Social Stratification and Inequality
This domain examines how societies rank people and distribute resources, and why inequality persists. Questions often ask you to distinguish class, status and poverty, and to evaluate the claim that society is meritocratic.
Core concepts
- Marx: class is based on relationship to the means of production; bourgeoisie and proletariat have conflicting interests.
- Weber: stratification has three dimensions - class (market situation), status (social honour) and party (power). These can diverge.
- Social mobility: vertical mobility moves up or down the hierarchy; horizontal mobility changes position without changing rank. Intergenerational mobility compares parents and children; intragenerational mobility tracks a person's career.
- Poverty: absolute poverty falls below a fixed subsistence line; relative poverty is judged against the living standards of a society. Townsend linked relative poverty to deprivation and social participation; social exclusion describes being cut off from normal activities.
- Explanations of inequality: Davis and Moore argue stratification is functionally necessary; Marxists and feminists stress exploitation and patriarchy. Murray's underclass thesis is widely criticised for blaming the poor.
Worked example
Question: 'Class no longer matters because some people become rich.' Assess this claim. The reasoning should separate mobility from inequality: individual mobility does not prove that class structures have disappeared. A strong answer uses relative poverty, Bourdieu's cultural capital and life-chance evidence to show that origins still shape outcomes, then notes that some mobility does occur.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating class and status as identical.
- Confusing absolute with relative poverty.
- Using one rags-to-riches example to deny structural inequality.
- Ignoring gender and ethnicity in stratification.
- Describing the underclass thesis without evaluating it.