were destroyed and were not recognized as legitimate. However, as we already know, society cannot exist without social hierarchy and social inequality, even the most simple and primitive. Russia was not one of them.
The arrangement of the social organization of society was undertaken by the Bolshevik Party, which acted as a representative of the interests of the proletariat - the most active, but far from the most numerous group of the population. This is the only class that survived the devastating revolution and bloody civil war. As a class, he was solidary, united and organized, which could not be said about the class of peasants, whose interests were limited to ownership of land and the protection of local traditions. The proletariat is the only class in the old society without any form of property. This is exactly what suited the Bolsheviks most of all, who planned for the first time in history to build a society where there would be no property, inequality, and exploitation.
New class
It is known that no social group of any size can spontaneously organize itself, no matter how much it wants to. Management functions were taken over by a relatively small group - the political party of the Bolsheviks, which had accumulated the necessary experience over the long years of the underground. Having carried out the nationalization of land and enterprises, the party appropriated all state property, and with it the power in the state. Gradually formed new class party bureaucracy, which appointed ideologically committed cadres to key positions in the national economy, in the sphere of culture and science, primarily members of the communist party. Since the new class was the owner of the means of production, it was the class of exploiters that exercised control over the whole of society.
The basis of the new class was nomenclature - the highest stratum of party functionaries. The nomenclature denotes a list of leadership positions, the replacement of which occurs by decision of a higher authority. The ruling class includes only those who are in the regular nomenclature of party bodies - from the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the main nomenclature of the district party committees. None of the nomenklatura could be popularly elected or replaced. In addition, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand people, and with family members the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR reached 3 million people, i.e. 1.5% of the total population.
Stratification of Soviet society
In 1950, the American sociologist A. Inkels, analyzing the social stratification of Soviet society, found 4 large groups in it - ruling elite, intelligentsia, working class and peasantry. With the exception of the ruling elite, each group, in turn, broke up into several layers. Yes, in a group intelligentsia 3 subgroups were found:
the upper stratum, the mass intelligentsia (professionals, middle officials and managers, junior officers and technicians), "white collars" (ordinary employees - accountants, cashiers, lower managers). Working class included the "aristocracy" (the most skilled workers), average-skilled rank-and-file workers, and lagging behind, low-skilled workers. Peasantry consisted of 2 subgroups - successful and average collective farmers. In addition to them, A. Inckels singled out the so-called residual group, where he enrolled prisoners held in labor camps and correctional colonies. This part of the population, like the outcasts in the caste system of India, was outside the formal class structure.
The differences in the incomes of these groups turned out to be larger than in the US and Western Europe. In addition to high salaries, the elite of Soviet society received additional benefits: a personal driver and a company car, a comfortable apartment and a country house, closed shops and clinics, boarding houses, and special rations. The style of life, style of dress and manners of behavior also differed significantly. True, social inequality was leveled to a certain extent thanks to free education and health care, pension and social insurance, as well as low prices for public transport and low rents.
Summarizing the 70-year period of development of Soviet society, the famous Soviet sociologist T. I. Zaslavskaya in 1991 identified 3 groups in its social system: upper class, lower class and separating them layer. basis upper class constitutes the nomenklatura, uniting the highest strata of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She is the owner of national wealth, most of which she spends on herself, receiving explicit (salary) and implicit (free goods and services) income. lower class wage-workers of the state are formed: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. They have no property and political rights. Characteristic features of lifestyle: low incomes, limited consumption patterns, crowded communal apartments, low level of medical care, poor health.
social interlayer between upper and lower classes form social groups serving the nomenclature: middle managers, ideological workers, party journalists, propagandists, civics teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal vehicles and other categories of servants of the nomenklatura elite, as well as successful artists, lawyers, writers, diplomats, commanders of the army, navy, KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs . Although the service stratum appears to occupy a place that usually belongs to the middle class, such similarities are misleading. The basis of the middle class in the West is private property, which ensures political and social independence. However, the serving stratum is dependent on everything, it has neither private property nor the right to dispose of public property.
These are the main foreign and domestic theories of the social stratification of Soviet society. We had to turn to them because the issue is still debatable. Perhaps in the future new approaches will appear, in some way or in many ways refining the old ones, because our society is constantly changing, and sometimes this happens in such a way that all the forecasts of scientists are refuted.
The peculiarity of Russian stratification
Let us sum up and, from this point of view, define the main contours of the current state and future development of social stratification in Russia. The main conclusion is the following. Soviet society never been socially homogeneous, there has always existed social stratification, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed a kind of pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. Society was not open, but closed like a caste. However, estates in the usual sense of the word did not exist in Soviet society, since there was no legal consolidation of social status, as was the case in feudal Europe.
At the same time, in Soviet society there really existed class-like And class-like groups. Let's consider why this was so. For 70 years, Soviet society was most mobile in the world society along with America. A free education available to all strata offered everyone the same opportunities for advancement that existed only in the United States. Nowhere in the world did the elite of society literally form from all strata of society in a short time. According to American sociologists, the most dynamic Soviet society was not only in terms of education and social mobility, but also in terms of industrial development. For many years, the USSR held the first place in terms of the pace of industrial progress. All these are signs of a modern industrial society, which put forward the USSR, as Western sociologists have written, among the leading nations of the world.
At the same time, Soviet society must be classified as a class society. Class stratification is based on non-economic coercion, which persisted in the USSR for more than 70 years. After all, only private property, commodity-money relations and a developed market can destroy it, and they just didn’t exist. The place of legal consolidation of social status was occupied by ideological and party. Depending on the party experience, ideological loyalty, a person moved up the ladder or fell down into the "residual group". Rights and obligations were determined in relation to the state, all groups of the population were its employees, but depending on the profession, membership in the party, they occupied a different place in the hierarchy. Although the ideals of the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with feudal principles, the Soviet state returned to them in practice - significantly modifying them - in that. which divided the population into "taxable" and "non-taxable" layers.
Thus, Russia should be classified as mixed type stratification, but with an important caveat. Unlike England and Japan, feudal remnants were not preserved here in the form of a living and highly venerated tradition, they were not layered on a new class structure. There was no historical continuity. On the contrary, in Russia the estate system was first undermined by capitalism, and then finally destroyed by the Bolsheviks. The classes that did not have time to develop under capitalism were also destroyed. Nevertheless, the essential, although modified elements of both systems of stratification have been revived in a type of society that, in principle, does not tolerate any stratification, any inequality. It is historically new and a unique type of mixed stratification.
Stratification of post-Soviet Russia
After the well-known events of the mid-1980s and early 1990s, called a peaceful revolution, Russia turned towards market relations, democracy and a class society similar to the Western one. Within 5 years, the country has almost formed the highest class of owners, accounting for about 5% of the total population, formed the social ranks of society, whose standard of living is below the poverty line. And the middle of the social pyramid is occupied by small entrepreneurs, with varying degrees success trying to get into the ruling class. As the standard of living of the population rises, the middle part of the pyramid will a large number representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but also of all other strata of society focused on business, professional work and career. From it will be born the middle class of Russia.
The basis, or social base, of the upper class was still the same nomenclature, which to the beginning economic reforms held key positions in the economy, politics, culture. The opportunity to privatize enterprises, transfer them to private and group ownership came in handy for her. In fact, the nomenklatura only legalized its position as a real manager and owner of the means of production. Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are the businessmen of the shadow economy and the engineering stratum of the intelligentsia. The former were in fact the pioneers of private enterprise at a time when it was prosecuted by law. They have behind them not only the practical experience of managing a business, but also the prison experience of those persecuted by the law (at least for some). The second are ordinary civil servants who left the research institutes, design bureaus and hard currency in time, the most active and inventive.
Opportunities for vertical mobility for the majority of the population opened very unexpectedly and closed very quickly. It became almost impossible to get into the upper class of society 5 years after the start of reforms. Its capacity is objectively limited and amounts to no more than 5% of the population. The ease with which large capitals were made during the first "five-year plan" of capitalism has disappeared. Today, access to the elite requires capital and capabilities that most people do not have. It happens like top class closure, he enacts laws that restrict access to his ranks, creates private schools that make it difficult for others to get the right education. The entertainment sphere of the elite is no longer available to all other categories. It includes not only expensive salons, boarding houses, bars, clubs, but also holidays in world resorts.
At the same time, access to the rural and urban middle class is open. The stratum of farmers is extremely small and does not exceed 1%. The middle urban strata have not yet formed. But their replenishment depends on how soon the "new Russians", the elite of society and the country's leadership will pay for skilled mental labor not at the subsistence level, but at its market price. As we remember, the basis of the middle class in the West are teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers, scientists and average managers. The stability and prosperity of Russian society will depend on success in the formation of the middle class.
5. Poverty and Inequality
Inequality and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Inequality characterizes the unequal distribution of society's scarce resources—money, power, education, and prestige—between different strata, or strata of the population. The main measure of inequality is the number of liquid values. This function is usually performed by money (in primitive societies, inequality was expressed in the number of small and large cattle, shells, etc.).
If inequality is presented in the form of a scale, then on one of its poles there will be those who own the largest (rich), and on the other - the smallest (poor) amount of goods. Thus, poverty is the economic and socio-cultural condition of people who have a minimum amount of liquid values and limited access to social benefits. The most common and easy-to-calculate way to measure inequality is to compare the lowest and highest incomes in a given country. Pitirim Sorokin thus compared different countries and different historical eras. For example, in medieval Germany the ratio of upper to lower income was 10,000:1, and in medieval England it was 600:1. Another way is to analyze the share of family income spent on food. It turns out that the rich spend only 5-7% of their family budget on food, while the poor spend 50-70%. The poorer the individual, the more he spends on food, and vice versa.
Essence social inequality is the unequal access of different categories of the population to social benefits, such as money, power and prestige. Essence economic inequality that a minority of the population always owns most of the national wealth. In other words, the smallest part of society receives the highest incomes, and the majority of the population receives the average and the smallest. The latter can be distributed in different ways. In the United States in 1992, the smallest incomes, like the largest, are received by a minority of the population, and the average - by the majority. In Russia in 1992, when the exchange rate of the ruble collapsed sharply and inflation swallowed up all the ruble reserves of the vast majority of the population, the majority received the lowest incomes, a relatively small group received average incomes, and the minority of the population received the highest. Accordingly, the pyramid of incomes, their distribution among population groups, in other words, inequality, in the first case can be depicted as a rhombus, and in the second - a cone (diagram 3). As a result, we get a stratification profile, or an inequality profile.
In the United States, 14% of the total population lived near the poverty line, in Russia - 81%, the rich were 5% each, and those who can be classified as prosperous, or the middle class, were respectively
81% and 14%. (For data on Russia, see: Poverty: A View of Scientists on the Problem / Edited by M. A. Mozhina. - M., 1994. - P. 6.)
Rich
Money is a universal measure of inequality in modern society. Their number determines the place of the individual or family in social stratification. The wealthy are those who own the maximum number money. Wealth is expressed in terms of money, which determines the value of everything that a person owns: a house, a car, a yacht, a collection of paintings, stocks, insurance policies, etc. They are liquid - they can always be sold. The rich are so named because they hold the most liquid assets, whether they be oil companies, commercial banks, supermarkets, publishing houses, castles, islands, luxury hotels, or art collections. A person who possesses all these is considered rich. Wealth is something that accumulates over many years and is inherited, which allows you to live comfortably without working.
The rich are also called millionaires, multimillionaires And billionaires. In the US, wealth is distributed as follows: 1) 0.5% of the super-rich own $2.5 million worth of valuables. and more; 2) 0.5% of the very rich own from 1.4 to 2.5 million dollars;
3) 9% of the rich - from 206 thousand dollars. up to 1.4 million dollars; 4) 90% belonging to the class of the rich own less than 206 thousand dollars. In total, 1 million people in the United States own assets worth more than $1 million. These include the "old rich" and the "new rich". The former accumulated wealth over decades and even centuries, passing it on from generation to generation. The second created their well-being in a matter of years. These include, in particular, professional athletes. It is known that the average annual income of an NBA basketball player is $1.2 million. They have not yet managed to become hereditary nobility, and it is not known whether they will be. They can disperse their fortune among many heirs, each of whom will receive an insignificant part and, therefore, will not be classified as rich. They may go broke or lose their wealth in some other way.
Thus, the “new rich” are those who did not have time to test the strength of their fortune with time. On the contrary, the “old rich” have money invested in corporations, banks, real estate, which bring reliable profits. They are not scattered, but multiplied by the efforts of tens and hundreds of such rich people. Mutual marriages between them create a clan network that insures each individual against possible ruin.
The layer of "old rich" is made up of 60 thousand families belonging to the aristocracy "by blood", that is, by family origin. It includes only white Anglo-Saxons of the Protestant faith, whose roots stretch back to the American settlers of the 18th century. and whose wealth was accumulated back in the 19th century. Among the 60,000 richest families, 400 families of the super-rich stand out, constituting a kind of property elite of the upper class. In order to get into it, the minimum amount of wealth must exceed 275 million dollars. The entire wealthy class in the United States does not exceed 5-6% of the population, which is more than 15 million people.
400 elected
Since 1982, Forbes, the magazine for businessmen, has published a list of the 400 richest people in America. In 1989, the total value of their assets less liabilities (assets minus debts) was equal to the total value of goods and. services created by Switzerland and Jordan, namely 268 billion dollars. The entrance "fee" to the elite club is $275 million, and the average wealth of its members is $670 million. Of these, 64 men, including D. Trump, T. Turner and X. Perrault, and two women had a fortune of $ 1 billion. and higher. 40% of the chosen inherited wealth, 6% built it on a relatively modest family foundation, 54% were self-made people.
Few of America's great wealthy date their beginnings to before the Civil War. However, this "old" money is the basis of wealthy families of aristocrats such as the Rockefellers and Du Ponts. On the contrary, the accumulation of the "new rich" began in the 1940s. 20th century
They increase only because, compared with others, they have little time for their wealth to “scatter” - thanks to inheritance - over several generations of relatives. The main channel of savings is the ownership of the media, movable and immovable property, financial speculation.
87% of the super-rich are men, 13% are women who inherited the fortune as the daughters or widows of multimillionaires. All the rich are white, mostly Protestants of Anglo-Saxon roots. The vast majority live in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington. Only 1/5 graduated from elite universities, most have 4 years of college behind them. Many graduated with a bachelor's degree in economics and law. ten do not have higher education. 21 people are immigrants.
Abbreviated by source at:HessIN.,MarksonE.,Stein P. sociology. — N.Y., 1991.-R.192.
Poor
If inequality characterizes society as a whole, then poverty concerns only part of the population. Depending on how high the level economic development countries, poverty covers a large or small part of the population. As we have seen, in 1992 in the USA 14% of the population were classified as poor, while in Russia it was 80%. Sociologists call the scale of poverty the proportion of a country's population (usually expressed as a percentage) living near the official line, or threshold, of poverty. The terms “poverty rate”, “poverty line” and “poverty ratio” are also used to indicate the scale of poverty.
The poverty threshold is the amount of money (usually expressed, for example, in dollars or rubles) officially set as the minimum income due to which an individual or family is able to purchase food, clothing and housing. It is also called the "poverty level". In Russia, he received an additional name - living wage. The subsistence minimum is a set of goods and services (expressed in the prices of real purchases), which allows a person to satisfy the minimum, from a scientific point of view, needs. For the poor, 50 to 70% of their income is spent on food, as a result they do not have enough money for medicines, utilities, apartment repairs, and the purchase of good furniture and clothes. They are often unable to pay for the education of their children in a paid school or university.
Poverty lines change in historical time. Previously, humanity lived much worse and the number of poor people was higher. In ancient Greece, 90% of the population by the standards of that time lived in poverty. In Renaissance England, about 60% of the population was considered poor. In the 19th century the scale of poverty has been reduced to 50%. In the 30s. 20th century only a third of the British were poor, and after 50 years - only 15%. According to the apt remark of J. Galbraith, in the past poverty was the lot of the majority, and today it is the lot of the minority.
Traditionally, sociologists have distinguished between absolute and relative poverty. Under absolute poverty is understood as such a state in which an individual is not able to satisfy even the basic needs for food, housing, clothing, warmth, or is able to satisfy only the minimum needs that ensure biological survival on his income. The numerical criterion is the poverty threshold (living wage).
Under relative poverty is understood as the impossibility of maintaining a decent standard of living, or some standard of living accepted in a given society. Relative poverty refers to how poor you are compared to other people.
- unemployed;
- low-paid workers;
- recent immigrants
- people who moved from the village to the city;
- national minorities (especially blacks);
- vagabonds and homeless people;
People who are unable to work due to old age, disability or illness;
- Incomplete families headed by a woman.
The New Poor in Russia
Society has split into two unequal parts: outsiders and outcasts (60%) and wealthy (20%). Another 20% fell into the group with income from 100 to 1000 dollars, i.e. with a 10-fold difference at the poles. Moreover, some of its "inhabitants" clearly gravitate towards the upper pole, while others - towards the lower one. Between them is a gap, a “black hole”. Thus, we still do not have a middle class - the basis for the stability of society.
Why did almost half of the population fall below the poverty line? We are constantly told that how we work is how we live... So there is nothing, as they say, to blame the mirror... Yes, our labor productivity is lower than, say, the Americans. But, according to academician D. Lvov, our salary is ugly low even in relation to our low labor productivity. With us, a person receives only 20% of what he earns (and even then with huge delays). It turns out that in terms of 1 dollar of salary, our average worker produces 3 times more products than an American. Scientists believe that as long as the salary does not depend on labor productivity, it is not necessary to count on the fact that people will work better. What incentive to work, for example, can a nurse have if she can only buy a monthly pass with her salary?
It is believed that additional earnings help to survive. But, as studies show, there are more opportunities to earn extra money for those who have money - highly qualified specialists, people occupying a high official position.
Thus, additional earnings do not smooth out, but increase income gaps - by 25 times or more.
But people do not even see their meager salary for months. And this is another reason for mass impoverishment.
From a letter to the editor: “This year my children, aged 13 and 19, had nothing to go to school and college: we have no money for clothes and textbooks. There is no money even for bread. We eat crackers, which we dried 3 years ago. There are potatoes, vegetables from his garden. A mother who falls from hunger shares her pension with us. But we are not idlers, my husband does not drink, does not smoke. But he is a miner, and they don't get paid for several months. I was a kindergarten teacher, but it recently closed. It is impossible for a husband to leave the mine, since there is nowhere else to get a job and there are 2 years before retirement. Go to trade, as our leaders urge? But we already have the whole city trading. And no one buys anything, because no one has money - everything is for the miner!” (L. Lisyutina, Venev, Tula region). Here is a typical example of a "new poor" family. These are those who, by their education, qualifications, and social status, have never been among the low-income before.
Moreover, it must be said that the burden of inflation hits the poor the hardest. At this time, prices for essential goods and services rise. And all the expenses of the poor come down to them. For 1990-1996 for the poor, the cost of living has increased by 5-6 thousand times, and for the rich - by 4.9 thousand times.
Poverty is dangerous because it seems to reproduce itself. Poor material security leads to poor health, dequalification, deprofessionalization. And in the end - to degradation. Poverty is sinking.
The heroes of Gorky's play "At the Bottom" came into our lives. 14 million of our fellow citizens are “inhabitants of the bottom”: 4 million are homeless, 3 million are beggars, 4 million are homeless children, 3 million are street, station prostitutes.
In half of the cases, they fall into outcasts due to a tendency to vice, weakness of character. The rest are victims of social policy.
3/4 of Russians are not sure that they will be able to escape poverty.
The funnel that pulls to the bottom sucks in more and more people. The most dangerous zone is the bottom. There are now 4.5 million people.
Increasingly, life pushes desperate people to the last step, which saves them from all problems.
In recent years, Russia has taken one of the first places in the world in terms of the number of suicides. In 1995, out of 100,000 people, 41 committed suicide.
According to the materials of the Institute of Socio-Economic Problems of the Population of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
There is a part of the social system that acts as a set of the most stable elements and their connections that ensure the functioning and reproduction of the system. It expresses the objective division of society into classes, layers, pointing to the different position of people in relation to each other. The social structure forms the framework of the social system and largely determines the stability of society and its qualitative characteristics as a social organism.
The concept of stratification (from lat. stratum- layer, layer) denotes the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members. social stratificationis a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically arranged social strata (strata). All people belonging to a particular stratum occupy approximately the same position and have common status characteristics.
Different sociologists explain the causes of social inequality and, consequently, social stratification in different ways. Yes, according to Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production. According to the functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals according to social strata depends on the importance of their professional activities and contribution which they contribute by their labor to the achievement of the goals of society. Supporters exchange theories(J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to unequal exchange of results of human activity.
A number of classic sociologists considered the problem of stratification more broadly. For example, M. Weber, in addition to economic (attitude to property and level of income), proposed in addition such criteria as social prestige(inherited and acquired status) and belonging to certain political circles, hence - power, authority and influence.
One of creators P. Sorokin identified three types of stratification structures:
- economic(according to the criteria of income and wealth);
- political(according to the criteria of influence and power);
- professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).
Founder structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating features:
- qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);
- role characteristics determined by a set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, various types of professional and labor activity);
- characteristics due to the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and manage other people, etc.).
In modern sociology, it is customary to distinguish the following main social stratification criteria:
- income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);
- wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);
- power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people through various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;
- education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. The level of education is measured by the number of years of education;
- prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness, significance of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation.
Despite the variety of different models of social stratification currently existing in sociology, most scientists distinguish three main classes: high, middle and low. At the same time, the share of the upper class in industrialized societies is approximately 5-7%; middle - 60-80% and lower - 13-35%.
In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W.L. Warner(1898-1970) identified six classes in his famous Yankee City study:
- top-top class(representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);
- lower-higher class("new rich" - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful role-playing clans);
- upper-middle class(successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and art figures);
- lower-middle class(employees - engineers, clerks, secretaries, employees and other categories, which are commonly called "white collars");
- upper-lower class(workers engaged mainly in physical labor);
- lower-lower class(poor, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).
There are other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: non-basic classes arise by adding strata and layers that are inside one of the main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.
Thus, social stratification is based on natural and social inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and has a hierarchical character. It is sustainably supported and regulated by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modified, which is an important condition for the functioning and development of any society.
It is the most accurate structural indicator of social inequality. Thus, the stratification of society is its division into various levels, or strata.
Terminology
It is believed that the term social stratification was first used by the American social scientist Pitirim Sorokin, who has Russian roots. He also developed this theory, based on strata as a phenomenon in society.
The word has the following definition: "a structured hierarchy
Reasons for P. Sorokin
Pitirim Sorokin was inclined to single out such reasons why society is "stratified":
- First of all, these are rights and privileges. Because, as we know, the noble idea of just communism does not work in reality.
- Secondly, it is duties and responsibilities. After all, in the end it turns out that there are individuals who are able to take them on themselves and cope with what others will call a "burden" and which, most likely, they will try to avoid at an opportunity.
- Thirdly, it is social wealth and need. Different people need different things, and the results of their work are at different levels.
- The fourth point is power and influence. And here it is appropriate to recall Fromm's theory of wolves and sheep: no matter how you talk about equality, people are divided into those who are born to command, and those who are used to living in obedience. This in no way means slavery, which mankind has already passed as a stage in its development. But at the subconscious level, the leaders and the followers remain. The former subsequently become leaders who "move, roll" the world, but what about the latter? They run side by side and wonder where he, in fact, is heading.
Modern reasons for the stratification of society
To this day, stratification in social science is an urgent problem of society. Experts identify the following reasons for its occurrence:
- Separation by gender. The problem of "man" and "woman" was acute at all times. Now in society there is another wave of feminism, which requires equality between the sexes, since the system of social stratification is based on the same.
- Differences in the level of biological abilities. Someone is given to be a technician, someone - a humanist, someone - an expert in the natural sciences. But the problem of society also lies in the fact that these abilities in some people can be so obvious that they will be geniuses of their time, while in others they will practically not appear at all.
- class division. The most important reason (according to Karl Marx), which will be discussed in detail below.
- Privileges, rights and benefits related to the economy, politics and the social sphere.
- A system of values based on which certain types of activity are deliberately placed above others.
Stratification in social science is the subject of discussion and reasoning of great pundits. Sorokin presented it in his own way, Weber, developing the theory, deduced his own conclusions, as well as Marx, who eventually reduced everything to class inequality.
Ideology of Marx
The conflict of classes, in his opinion, is a source of changes in society and directly causes such a phenomenon as the stratification of society.
So, according to K. Marx, antagonistic classes are distinguished according to two objective criteria:
- commonality of the state of the economy and relationships based on the means of production;
- powers of authority and their manifestation in public administration.
Weber's opinion
Max Weber made such an important contribution to the development of the theory of social inequality that when considering the topic: "The concept of" stratification ", its origin and essence" it is impossible not to mention this name.
The scientist did not quite agree with Marx, but did not contradict him either. He relegated property rights as reasons for stratification to the background. Prestige and power were brought to the first place.
Levels of social stratification
Based on the prevailing factors, Weber identified three levels of social stratification:
- the first of them - the lowest - related to property and determined the classes of stratification;
- the second - middle - relied on prestige and was responsible for status in society or, using another definition, social strata;
- the third - the highest - was the "top", in which, as you know, there is always a struggle for power, and it is expressed in society in the form of the existence of political parties.
Features of social stratification
The structure of stratification has distinctive features. The stratification primarily occurs by ranks, all depending on the reasons for which it occurred. As a result, privileged members of society are at the top, and the lower "caste" is content with little.
The upper layers are always quantitatively smaller than the lower and middle ones. But the proportion of the last two to each other can vary and, in addition, characterize the current state of society, "highlighting" the position of one or another of its spheres.
Types of social stratification
Developing his theory, Pitirim Sorokin also deduced three main types of social stratification, relying on the factors that cause it:
- based on the criterion of wealth - economic;
- on the basis of power, degree of influence - political;
- based on social roles and their performance, status, etc. - professional stratification.
social mobility
The so-called "movement" in society is called It can be horizontal and vertical.
In the first case, this is the acquisition of a new role that does not involve moving up the social ladder. For example, if another child is born in the family, the existing one will receive the status of "brother" or "sister" and will no longer be the only child.
Vertical mobility is movement along social levels. The system of social stratification (at least the modern one) assumes that one can "climb" or "descend" along it. The clarification was given considering that such a structure in ancient india(caste) did not imply any mobility. But the stratification of modern society, fortunately, does not set such a framework.
Linking mobility to stratification in society
How is mobility related to stratification? Sorokin said that stratification in social science is a reflection of the vertical sequence of layers of society.
Marx, Weber, and Sorokin himself gave various reasons for this phenomenon, based on the reasons for stratification discussed above. In the modern interpretation of the theory, the multidimensionality and equivalence of the positions proposed by scientists are recognized and a constant search for new ones is carried out.
Historical forms of stratification
The concept of stratification is not new. This phenomenon as a stable system has been known for a long time, but in different times had various forms. Which ones, we will consider below:
- The slave-owning form was based on the forcible subordination of one group of society to another. There was a lack of any rights, let alone privileges. If we recall private property, then the slaves did not have it, moreover, they themselves were it.
- Caste form (already mentioned in this article). This stratification in social science is a vivid and illustrative example of stratified inequality with clear and precise edges, frames drawn between castes. It was impossible to move up this system, so if a person "descended", he could forever say goodbye to his former status. The stable structure was based on religion - people accepted who they were because they believed that in the next life they would rise above, and therefore they were obliged to play their current role with honor and humility.
- Estate form, which has one main feature - legal division. All these imperial and royal statuses, the nobility and other aristocracy are manifestations of this type of stratification. Belonging to the class was inherited, a little boy in one family he was already a prince and heir to the crown, and in another - an ordinary peasant. Economic position was a consequence of legal status. This form of stratification was relatively closed, because there were few ways to move from one class to another, and it was difficult to do this - you could only rely on luck and chance, and then one in a million.
- The class form is also inherent in modern society. This is a stratification at the level of income and prestige, which is determined in some almost unconscious and intuitive way. At one point or another, in-demand professions come to the fore, the payment of which corresponds to their status and the product produced. Now it is the IT sphere, a few years ago it was economics, even earlier it was jurisprudence. The influence of the class on modern society can be described with the simplest example: to the question "who are you" a person names his profession (teacher / doctor / firefighter), and the questioner immediately draws the appropriate conclusions from this for himself. The class form of stratification is characterized by ensuring the political and legal freedom of citizens.
Types according to Nemirovsky
At one time, Nemirovsky supplemented the above list with several more forms of dividing society into layers:
- physical and genetic, including gender, other biological signs, qualities inherent in personality;
- ethnocratic, dominated by powerful social hierarchies and their respective powers;
- socio-professional, in which knowledge and the ability to apply them in practice are important;
- cultural and symbolic, based on information and the fact that it "rules the world";
- cultural and normative, presented as a tribute to morality, traditions and norms.
Annotation: The purpose of the lecture is to reveal the concept of social stratification associated with the concept of a social stratum (stratum), to describe models and types of stratification, as well as types of stratification systems.
The stratification dimension is the allocation of layers (strata) within communities, which allows a more detailed analysis of the social structure. According to the theory of V.F. Anurin and A.I. Kravchenko, the concepts of classification and stratification should be distinguished. Classification - the division of society into classes, i.e. very large social groups that have some common feature. The stratification model is a deepening, detailing of the class approach.
In sociology, the vertical structure of society is explained with the help of such a concept, transferred from geology, as "stratum"(layer). Society is presented as an object, which is divided into layers, piling up on each other. The allocation of layers in the hierarchical structure of society is called social stratification.
Here we should dwell on the concept of "stratum of society". Until now, we have used the concept of "social community". What is the relationship between these two concepts? First, the concept of a social stratum is used, as a rule, to characterize only vertical structure(i.e. the layers are layered on top of each other). Secondly, this concept indicates that representatives of the most diverse communities belong to the same status in the social hierarchy. The composition of one layer can include representatives of both men and women, and generations, and various professional, ethnic, racial, confessional, territorial communities. But these communities are included in the layer not entirely, but partially, since other representatives of the communities can be included in other layers. Thus, social strata consist of representatives of various social communities, and social communities are represented in various social strata. We are not talking about equal representation of communities in the layers. For example, women are larger than men, usually represented in the strata located on the lower rungs of the social ladder. Representatives of professional, ethnic, racial, territorial and other communities of people are also unevenly represented in social communities.
When talking about the social status of communities of people, we are dealing with average ideas, while in reality there is a certain "scatter" of social statuses within a social community (for example, women who are on different steps of the social ladder). When talking about social strata, they mean representatives of different communities of people who have the same hierarchical status (for example, the same level of income).
Models of social stratification
Usually, three largest strata are distinguished in social stratification - the lower, middle and upper strata of society. Each of them can also be divided into three more. Based on the number of people belonging to these layers, we can also build stratification models that give us a general idea of a real society.
Of all the societies known to us, the upper strata have always been a minority. As one ancient Greek philosopher said, the worst are always the majority. Accordingly, the "best" (rich) cannot be more than the middle and lower. As for the "sizes" of the middle and lower layers, they can be in different proportions (larger either in the lower or in the middle layers). Proceeding from this, it is possible to build formal models of the stratification of society, which we will conditionally call as "pyramid" and "rhombus". In the pyramidal model of stratification, the majority of the population belongs to the social bottom, and in the diamond-shaped stratification model, to the middle strata of society, but in both models, the top is a minority.
Formal models clearly show the nature of the distribution of the population over various social strata and the features of the hierarchical structure of society.
Types of social stratification
Due to the fact that the resources and power that separate hierarchically located social strata can be economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spiritual in nature, stratification characterizes the economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spheres of society. Accordingly, it is possible to single out the main varieties of social stratification - socio-economic, socio-political, socio-personal, socio-informational and socio-spiritual.
Consider varieties socio-economic stratification.
In the public mind, stratification appears primarily in the form of dividing society into "rich" and "poor". This, apparently, is not accidental, because it is precisely the differences in the level of income and material consumption that are "striking" By income level such strata of society as the poor, the poor, the wealthy, rich and the super rich.
Social "lower classes" on this basis represent the poor and the poor. The beggars, who represent the "bottom" of society, have the income necessary for the physiological survival of a person (so as not to die of hunger and other factors that threaten a person's life). As a rule, beggars subsist on alms, social benefits, or other sources (collecting bottles, searching for food and clothes among the garbage, petty theft). However, some may be classified as beggars. categories workers, if the size of their wages allows satisfying only physiological needs.
The poor include people who have incomes at the level necessary for the social survival of a person to maintain their social status. In social statistics, this level of income is called the social subsistence minimum.
The middle strata of society in terms of income are represented by people who can be called "wealthy", "prosperous", etc. Income secured p exceed the living wage. To be secure means to have the income necessary not only for social existence (simple reproduction of oneself as a social being), but also for social development (expanded reproduction of oneself as a social being). The possibility of expanded social reproduction of a person suggests that he can improve his social status. The middle strata of society, in comparison with the poor, have different clothes, food, housing, their leisure time, social circle, etc. are qualitatively changing.
The upper strata of society in terms of income are represented by rich and super rich. There is no clear criterion for distinguishing between the wealthy and the rich, the rich and the super-rich. Economic criterion wealth - the liquidity of available values. Liquidity refers to the ability to be sold at any moment. Consequently, the things the wealthy own tend to rise in value: real estate, art, stocks of successful businesses, and so on. Incomes at the level of wealth go beyond even expanded social reproduction and acquire a symbolic, prestigious character, defining a person's belonging to the upper strata. The social status of the rich and super-rich requires a certain symbolic reinforcement (as a rule, these are luxury goods).
Rich and poor strata (strata) in society can also be distinguished according to ownership of the means of production. To do this, it is necessary to decipher the very concept of "ownership of the means of production" (in the terminology of Western science - "control over economic resources"). Sociologists and economists distinguish three components in property - ownership of the means of production, disposal of them, and their use. Therefore, in this case we can talk about how, to what extent certain strata can own, dispose of and use the means of production.
The social lower classes of society are represented by layers that do not own the means of production (neither the enterprises themselves, nor their shares). At the same time, among them, one can single out those who cannot and use them as employees or tenants (as a rule, they are unemployed), who are at the very bottom. Slightly higher are those who can use the means of production, the owners of which are not.
The middle strata of society include those who are usually called small proprietors. These are those who own the means of production or other income-generating means ( outlets, service, etc.), but the level of these incomes does not allow them to expand their business. The middle strata also include those who manage enterprises that do not belong to them. In most cases, these are managers (with the exception of top managers). It should be emphasized that the middle strata also include people who are not related to property, but receive income through their highly qualified work (doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.).
Those who receive incomes at the level of wealth and super-wealth thanks to property (who live off property) belong to the social "tops". These are either the owners of large enterprises or networks of enterprises (controlling shareholders), or top managers large enterprises participating in the profits.
Income depends both on the size of the property and on qualification (complexity) of labor. The level of income is the dependent variable of these two main factors. Both property and the complexity of the work performed are practically meaningless without the income they provide. Therefore, not the profession itself (qualification), but how it provides a person's social status (mainly in the form of income), is a sign of stratification. In the public mind, this manifests itself as the prestige of professions. Occupations themselves can be very complex, requiring high qualifications, or quite simple, requiring low qualifications. At the same time, the complexity of a profession is not always equivalent to its prestige (as you know, representatives of complex professions can receive inadequate qualifications and the amount of work wages). Thus, stratification by property AND professional stratification| make sense only when they are built within stratification by income level. Taken as a whole, they represent the socio-economic stratification of "society".
Let's move on to the characteristics socio-political stratification of society. The main feature of this stratification is the distribution political power between strata.
Political power is usually understood as the ability of any strata or communities to spread their will in relation to other strata or communities, regardless of the desire of the latter to obey. This will can be distributed in a variety of ways - with the help of force, authority or law, legal (legal) or illegal (illegal) methods, openly or in a secret (form, etc.). In pre-capitalist societies, different classes had different amounts of rights and obligations (the "higher", the more rights, the "lower", the more obligations). In modern countries, all strata have, from a legal point of view, the same rights and obligations. However, equality does not mean political equality. Depending on the scale of ownership, income levels, control over the media, position and other resources, different strata have different opportunities to influence the development, adoption and implementation of political decisions.
In sociology and political science, the upper strata of society, which have a "controlling stake" in political power, are usually called political elite(sometimes use the concept of "ruling class"). Thanks to financial resources, social connections, control over the media and other factors, the elite determines the course of political processes, nominates political leaders from its ranks, selects from other sectors of society those who have shown their special abilities and at the same time do not threaten its well-being. At the same time, the elite is distinguished by a high level of organization (at the level of the highest state bureaucracy, the top of political parties, the business elite, informal connections, etc.).
An important role in the monopolization of political power is played by inheritance within the elite. In a traditional society, political inheritance carried out by transferring titles and class affiliation to children. In modern societies, inheritance within the elite is carried out in many ways. This includes elite education, and elite marriages, and protectionism in career growth, and so on.
With a triangular stratification, the rest of society is made up of the so-called masses - effectively deprived of power, controlled by an elite, politically unorganized layers. With diamond-shaped stratification, the masses form only the lower strata of society. As for the middle strata, most of their representatives are politically organized to one degree or another. These are various political parties, associations representing the interests of professional, territorial, ethnic or other communities, producers and consumers, women, youth, etc. The main function of these organizations is to represent the interests of social strata in the structure of political power by putting pressure on this power. Conventionally, such layers that, without having real power, exert pressure in an organized form on the process of preparing, adopting and implementing political decisions in order to protect their interests, can be called interest groups, pressure groups (in the West, lobby groups protecting the interests of certain communities). Thus, in political stratification, three layers can be distinguished - "elite", "interest groups" and "masses".
Socio-personal stratification studied within the framework of sociological socionics. In particular, it is possible to single out groups of sociotypes, conditionally named as leaders and performers. Leaders and performers, in turn, are divided into formal and informal. Thus, we get 4 groups of sociotypes: formal leaders, informal leaders, formal performers, informal performers. In socionics, the relationship between social status and belonging to certain sociotypes is theoretically and empirically substantiated. In other words, innate personal qualities affect the position in the system of social stratification. There is an individual inequality associated with differences in the types of intelligence and energy-information exchange.
Social information stratification reflects the access of various layers to the information resources of society and communication channels. Indeed, access to information goods, compared with access to economic and political goods, was a minor factor in the social stratification of traditional and even industrial societies. IN modern world access to economic and political resources increasingly begins to depend on the level and nature of education, on access to economic and political information. Previous societies were characterized by the fact that each stratum, distinguished by economic and political characteristics, also differed from others in terms of education and awareness. However, socio-economic and socio-political stratification did not depend much on the nature of access of one or another layer to the information resources of society.
Quite often, the society that replaces the industrial type is called informational, thus denoting the special importance of information in the functioning and development of the society of the future. At the same time, information becomes so complicated that access to it is associated not only with the economic and political opportunities of certain strata, this requires an appropriate level of professionalism, qualifications, and education.
Modern economic information can only be accessible to economically educated strata. Political information also requires appropriate political and legal education. Therefore, the degree of accessibility of a particular education for different strata becomes the most important sign of the stratification of a post-industrial society. The nature of the education received is of great importance. In many countries of Western Europe, for example, members of the elite receive social and humanitarian education (law, economics, journalism, etc.), which will further facilitate their ability to maintain their elite affiliation. Most representatives of the middle strata receive an engineering and technical education, which, while creating the possibility of a prosperous life, nevertheless does not imply wide access to economic and political information. As for our country, the same trends have also begun to emerge over the past decade.
Today we can talk about what is beginning to take shape socio-spiritual stratification as a relatively independent type of stratification of society. The use of the term "cultural stratification" is not entirely correct, given that culture can be both physical, and spiritual, and political, and economic, and so on.
The socio-spiritual stratification of society is determined not only by inequality in access to spiritual resources, but also inequality of opportunity spiritual impact different strata on each other and on society as a whole. We are talking about the possibilities of ideological influence, which are possessed by the "tops", "middle layers" and "bottoms". Thanks to control over the media, influence on the process of artistic and literary creativity (especially cinematography), on the content of education (what subjects and how to teach in the system of general and vocational education), the "tops" can manipulate public consciousness, primarily such a state of it, as public opinion. So, in modern Russia, in the system of secondary and higher education, hours for teaching the natural and social sciences are being reduced, at the same time, religious ideology, theology and other non-scientific subjects that do not contribute to the adaptation of young people to modern society and economic modernization are increasingly penetrating into schools and universities. .
In sociological science, there are two methods of studying stratification society - one-dimensional and multidimensional. One-dimensional stratification is based on one feature (it can be income, property, profession, power, or some other feature). Multidimensional stratification is based on a combination of various features. One-dimensional stratification is a simpler task than multidimensional stratification.
Economic, political, informational and spiritual varieties of stratification are closely related and intertwined. As a result, social stratification is something of a single whole, a system. However position of the same layer in different types of stratification may not always be the same. For example, the largest entrepreneurs in political stratification have a lower social status than the top bureaucracy. Is it then possible to single out one integrated position of the various strata, their place in the social stratification of society as a whole, and not in one or another of its types? Statistical approach (method averaging statuses in various types stratification) is impossible in this case.
In order to build a multidimensional stratification, it is necessary to answer the question of which attribute primarily determines the position of one or another layer, which attribute (property, income, power, information, etc.) is "leading", and which is " led." Thus, in Russia, politics traditionally dominates the economy, art, science, the social sphere, and computer science. When studying various historical types societies, it is found that their stratification has its own internal hierarchy, i.e. a certain subordination of its economic, political and spiritual varieties. On this basis, various models of the system of stratification of society are distinguished in sociology.
Types of stratification systems
There are several main types of inequality. Sociological literature usually distinguishes three systems stratification - caste, estate and class. The caste system has been studied least of all. The reason for this is that such a system, in the form of vestiges, existed until recently in India, as for other countries, the caste system can be judged approximately on the basis of surviving historical documents. In a number of countries there was no caste system at all. What is caste stratification?
In all likelihood, it arose as a result of the conquest of some ethnic groups by others, which formed hierarchically arranged strata. Caste stratification is supported by religious rituals (castes have different levels of access to religious benefits; in India, for example, the lowest caste of the untouchables is not allowed to the ritual of purification), heredity of caste, and almost complete secrecy. It was impossible to move from a caste to another caste. Depending on ethno-religious affiliation, caste stratification determines the level of access to economic (primarily in the form of division of labor and professional affiliation) and political (by regulating rights and obligations) resources. Therefore, the caste type of stratification is based on a spiritual and ideological (religious) form inequalities
Unlike the caste system, class stratification is based on political and legal inequality, first of all, inequality. Class stratification is carried out not on the basis of "wealth", but
