soc150

Sixth Edition

Social Stratification and Inequality

Class ConfHct ;n Hjstorical, Compara6ve, and Global Perspective

Harold R. Kerbo

California Polytechnic State University

San Luis Obispo

Boston Burr Ridge, IL Dubuque, IA Madison. WI New York

San Francisco St. Louis Bangkok Bogota Caracas Kuala Lumpur

Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal New Delhi

Santiago Seoul Singapore Sydney Taipei Toronto

The McGraw·Hi/1 Companies , •

B Higher Education SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY: CLASS CONFLICT IN HISTORICAL, COMPARATIVE, AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Published by McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020. Copyright© 2006, 2003, 2000, 1996, 1991, 1983 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or

stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast f or distance learning. Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States.

@ This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 2 3 4 5 6789 0FGR/FGR 0 9 876 5

ISBN 0-07-299769-9

Editor in Chief: Emily Barros.ff

Publisher: Phillip A. Butcher

Sponsoring Editor: Sherith H. Pankratz

Developmental Editor: Kate Scheinman Senior Marketing Manager: Daniel M. Loch Managing Editor: Jean Dal Porto Project Manager: Emily HatteberR Art Director: Jeanne Schreiber Associate Designer: Srdjan Savanovic Text Designer: Srdjan Savanovic Cover Designer: Jenny El-Shamy Art Editor: Katherine McNab

Photo Research Coordinator: Nora Agbayani

Cover Credit: © Digital Vision Media Producer: Nancy Garcia Production Supervisor: Jason!. Huls Composition: 10/12 Times by Carlisle Communications, Ltd. Printing: 45 # New Era Matte, Quebecor World Fairfield, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kerbo, Harold R. Social stratification and inequality : class conflict in historical, comparative and global

perspective I Harold R. Kerbo.--6th ed. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-07-299769-9 (softcover: alk. paper)

I. Social classes--United States. 2. Social conflict--United States. 3. Equality--United States. 4. Social mobility--United States. I. Title. HN90.S6K47 2006 305.5'0973--dc22

2005043754 The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors of McGraw- Hill, and does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.

www.mhhe.com

Introduction

c H A p T E R 1

Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification

The extremes of wealth and poverty in the United States are no better captured than in these

pictures of the Mar-a-Lago Estate, owned by Donald Trump, and a homeless family in one

of our major cities.

SOURCE: Top: Steve Starr/Corbis: bottom: Bushnell/Soifer/Getty Images

2 Part I Introduction

Chapter Outline

•!• Michael

•!• David

•!• Definitions and Concepts

•!• Social Stratification in the Modern World System

•!• The Organization of Chapters

•!• Summary

I n understanding human beings and human societies, no subject is more important than social stratification. A system of social stratification helps shape how people live, their

opportunities for a better life, their mental health and life expectancy, and much more. On a more general level, a system of social stratification has an important influence on events such as war and peace, economic expansion or stagnation, unemployment and in­ flation, and government policies of many kinds.

Most people, of course, are aware of the fact that some people are rich while oth­ ers are poor. But people in general are usually less aware of the rather systematic social forces that structure such outcomes. They prefer to think that people themselves are re­ sponsible for their lot in life. This type of belief is especially strong among the nonpoor and whites in the United States, with its values of freedom and individualism. Most peo­ ple, too, are aware of the fact that some individuals have more influence than others, with the power to shape national issues of war and peace, economic well-being, and general social welfare. But, again, people are usually much less aware of how a system of strat­ ification forms the basis for such influence. They prefer to think that great men and women determine historical events; the possibility that great men and women are them­ selves a product of a system of social stratification is less obvious to most people. And finally, most people are aware of racial, ethnic, and gender inequalities. Especially be­ cause of America's racial and ethnic diversity, there is no doubt greater awareness of this inequality here than in most places in the world. However, it is also because of the real­ ity of these inequalities and their significance in the American society that there are so many ideologies and misconceptions about these inequalities. Most people do not fully understand the structural nature of these inequalities and often misjudge the level of in­ equality based upon race, ethnicity, and gender.

We can begin our study of social stratification on the level of individual life histo­

ries. Individual life histories alone, of course, can tell us very little about an overall sys­ tem of social stratification. It should also be recognized that the subject of sociology, and thus social stratification, is concerned with group properties, social structures, and so­ cial forces. In other words, sociology is concerned primarily with groups or aggregates of people, not individual biographies. For example, if sociologists want to understand

crime or mental illness, they are interested in the social forces that help produce such

phenomena. On an individual level, many unique influences may be shaping human be­ havior. Thus, to increase the power of our explanations or sociological theories, we con­ cern ourselves with more general social forces that affect many people in a nation and

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 3

globally. As in any science, our intent is to get the most general explanations or under­

standing out of the smallest number of variables.

With this in mind, however, we can examine individual biographies as examples, and for the questions they raise. For maximum effect, let us consider a life history on each extreme of the stratification system in the United States. These life histories and their details may seem a bit dated now, but as we will see, it is important to stress that

they are not.

� Michael

Michael was born in August 1965, in the low-income, predominantly black area of Los

Angeles called Watts. There is some distinction in the place and timing of Michael's birth not only because he was born 6 months after his mother began a jail term but also because his birth occurred a few days after one of the worst race riots in U.S. history-a race riot that was only one of the first of over 300 that sprang up, one after another, through 1968 (Salert and Sprague 1980). Given these circumstances, we have a rather detailed descrip­ tion of Michael's early life provided by Richard Meyers of the Los Angeles Times; it is a life history that parallels the troubled history of the low-income urban area of Los Ange­ les since Michael was born (see the Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1980).

Michael's mother was involved in a daily struggle to find money for food and shel­ ter for herself and a I-year-old child with a disability when a knife fight led to her arrest and jail term. Despite considerable pressure to the contrary, Michael's mother Judy did not give up her baby born while in prison. Michael and his brother were placed in sepa­ rate foster homes until Judy could care for her children adequately. During his 3 years in the foster home, Michael was healthy and developed with the likes and dislikes of any young child-he "hated green peas and haircuts"; he loved his toys, dog, and ice cream;

and he enjoyed playing with his foster father's tools.

Judy was out of prison after 3 years, but she was also out of work and had no place to live. For the next 17 months she lived in 10 different locations-including her mother's apartment, two foster homes, her stepfather's back porch, and a truck. With an unem­ ployment rate of 20 percent in the area at the time, jobs were extremely scarce. She re­ ports working for a time with a temporary government work project, and for a time as an aide in a parole office. She also tried her hand at being a pimp for gay men, which brought her considerably more money but also a life she rejected in order to provide a home for her children. Pregnant again at age 18, she gave up hustling for welfare and her children.

Judy was happy when Michael was returned to her, although she wept for many days when Michael cried for his foster parents. She began receiving a welfare check, like 265,221 other people in the area. But the amount received, despite California's more "generous" assistance level, was inadequate for her needs and the needs of three chil­ dren. (At the time in California, a mother with three children could receive less than $400 per month with a basic welfare grant under Aid to Families with Dependent Children and including food stamps.) Judy and her three children were forced to live with relatives in a three-bedroom apartment that was home for 13 people.

To some extent, Judy and Michael's prospects improved when Judy married a man who was employed as a janitor. They moved to a rented apartment of their own

4 Part I Introduction

in a low-income housing project. Like most mothers, Judy loved her children and did her best to provide for them. Michael remembers she always wrote "I love you" on his lunch sack when he began school. She saved to buy Christmas presents for the kids, and did volunteer work at Michael's preschool.

With marriage Judy had her fourth child. But as is too often the case for many poor children, the relatively good times did not last. Judy's marriage began breaking up and she turned to drugs. The children were chased by rats in the apartment, rats that some­ times woke them up at night, and Michael was bitten by a tarantula. Again they moved, and again Judy was alone with her children.

Their new apartment was not much better, but the rats were less of a problem. Judy was back on the welfare rolls, and the area they lived in was one of the most crime-prone and violent. Judy first placed Michael in a Catholic school to keep him away from the crime and gangs in the public school, but it did not last. Both Judy and Michael describe being embarrassed when comparing themselves with the parents and children in this new school, with the embarrassment reaching a peak when Judy could not afford 11 cents for the required pencil and eraser at the school. Michael was placed in the public school.

When he was 7 years old, Michael saw a man killed for the first time. The man was driving an ice cream truck in front of Michael's apartment when several young boys stopped the truck, beat the man, and took $12. Other residents in the area took all the ice cream out of the truck. This was only the first of many people Michael saw killed before he was 15.

Michael's 16-month-old sister was killed when she fell from their apartment stairs. Judy took the death with much grief and alcohol. Shortly afterward, when Michael was in the third grade, he was again placed in a foster home. This time it was because of a child abuse charge against Judy. Michael had broken his arm but was unable to convince anyone that it had happened in a fall away from home. Again Judy found it difficult to live with her life. Michael remembers crying night after night for his mother. The alleged child abuse, however, did appear unfounded, and Michael was returned to Judy after a judge became convinced of her innocence.

At about this time Michael also found the influence of street gangs difficult to re­ sist. He was arrested for shoplifting when he was in third grade. By the time he was l O there were other arrests and gang fights for Michael. By age 15 he had experienced anger over his mother's beating and gang rape by young boys, he had seen more men killed, and he had to bear the fact that his and his mother's possessions were stolen time and time again. He had seen his mother sick because of hunger, and he had stolen food. Michael still lived in the area of the 1965 Watts riot, which in the 1990s had an even

higher rate of crime. Also, by the age of 15, Michael was in jail; 9 months after the story

on Michael appeared in the Los Angeles Times his mother was found shot to death. The future for Michael, along with that of millions of children in similar circum­

stances in this country, does not look good. Judging from the experience of most middle-aged men in the area of Watts, we might expect Michael to be in and out of the unemployment lines throughout his life; when work is found it will be low-paid and low­ skilled. Given changes in the U.S. economy, as Michael was coming of age, the pay for low-skilled workers will become even lower in coming years, if such work can be found at all. Of course, there is a strong possibility that he will be in and out of prison as well, if not killed, like many young people in places such as Watts, where the leading cause of death for men is gunshot.

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 5

We can feel sorry and angry for, and about, Judy and Michael; but sorrow and anger are not the intent of the preceding description. It is meant to illustrate not just the misfortunes of one family but the experience of many families who are poor ( of no mat­

ter what race) in the United States. Such experiences are no doubt varied, for, contrary

to popular belief, the poor represent a diverse segment of our population. But the poor do have many common problems that are presented by their common position at the bot­ tom of the stratification system in an affluent society. We will consider the questions this case presents for the study of social stratification after we examine the case of David.

� David

David was born at the other end of the stratification system in this country-at the top. His parents were not only rich, but they were among the superrich and powerful. David was born in 1915, the youngest of six children. His father had assets of at least $0.5 billion,

which he had inherited from his father (Collier and Horowitz 1976: 133). David, like Michael, grew up in a number of dwellings, though, as might be expected, there were a number of differences. For one, the several dwellings were all owned by the family-all at

the same time. The homes were substantially less crowded than Michael's first (three bed­ rooms for 13 people), and it is rather doubtful that they had rats, spiders, and cockroaches.

First, there was the family's New York City townhouse on Fifth Avenue. Then, for the weekends, there was the Pocantico Hills estate in New York. The 3,500-acre Pocan­ tico estate is five times the size of Central Park in New York City, with a 250-acre park of its own. At Pocantico, David and his brothers and sister could "go to the stone stables and have the riding master take them out on the trails; they could check out one of the fleet of electric cars that sailed silently around the grounds" (Collier and Horowitz 1976: 182). It took $50,000 a year to maintain the "Big House" on this estate, and a to­ tal of $500,000 per year to maintain the whole estate.

During the summers David's family spent most of its time at its estate in Seal Har­ bor, Maine. Here the children could go sailing in the many boats or go on long walks to the "cabin" deep in the woods on the estate (Collier and Horowitz 1976: 181-182). Fi­ nally, if they really wanted to get away, there was a home in the Virgin Islands, a

Venezuelan ranch, and a ranch in the Grand Teton Mountains (Dye 1979: 158). We would expect that David was much like Michael as a 2-year-old child. He was

curious about his environment, he loved to play with his toys, and, though never men­ tioned in biographies, we might expect that he liked ice cream. But David had a much

wider and safer environment to explore, and his toys were more numerous and expen­ sive. After this young age, the differences grew much wider. David did not grow up with street crime and violence, it is doubtful he ever saw a man killed, and his schools were much different. He went to the elite Lincoln School near the Pocantico Hills estate, then

attended Harvard and the London School of Economics, and earned a PhD in econom­ ics at the University of Chicago (Kutz 1974:71).

As a young child, David appeared serious and "responsible," and he was informally selected from among his brothers to carry on the family business interests (Collier and Horowitz 1976:220; Dye 1979: 158). After World War II David began work at his uncle's

bank as an assistant manager of the foreign department. He spent 3 years at that job, and in 1950 he was promoted to a vice president. By 1952 he was senior vice president; in

6 Part I Introduction

1962, president; and in 1969, chair of the board and chief executive officer (Kutz 1974:73-99). He retired from these positions in 1981.

Before retirement, David Rockefeller was described as the most powerful private citizen in the United States-"the only man who would have to step down to become president of the United States" (Collier and Horowitz 1976:431; Dye 1979: 157-158). As one corporate executive put it to The Wall Street Journal (April 3, 1981), Mr. Rockefeller "is the equivalent of a head of state. He is the chairman of the board of the Eastern es­ tablishment." All this is an exaggeration-at least to some degree. At Chase Manhattan Bank David Rockefeller chaired a board of directors that included men from top posi­ tions at American Express Company, Chrysler, Continental Corporation, Equitable Life Assurance, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Sears Roebuck, Standard Oil oflndiana, Union Carbide, and United States Steel (U.S. Senate Committee on Gov­ ernmental Affairs l 978b:898). In addition, the bank's trust department controlled sig­ nificant stock in such companies as Exxon, IT &T, Morgan Bank, Standard Oil of California, Mobil, and Aetna Life and Casualty (U.S. Senate Committee on Govern­ mental Affairs I 978a).

David Rockefeller has also served as chair of the Museum of Modern Art, on the board of Harvard University, as a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, a trustee of the University of Chicago and the John F. Kennedy Library, and as director of the Council

on Foreign Relations (Dye 1979: 159). He repeatedly turned down cabinet posts offered by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon (Collier and Horowitz 1976:403).

David Rockefeller is noted for his hard work, but he does have the time and means to play. He is part owner of a French vineyard; in his Pocantico home, he .has "a renowned temperature-controlled [wine] cellar sealed with a bank-vault door." He owns three 40-foot boats at his Seal Harbor estate in Maine; and he has one of the best col­ lections of impressionist and postimpressionist paintings (Collier and Horowitz 1976:321). One must not forget his beetle collection (bugs, not Beatie records); dating back to his childhood days, his collection is reported to be one of the best in the world, with two species named after him (Collier and Horowitz 1976:221 ).

Added to all this, David's personal real estate holdings included residences in Manhattan and Pocantico, the vacation homes at Seal Harbor and in the Caribbean, a sheep ranch in Australia, and several thousand acres in the Virgin Islands and the Brazil­ ian interior (Collier and Horowitz 1976:423). It is difficult to obtain precise figures on the total wealth of people like David Rockefeller, but one "conservative" estimate of the present Rockefeller family wealth (excluding family holdings in real estate and financial institutions) was $4 billion (Kutz 1974:71 ).

The two life histories just described illustrate the obvious fact that while some peo­ ple in this nation are very rich, others are very poor. And it might be well to note that we can find many more people in Michael's position than we can in David Rockefeller's po­ sition. But these two life histories have been presented for a more important reason; they suggest several questions that must be considered in any study of social stratification.

1. Most basic, of course, is the question Why is Michael so poor while David Rocke­ feller is so rich? A popular explanation (especially in the United States) for wealth and poverty is directed toward individual qualities. The rich, it is often believed, are rich be­ cause of their superior talents and motivation. The poor, in turn, are believed to be poor

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 7

because of their lack of talent and motivation and their low moral qualities. It is doubtful

that anyone would question the exceptional talent of David Rockefeller. But the key ques­ tion is how this talent developed or where it came from. Also, we must ask how many among the poor have exceptional talent, or even average talent, that is never given a chance to develop. If a poor child were adopted at birth by a family like the Rockefellers,

how would this child turn out? Similarly, what if David Rockefeller had been adopted by

a poor family? Unless we are willing to say that most rich people are usually biologically

superior in some way (which is absurd), we must look further. In the two cases just de­ scribed, social background differences are obvious. But this presents further questions.

2. How does class background influence how people turn out or where they end up in the class system? Does class background primarily influence opportunities for more and

better education, job opportunities, and opportunities for more income; or does it also

shape personal characteristics like intelligence, aspirations, and self-evaluations? Fam­ ily class background is often used as an explanation for social conditions like poverty and crime, as well as for why some people end up affluent and in respected positions in the society. But this is only a partial explanation. With this explanation we may blame

Michael's mother for the way Michael ended up: Despite her love for Michael, why was

she in jail when Michael was born? Why did she have children she could not support? Why did she allow Michael to get involved with gangs? By themselves, however, such questions provide little help in a general understanding of inequality and social stratifi­ cation. On one hand, if we blame Judy for Michael's outcome, we may have to blame Judy's parents, and their parents, until we go back to the early slaves. (Do we blame them for being captured and sold as slaves?) On the other hand, we must not forget what Judy

had to face in raising Michael. These questions lead us to other questions.

3. Why do social backgrounds differ? In essence, we have returned to our first ques­ tion without making much progress. At this point we must ask questions about the na­ ture of society rather than of individuals. What are the political, economic, and social forces that help produce inequality and social stratification? In related questions we must ask if inequality is somehow necessary and beneficial for the overall society. Or is in­ equality best understood as a conflict relation, with the greater power of the more afflu­

ent producing their greater share of valued goods and services? Even if we find

inequality to be beneficial in some way, we must also ask if the degree of inequality we find in the United States (the highest in the industrialized world) is beneficial for the overall society. Or does the degree of inequality in this country primarily benefit the more affluent, resulting in the exploitation of others?

4. With our example of David and Michael, especially in the United States, we have to ask, How much does race matter? What if David Rockefeller had come from a black family? Would he have been able to attain the high position and power he had before re­ tiring? And are things different in the United States since the 1950s when David Rock­

efeller started his rapid move up the corporate ladder? Could one of the top banks in the United States be headed by a black person today? And what about Michael's poverty? Was he kept poor primarily because he is black? Would a white boy born poor have a better chance to move out of poverty than Michael had? All of these questions ask, Does race matter? Certainly the answers must be yes. But how much, and is it changing? These are the more difficult questions that students of social stratification must ask.

8 Part I Introduction

5. In a related vein, what if it had been Mary Rockefeller instead of David? Even if born in such a wealthy and powerful upper-class family, would a woman be able to at­ tain the power David Rockefeller attained? Again, is this situation changing in the Amer­ ican society since David Rockefeller was a young man and on his way to the top of the corporate world? And what if Michael had been a Mary, and still poor and black? How could life have been different? Would there have been different chances to get a job, ob­ tain welfare, escape crime? Again these are difficult questions, but all very important ones in the study of social stratification in the United States, as well as in any other coun­ try in the world.

6. Putting aside questions concerning the causes of inequality, we have others pertain­ ing to the maintenance of inequality. For example, why is it that many of the poor either accept or tolerate their low position? A question often posed is Why do people on the bottom rebel? Perhaps a more important question (given over 35 million poor in this country) is, Why do the poor so seldom rebel? Blacks and other minorities did rebel in the 1960s, and from time to time have done so again, as in South Central Los Angeles in 1992. But most of the poor in this country are white, and the black rebellion has sub­ sided (to some degree for now) without (as we will see later) significant improvement for most blacks.

7. With respect to the brief biographies of Michael and of David Rockefeller, could we find similar biographies in other countries today? In other words, how similar or differ­ ent are the level of inequality and the system of social stratification in this country com­ pared with others, past and present?

8. With the increasing global economy we must ask about the effects of the global stratification system on the life chances of individuals. Does it matter that David Rock­ efeller was a banker in a rich country rather than in a Latin American or Asian nation? Do the immense global inequalities result in higher profits for corporate executives and wealthy stockholders in rich nations like the United States? How about people like

Michael? Are the incomes and job prospects of less affluent Americans effected by the existence of so many poor people in the world?

9. Finally, with respect to David Rockefeller's power in this society (and the world), what was the basis of his power, and that of others like him? Is this power more an out­ come of his family wealth, or of his institutional position with Chase Manhattan Bank (the second-largest bank in the United States before he retired)?

As we will see in coming chapters, questions such as these have no simple an­

swers. But these questions are among the most important that a serious examination of social stratification must attempt to answer. There is an even more general question, however, from which the others follow. As Lenski ( 1966) put it, the study of social strat­ ification is an attempt to answer the questions of who gets what, and why. With limited valuable resources, we want to know why some (like the Rockefellers) get a much

greater share of these resources. When we ask such a question, it becomes necessary to link personal misfortune (such as Michael's) and fortune (such as David Rockefeller's) with more general social arrangements or social structure. It is this task that will guide what follows.

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification

� Definitions and Concepts

9

Before proceeding, there is the usual matter of basic definitions and concepts. Because a few words or concepts may be used differently by social scientists than by others in the society, or even by other social scientists, we must be precise. At the same time, we have to avoid overdoing the definitions and concepts now or we will only compound the con­ fusion. For this reason our discussion at this point will be as brief as possible. We will define only the most important terms and concepts, leaving others for discussion as ap­

propriate. Further, we will define the terms and concepts that follow as simply as possi­

ble. Complexity and additional specification may be added in later chapters when such specification becomes necessary and useful.

Social Stratification and Inequality

We must begin with a most basic concept that describes a necessary precondition for so­ cial stratification but that must not be confused with social stratification. This condition is social differentiation, which occurs, quite simply, when we find people with distinct individual qualities and social roles. People are differentiated in terms of biological char­ acteristics such as sex, size, strength, and agility; and in every society they are differen­ tiated (at least to some degree) by social roles, work tasks, or occupations. Some people do the hunting, others chop wood, and still others care for children or gather plants in the forest. As societies become technologically more complex, the division of labor in­ creases-the number of tasks, occupations, and roles also grows. In short, an increased division of labor means more differentiation.

It is important to recognize that social differentiation does not necessarily suggest that differences in personal qualities or work roles are ranked on a hierarchy, or are eval­ uated differently. As Heller (1969:3) notes, "Positions may be differentiated from one another and yet not ranked relative to each other. For example, in our society the posi­ tion of the adolescent is generally not considered superior to that of infant, merely dif­ ferent." Social differentiation, however, sets the stage for inequality and social stratification.

Social inequality is the condition whereby people have unequal access to valued resources, services, and positions in the society. Such inequality can emerge in terms of how individuals and groups are themselves ranked and evaluated by others, but, most im­ portantly, social inequality is related to differing positions in a social structure. Social inequality often emerges from social differentiation for two basic reasons. On one hand, because of the human capacity to apply meaning to events and things, to develop judg­ ments of what is "good," "bad," or preferable, social evaluation is often applied to dif­ ferences. Thus, individual characteristics and different positions or roles may be valued unequally or ranked from superior to inferior. In this sense we refer to social inequality in terms of prestige or honor. As we will see in subsequent chapters, it is only in this lim­ ited respect that we can say social inequality has been present in all human societies.

On the other hand, and more importantly, inequality may emerge from social dif­ ferentiation because some roles or social positions place some people in a position to ac­ quire a greater share of valued goods and services. In this case we refer to inequality in

10 Part I Introduction

terms of the access to favored positions in the society, although social evaluation or pres­ tige will usually follow as a secondary matter because people who have positions that are favored in the society will be evaluated highly.

For example, in societies where physical strength is important in providing the ne­ cessities of life, the strong may be able successfully to demand greater rewards and, con­ sequently, greater respect. In more complex societies with an expanded division of labor, those in the position of coordinating and organizing the work of others obtain more au­ thority. Such authority will be used to acquire greater rewards. Also, acquiring a surplus of goods and services in and of itself usually leads to even more rewards. This is because an unequal exchange may develop. When some people control what others want and need, they are able to demand additional goods and services in return for distributing these necessities.

We come finally to the most important concept for our purpose-social stratifica­ tion. As the root term suggests, this concept implies strata. By adding the term social we are saying that human beings in social positions are stratified from high to low as strata of rock are layered one upon another. But at this point social stratification is not clearly distinguished from social inequality, so we must mean something more if separate terms are used. Social stratification means that inequality has been hardened or institutional­ ized, and there is a system of social relationships that determines who gets what, and why. When we say institutionalized, we mean that a system of layered hierarchy has peen established. People have come to expect that individuals and groups with certain positions will be able to demand more influence and respect and accumulate a greater share of goods and services. Such inequality may or may not be accepted equally by a majority in the society, but it is recognized as the way things are.

By a system of social stratification we also mean that something like rules have been developed that "explain" how rewards are distributed and why they are distributed in such a way. For example, the rules may explain that some individuals receive greater rewards because they are the human representatives of some god or because they are be­ lieved to contribute more to the well-being of the total society.

When class or strata placement is primarily hereditary, we refer to such placement as ascription. That is, people are placed in positions in a stratification system because of qualities beyond their control (for example, because of race, gender, or class at birth). When class or strata placement is due primarily to qualities that can be controlled by in­ dividuals, we refer to such placement as achievement. That is, people obtain their place in the stratification system because they have merit, because they live up to certain ideals, or because they follow certain achievement rules. However, as we will see, in most societies strata placement is based on a varying mixture of ascription and achieve­ ment. And in the United States in particular we will see that the ascriptive factors of race, gender, and ethnicity have certainly not gone away and must be examined to understand social stratification and inequality today.

Class Divisions and Social Mobility

Because much of our concern in coming chapters will be the stratification systems of in­ dustrial societies, a brief introductory comment is necessary with respect to class divi-

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 11

sions and social mobility. (Again, more detail will be added when needed.) The concept of class, as we will see, has provoked much controversy among sociologists. Generally, we can define class as a grouping of individuals with similar positions and similar po­ litical and economic interests within the stratification system. The controversy over class involves such factors as (I) the most important criteria in distinguishing classes, (2) the number of class divisions that exist, (3) the extent to which individuals (themselves) must recognize these divisions if they are to be meaningful, and ( 4) whether or not class divisions (as defined here) even exist in the United States and other industrial societies.

In coming chapters we will present evidence supporting the dominant view that class is a meaningful and very important concept in the context of the United States, and that class divisions are based upon three main criteria: a person's position in the occu­ pational structure, a person's position in authority structures (how many people a person must take orders from versus how many people a person can give orders to), and a person's ownership of property (or, more specifically, the ownership of property that produces profit, such as stock ownership), which we can call the property structure. These three criteria tend to intersect, producing more or less distinct class divisions.

A typical listing of class divisions in the United States is made primarily in terms of occupational and economic divisions. Given that the United States is an industrial capitalist nation, such divisions are of prime importance in the stratification system. These class divisions are often labeled upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class, working class, and lower class. Similar labels, specifying occupation more dis­ tinctly, are capitalist class (upper class), higher nonmanual (higher white collar), lower nonmanual (lower white collar), skilled manual (skilled blue collar), and unskilled man­ ual (unskilled blue collar).

Because of our stress on the three intersecting criteria for class location (occupa­ tion, authority, property), a slightly altered class breakdown will be employed. This class breakdown provides more recognition of the fact that the United States is a bureaucra­ tized industrial society as well as a capitalistic industrial society. That is, people are ranked by authority as well as by occupational and economic standing.

The upper class will be used to signify those families high in property ownership, with high authority flowing from such ownership. These are the old established families with significant ownership of major corporations, such as the Rockefellers, the Du Ponts, the Mellons, and the Fords.

The corporate class will be used to signify people with high authority and power in major corporations (and often government), usually without extensive ownership in these corporations. These people include top corporate executives (presidents, vice pres­ idents, and so on) and corporate board members. There is some evidence that the upper class is shrinking in importance while this corporate class is growing in importance.

The middle class will be used to signify those with relatively little property, but high to middle positions in occupation (nonmanual labor) and authority. Further distinc­ tion will be made with respect to the upper middle class (lesser corporate managers, doc­ tors, lawyers, and so forth) and lower middle class (office workers, clerks, salespeople).

The working class will be used to signify people with little or no property, mid­ dle to low positions in occupation (manual labor), and little or no authority. A further distinction will be made with respect to skilled and unskilled manual workers. At times

12 Part I Introduction

the term lower class will be used to signify those individuals with no property, who are often unemployed and have no authority (that is, the poor).

The rather ambiguous term status should be discussed in conjunction with class. This term is ambiguous because sociologists often use it to mean different things. On one hand, status is often used to indicate positions in a social structure-for example, student, teacher, father, child-with certain rights and duties attached to such positions. On the other hand, status is often used to indicate something like class position within a hierarchy. In this usage, however, the criterion of status consists of occupational pres­ tige, or the popularly ranked esteem and respect associated with high to low occupational attainment. In subsequent chapters we will use the term status in this second sense.

Any analysis of a class system is incomplete without due consideration of social mobility. As we will see, a class system may in part be distinguished from other types of stratification systems because of the greater possibility of achievement or changes in class placement. In reality, of course, ascription is never eliminated, and what exists is a varied mixture of achievement and ascription. Social mobility may be defined as indi­ vidual or group movement within the class system. We can speak of both vertical and horizontal mobility, or the movement of individuals up and down the class system com­ pared with their movement across positions of roughly equal rank.

Given that class systems are based (at least to some degree) on achievement, we would expect them to display extensive patterns of vertical social mobility. Combining this expectation with the American stress on equality of opportunity, we can understand why the study of social mobility has become almost an obsession among American sociolo­ gists. We have numerous studies designed to measure the extent of vertical mobility in the United States, as well as many studies attempting to measure the exact mixture of achieve­ ment versus ascriptive factors that determine where people end up in the class system.

We may note at this point that research indicates social mobility has been exten­ sive in the United States, although most of it is short range. Now, however, there is clear evidence that social mobility in the United States has slowed considerably beginning in the 1980s. But the extent of mobility continues to vary, depending on where we look in the class system (top, middle, or bottom) and by race. However, the research also indi­ cates that both ascriptive factors (such as race and family class background) and achieve­ ment factors (such as educational attainment) play a part in class placement in the United States, with ascriptive factors playing a larger part than our values proclaim.

� Sodal Stratifkation in the Modern World System Now that we have defined some of the basic terms related to our subject matter, we have a final subject that in one way or another will run throughout the coming chapters on vari­ ous aspects of social stratification. We can introduce this subject by noting the current his­ toric shift in progress in the United States-a shift directly related to social stratification and inequality. The economic shift is related to the relative economic decline of the United States beginning in the 1970s in what is called the modern world system or economic globalization. This relative decline of the United States in the world economy stimulated support for what was known as Reaganomics in the 1980s. As we will see in more detail, while average Americans became more and more afraid for their security and the future

Chapter l Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 13

well-being of their children, the corporate class also became more involved in politics in an attempt to reverse the decline in U.S. profits and markets around the world (Useem 1984). Reaganomics in part contributed to the increase in income and wealth inequality that had already begun in the United States because of changes in the world economy.

From the beginning of the 1980s, the United States already had the highest level of income inequality among industrial nations. As we will see in the next chapter, by 2003 this inequality was substantially higher and still growing in the first years of the 21st century. A major cause of this inequality has been a big loss of jobs to Americans­ jobs that paid an average income. But added to this job loss was job growth at both the higher and lower ends of the income scale, though in the 1980s and much of the 1990s, primarily at the lower end. One's math skills need not be very advanced to figure out that these changes will result in greater inequality.

As the United States came out of the long recession by the early 1990s, there were other changes pushing the inequality figures higher still. At first, with economic recov­ ery in 1993 and early 1994 there was economic growth (as measured in gross national product, or GNP), as there must be when coming out of any recession. But there was a new twist: Few if any jobs were accompanying the economic growth. When some new jobs finally appeared in the second half of 1994, however, there were more differences. For example, about half of the new jobs were "soft jobs"-jobs that were temporary, part time, with low wages, and usually with few if any benefits such as medical insurance.

Also strange when considering a recession had ended in the early 1990s was the in­ crease in poverty. The poverty rate, which had been 12.8 percent of the American popu­ lation before the recession began in 1989, moved to 14.2 percent by 1991, 14.8 percent in 1992, and then to 15.1 percent when the recession was declared over. Along with the increasing rate of poverty was a continued decline in average family income through 1996, which was down 7 percent between 1989 and 1994. Job losses for Americans in the middle-income scale continued through the early and mid-1990s, but there was again something different: While jobs at the lower-income levels continued to increase, jobs at the upper-income levels-primarily technical, professional, and managerial jobs-also began increasing even more in contrast to the 1980s. For the Americans able to take such jobs this was great news. But our math skills again do not have to be very advanced to recognize the trend in even greater income and wealth inequality in the United States. And perhaps most important of all, these changes since the 1970s are almost certainly not tem­ porary, but reflect a major shift in the nature of social stratification in the United States.

During the second half of the 1990s the United States reversed its relative eco­ nomic decline, compared to Europe and Japan ravaged with economic stagnation. The U.S. economy was booming, with unemployment dipping into the 4 percent range-a

\ rate unheard of for many decades. But, the news was not all so good. The incomes of 'people on the bottom in the United States continued to stagnate, while the incomes of :those in the upper range continued to grow rapidly, making for ever-growing income in- 1equality throughout the late 1990s. Not until the last 2 years of the longest economic boom in American history did people in the lowest economic positions finally make some slight gains in income and poverty reduction gains which have quickly been eroded since the U.S. economic boom came to a halt in 2001. This was not supposed to happen in an economic boom with such low unemployment.

14 Part I Introduction

By the end of 2001, however, the U.S. economy quickly stopped its downturn and slowly began to grow again. However, another curious thing happened: The U.S. econ­ omy was into 2 years of slow economic recovery by the fall of 2003 as unemployment and poverty continued to increase. By the end of 2004 only very modest job gains oc­ curred. It was the longest period of economic recovery in American history without a drop in unemployment (The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2003; The New York Times, July 21 and September 4, 2003, January 6 and January 10, 2004). There was a loss of

over 3 million American jobs while corporate profits surged, and an additional one and

a half million Americans fell into poverty. This situation was simply a continuation of trends that speeded up during the long economic boom of the 1990s. In previous eco­ nomic recessions corporations cut back production, laid off workers, and cut inventory to save profits as they rode out the recession. When a recession was over corporations

would start rehiring workers to increase production to take advantage of the new demand for goods. This time was different. With more freedom to move around the world, more U.S. industrial corporations figured they could beat the recession by cutting costs with low-wage third world labor. The recession, in other words, further drove U.S. corpora­ tions to close operations in America and move overseas. Now that economic recovery is under way, U.S. corporations are not hiring as many American workers as before but are increasing capacity in relocated factories by hiring more workers in places like China. Chinese workers, in other words, are benefiting from the U.S. economic recovery while American workers remain unemployed as U.S. corporate profits surge.

As we will see, there is abundant evidence that the U.S. economy has been doing well compared to Japan and Europe because the wages, benefits, and job security of American workers were so low compared to those of workers in these other countries.

In other words, large increases in inequalities in the United States helped revive the U.S. economy in the 1990s. The lesson may be that in the future capitalist economies will have to compete with each other in the modern world system by making workers' wages and benefits lower and keeping them low-a possible lesson that worries European workers, as I found during interviews with German trade union leaders. All over Europe, in fact, the first years of the 21st century have brought massive strikes to prevent Euro­ pean corporations and governments from following the American lead in cutting wages and benefits. In May of 2003, for example, a nationwide strike in Austria shut down all

major services. These Austrian employees were voicing their disapproval of attempts by their government to cut pensions to help reduce corporate taxes. My classes were can­ celled at the University of Vienna because of the strike so we moved to the streets to

watch the thousands of Austrians marching in protest. Many signs as well as media in­

terviews made it clear these Austrian workers, like those in France, Germany, Italy, and other major European countries, will work hard to stop their governments from allow­ ing the trend toward lower wages and benefits seen in the United States.

A major question for social stratification systems through the 21st century is re­ lated to increasing global competition in the modern world system. Will the Europeans

be able to remain competitive with much higher wages and benefits, or will they be

forced to make their people poorer as American workers have become? With the cold war over and the Berlin Wall down, the "them versus us" mentality

directed toward the old Soviet Union is gone. It has been replaced, however, with a greater recognition of large differences among capitalist nations. In other words, it is no

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 15

longer simply capitalism versus communism, but competition among differing forms of organizations in the capitalist world economy. These differences among capitalist na­ tions, as we will see, also involve differences in their systems of social stratification. Thus, we can also say that there has been a historic shift in the American stratification

system and the place of the United States in the modern world system. To understand the current system of social stratification in this country as well as the future of this system, we must pay close attention to differences among nations and to trends in globalization, or in our terms, in the modern world system. We will do so throughout coming chapters, but especially in chapters on the modern world system and comparative social stratifi­

cation involving Japan, Germany, and poor countries of this world.

It is becoming more and more difficult for the affluent to ignore the growing level of world inequality. While that long economic boom was going on in the United States at the end of the 20th century, and while Americans at the bottom levels of the stratifi­ cation system were not seeing much improvements in their lives, a very large segment

of the world's population was becoming much poorer. As we will see, the new Pur­ chasing Power Parity (PPP) index allows us to get a much more realistic picture of dif­ fering standards of living and rates of poverty around the world. Using this estimate,

international agencies now calculate that there are more than 1.3 billion people in the world living on less than what $1 a day would buy in the United States! This number has been going up rapidly in the world for more than a century, and continues to increase in many world regions as we move through the first years of the 21st century (World Bank, World Development Report, 2003). We will also see there are data clearly showing a re­ lationship between this growing world poverty and such things as war and terrorism. In­ ternational opinion polls find that most people in the world believe that the United States is to some degree responsible for this increasing world poverty (The New York Times,

June 3, 2003; December 5, 2002). New research covered in Chapters 14 and 17 indicates

that there is some truth in these beliefs. But the situation, as usual, is more complex;

some less developed countries in the world are able to participate in the global economy, accept hundreds of multinational corporations in their borders, and drastically reduce the poverty of their people. For many other less-developed countries, however, opening to the global economy and the stratification of nations behind it leaves them worse off in

the long run-their national assets are stripped away and their people become poorer.

Understanding the differences between these less-developed countries (such as Thailand and Taiwan, compared to Burma, Haiti, and the Congo) can be among the most impor­ tant contributions of sociology to the world.

� The Organization of Chapters With some of the major issues in the study of social stratification having been outlined and basic terms having been defined, it will be useful to give an idea of the order in which ma­

jor issues will be approached. In Part One of this book, after the present introductory chap­ ter, we will consider the extent of inequality in the United States. Our concern in Chapter 2 will be the degree to which valued goods and services, health, political influence, and other

important aspects of life are unequally distributed. In Chapter 3 the focus will be on the his­ tory of inequality in human societies. We will examine how inequality and systems of so­ cial stratification evolved from the earliest societies thousands of years ago up to the present.

16 Part I Introduction

The chapters in Part Two will present various theories of social stratification and

theoretical controversies. Chapter 4 will examine the classical theories of Marx and We­ ber, and Chapter 5 will examine current functional and conflict theories.

Part Three is concerned primarily with structures of social stratification in modern industrial societies, especially the United States. By structures we mean the various class positions and the logic of how power and wealth hang together in modern societies.

Chapters 6 through 11 will be devoted to major classes in the United States-the upper class, corporate class, middle and working classes, as well as the poor, and the effects of gender, race, and ethnic status on social stratification in Chapters l O and 11.

Part Four on the processes of social stratification will follow. Chapters 12 and 13 concern the subjects of social mobility and the legitimation of inequality, or how in­ equality is made acceptable or tolerable, especially for those toward the bottom of the stratification system.

Part Five will compare systems of social stratification in other nations, as well as

focus on the relation between social stratification and the modern world system. We will

begin with Chapter 14 on the modern world system, competition by the dominant core nations through recent history, and such questions as the existence of a global corporate class or upper class today. Chapters 15 and 16 pertain, respectively, to social stratifica­ tion in Japan and Germany. Particularly because Japan is the first industrial society with­

out a Western cultural tradition, an examination of its class system will provide an

interesting test of our ideas about social stratification developed in Western societies. While there are some important differences, in this case the many similarities in West­ ern and Japanese social stratification are very interesting. With respect to Germany, there are again basic similarities to social stratification systems found throughout the indus­

trialized world. But there also are some significant differences, especially with respect to overall inequality and the power of the working class. In both countries, therefore, many stereotypes about inequality and social stratification obtained with a focus on only one nation will be exposed, helping us gain a better understanding of our subject of so­ cial stratification.

Finally, with global inequalities and poverty increasing, we must understand how a

modern world system, or global stratification system, shapes the lives of people in poorer countries. We need to know why misery and poverty are going up in some countries while others have made dramatic gains in poverty reduction. In summary, in recent decades most African countries have been getting much poorer, most Latin American countries have had economic development that benefits only the more affluent, while many nations in East and Southeast Asia have had dramatic gains in both poverty reduction and eco­ nomic development benefiting the more affluent. Thailand has been specifically praised by agencies like the World Bank and United Nations for its economic development and impressive poverty reduction in recent decades. But the old "Asian economic miracle" story focused on Asian cultural characteristics is far too simple, especially when we find neighboring countries today with identical cultural heritages with vastly different eco­ nomic prospects and levels of poverty. In Chapter 17 we will explore how the less devel­ oped nations brought into the global economy can be exploited by the rich of this world. And we will see how some nations have thrown off the negative effects of the colonial ex­ ploitation of previous centuries to enter the modern world system from a position of more strength to protect their interests and those of their people.

Summary

Chapter 1 Perspectives and Concepts in the Study of Social Stratification 17

The beginning contrast between Michael and David Rockefeller raised a number of questions about the nature of social stratification. These questions especially indicate

that the nature of the society and social structure must be the focal points for under­ standing social stratification, or "who gets what, and why." A number of basic defini­ tions were then given, especially definitions of social differentiation, social inequality, and social stratification. The major class divisions in modern industrial societies-the upper class, corporate class, middle class, working class, and the lower class or the

poor-were described, along with the dynamics of social mobility. The chapter con­ cluded with a description of the modern world system, or what can be called world strat­ ification. The nature of a particular country's system of social stratification can no longer be fully understood without reference to that country's position in the modern world sys­ tem. The relative decline of the United States in the modern world system in past decades was a major cause of growing inequality, especially the shrinking middle-class or mid­ dle-income positions in this country. Now we see that the relative economic decline of the United States in the modern world economy was suspended in the later years of the 1990s compared to Europe and Japan because of continuing increases in inequality in the United States, with wages, benefits, and job security all declining for workers in the lower half of the stratification system. Finally with growing global inequality, we must understand the effects of globalization and the modern world system.