Inequality and Conflict
Introduction to Social Inequality
1. Social Structure:
Relationships develop in the social group that establish how we relate to one another, both within the family unit and among family units. As we shall see in a few weeks, the family unit is the basic unit in the society, here our concern is with the social structure and how one unit or group of units relates to another. We can imagine a network or giant web with each family being a node in that web. The web is the structure of the society. The web will also be multidimensional, linking not just families but also churches, schools, businesses, communities and so on. All of this taken together is the structure of the society
2. Stratification or inequality as Social Structure
Within this overall set of relationships there will be some relationships that have importance in terms of ranking and in terms of establishing other relationships within the web -- this is what we call the system of stratification or inequality. These rankings relate to the distribution of goods and services by the units in the society, to access to those goods and services and to power to dispose of them. This is ultimately the system of social stratification. The system may take a number of forms -- class, estates, castes or status groups.
3. What the system of inequality provides for the social system
This system of inequality establishes who get what goods and has access to what kinds of services within the society. For this reason the structure of inequality and the system of stratification are very important characteristics of the society. Differences in the rules that apply to the distribution and access give rise to the different types of stratification systems noted above.
II. The Basic concepts
1. social class:
Social class is a ranking or grouping of individuals according to position in the economic scheme of things. Class in this sense can be based on income, source of income (wealth, salary or wages), and occupation. In the terms of Karl Marx, class refers to how a group of people relate to the production of goods and services in the society.
The idea of social class is widely used and misused. In the media you will find reference to the middle class very common. However, upon closer inspection you will inevitably find these sources are actually discussing income groups and not social class per se. Economically based class actually refers to the overall position of a group of people. This placement takes into account what kind of work a person does, the kind of income that he or she has and how the person relates to the means of producing goods and services in the society.
For example, a common distinction in terms of income is whether or not the income is paid based upon hourly performance or is simply a salary for services performed. Most manual, unskilled or semi-skilled work is paid on an hourly basis. Clerical, professional and technical work is usually paid in the form of a monthly salary (it may even be initially stated in terms of an annual salary).
If a person works primarily with the hands at some form of skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled work, one is in the working class (regardless of income). If the work a person does depends more upon the use of the mind or clerical skills, then the person doing that work is considered to be middle class (again independent of income). People who do not have a regular, steady occupation or one that is 'recognized' as legitimate are seen to be part of the lower class or possibly an underclass. Finally, if a person does no productive work but instead commands others to work or relies upon an inheritance or income from investments, than the person is considered upper class. These classifications will be expanded upon later.
2. social status:
This is the social dimension of inequality. Grouping or position is based upon social value and ranking. Status is determined here by "who you are." For example, if your ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, you may have higher social status than someone who entered through the Ellis Island immigration terminal in New York City.
This type of grouping may also relates to the 'pedigree' of your parents. If you are listed in the 'social register' or are a Philadelphia 'mainline' family, you have very high social status. Another way that a family may gain status is to be among the pioneers who settled a particular area. For example, in Oregon families who can trace their ancestry to those who came overland on the Oregon Trail have high status in that state.
3. power:
Grouping or ranking on this dimension relates to the amount of clout one has in getting things done in the community. You do not have to have either wealth or status. Union leaders often have a great deal of power, but very little in the way of either wealth or status. George Meany (an early head of the AFL / CIO) had a great deal of power.
Power can come from a variety of sources, it can be in the force of personality (Martin Luther King), it can come from organizational membership (George Meany, Walter Ruether, John L. Lewis, all early labor leaders), or from location in the political system (Wellington Webb, Norm Early, Federico Pena, Hank Brown, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and so on).
4. class awareness:
The degree to which people are aware of social class and their position in it. (See the family names exercise as an example of class awareness / identification) Americans are more aware of class today than they were in the immediate past.
However, many will argue that there are no strict class limits here as exist in Europe or in Asian countries (for example, many economists do so, saying that classes do not exist in the United States, some politicians also believe this to be the case). This confusion may flow from our belief that anyone can work hard and eventually enter the highest social level. Closer examination shows that this is true only to limited degree, that there are indeed boundaries between classes, and people from lower level more often than not cannot overcome them.
5. class awareness and class consciousness:
Awareness simply means that you know classes exist and have some vague idea of what class you belong to. Consciousness on the other hand is much more definitive. If one has class consciousness one is not only aware of class membership, but of the corporate interest of that class vis-à-vis other classes and the society as a whole. Thus if you are a member of the working class and have class consciousness, you know that it is in your interests to support certain political parties, to work for the union and its interests. You know that there are times when the government is acting contrary to your interests in pursuing a war, formulating a domestic policy in support of developers, etc. Similarly, if you are member of the upper class you are quite conscious of that and how the actions of the government can and will affect your status and position. You will work to control the government so that the laws favor you with tax breaks, little or no regulation of your business and so forth.
III. systems of stratification: Estate, caste and class
Differing time periods and historic conditions have given rise to several different kinds and types of systems of stratification. The feudal period of Europe and Asia (especially Japan) gave rise to an estate system of stratification. Religious traditions in India, South Africa and America have given rise to a caste system of stratification. Finally, modern capitalist (free market or centrally planned, i.e., socialist) have given rise to a class system of stratification. Let's briefly examine each of these in turn.
1. An estate system
The central characteristic of the estate system of stratification is that it is based in land and in loyalty to an entity that controls, distributes the land -- usually the monarchy. In this kind of system of inequality there are three estates: the landed gentry/nobility, the serfs or peasantry, and the clergy.
Each of these broad categories stood in very clear relationship to one another. The landed gentry/nobility made the decisions and ran things. They controlled the land and how it was to be used. The serfs or peasantry worked the land, providing goods and services for the gentry and for the clergy as well as for themselves. The clergy provided for the spiritual needs of the countryside. The landed gentry/nobility stood at the top of the order, sharing to some degree position with the clergy. The peasants or serfs were at the bottom.
Within each of these broad categories there were rankings as well. For example in the clergy there were distinctions between the country parish priests and the upper hierarchy of the church. Parish priests were often recruited from the peasantry, the upper hierarchy from the gentry and nobility. Similar distinctions in rank were apparent in the gentry nobility -- note the differences in titles used in England for example. Among the serf/peasantry there were distinctions between yeomen, relatively well-to-do small land holders who worked their own land and the general run of the mill serf that lived essentially at the beck and call of the lord of the manor.
Systems of this type characterized much of Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire and was pretty well developed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. The system began to collapse in European societies with the French Revolution and never became established in America after the American Revolution (with the possible exception of the American South).
Virtually all of Eastern Asia (China and Japan) developed a similar type of social structure that lasted until strong European contact in the middle of the 19th Century. Japan's system had many similarities to that of England, with some interesting parallels in their historical changes after European contact. Among them is an emphasis upon merit as a means of getting ahead with a particular estate.
2. Caste systems
The principal distinction between a cast and estate system has to do with the part played by religion in the separation of groups. Both caste and estate systems were based in agriculture and the ownership of property. However, the caste system made distinctions among groups of people in terms of their standing sanctioned by religion. In India there were three broad castes and the untouchables. The categories of people were rooted in religious belief and the boundaries between the castes sanctioned by religion. These boundaries meant that castes were largely self-contained groups, people were exclusively members of a particular caste at birth with no possibility of moving out of their caste of birth. Caste determined who they could marry, where they could live, what kind of work they could do and so on. If there was any mobility (i.e., change in social standing within the society) it occurred to the entire caste, not to some individuals.
A key feature of the caste system is the control the dominant caste had over the others. These groups were in charge and had exclusive control of the society and how things were done within the society. India is the chief example of caste society and where the system was first described. However, given the definitions above (religiously sanctioned, permanent group membership) two other societies come very close to having caste systems -- the American South up through the end of WWII and the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and South Africa up to the election of Nelson Mandella as President a few years ago. Care must be taken with these interpretations since the American South also had many characteristics of the feudal system -- manor houses, plantations and a parallel structure with the clergy and 'peasants,' the so-called rednecks and share croppers of the South.
3. Class systems
Class systems seem to be more a product of the industrial revolution. Classes arise from the industrial productive system. Marx is in fact one of the first to describe such a system, but does not go a long way toward defining what the classes are except to note there are two principal classes: owners and workers. In the class system, people are set apart by what they do for a living and how they do it. Thus we find managers, professionals (doctors, lawyers, clergy) placed together in a similar class. People who earn their living by using their hands are defined as working class -- carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers, loggers, mechanics, assembly line workers and so on. Between these two groups (managers and workers) is a large group of lower white collar workers -- clerks, sales people, teachers, draftsmen, computer technicians and so on. At the very bottom of the class system are those with no skills and no steady employment or employment outside the 'legitimate' economic system -- day laborers, drug dealers, prostitutes, petty thieves and other criminals. This group also often is seen to include the mentally disabled and mentally ill since they lack the necessary skills or ability for long term, continuous employment. Finally, there is the upper class, the individuals at the very top who control the means of production in the society and who make the rules.
The class system tends to be somewhat more open than either the estate or caste system. People can move up (or down) with some degree of ease. However, as Stark points out in the text, even this is often severely limited in some class societies. For example in the United States, successful mobility is often dependent upon successful completion of an education. Access to the education structure as we shall see is often a product of one's class position. If you were born to a minority family in a central city neighborhood (north City Park in Denver for example), your chances of completing high school are limited and if you are able to do so your opportunity for higher education is even more limited. Certainly you will be unlikely to attend a selective college or University like Harvard. If your family lives in Cherry Hills Village, there are no obstacles to your success with the possible exception of outright stupidity or idiocy (in the technical sense). A mediocre performance in high school will mean a good chance to enter a good college or university and then to move on to an appropriate career in industry or politics.
4. Summary
These are very general systems of stratification or inequality that have existed in particular historical, social contexts. Castes and estates are found in early agrarian societies with some elements carrying over to contemporary industrial societies in some parts of the world. Class systems are a product of the industrial societies. Class systems often retain some of the characteristics of their predecessors (the existence of a nobility in modern England, for example). Attempts to interpret these systems have given rise to a number of different understandings of social stratification and inequality. These are presented in the next section.
Basic Theoretical Formulations
The basic theoretical formations of social stratification are drawn from analysis of the entire society. Inequality and its roots have intrigued students of society from the days of the Greeks (see the discussion of Plato's views of inequality in the text). These formulation also often include an evaluative component of the nature of the inequality, that it is either good or bad. Karl Marx and many contemporary conflict theorists look upon inequality as evil and something that should be replaced. Others such as the functionalist (exemplified here by Davis and Moore) see inequality as necessary, required for the successful operation of the society. There are some who take a neutral view such as Max Weber. This view simply takes into account the existence of inequality and then attempts to understand what that inequality is and what are its consequences. Watch for these themes as you read the sources relating to the attempts to formulate theories of social stratification or inequality.
A. conflict: Karl Marx
1. The economic basis of society
For Marx, the fundamental determinant of social structure is the economic organization of society. He identified three basic features of society:
(1) material forces of production (methods people use to produce things) This is the technology or system that provides the goods and services in a very broad sense. An example of technology is the feudal agricultural, another is the capitalist industrial.
(2) the relations of production that arise from the material forces and include property relations and rights. These relations are the economic organization of society.
In the feudal agricultural society, the relations show up in the form of land owner (landlord) and land worker (tenant farmer or serf). In this scheme of things, the owner needs the worker as the worker needs the owner to a degree. Social arrangements develop that tie the worker to the land, thus the worker is only partially free to sell his labor and then only to his feudal lord. He cannot sell it anywhere else. The worker (serf) is also isolated in small communities and there is only marginal cooperation among the landowners and even less among the serfs.
In the capitalist industrial society, the relations of production center on who owns the factory and who provides the labor. The capitalist owns the factory (the means of production), the worker provides (owns) his labor power. Each needs the other, that is the capitalist must purchase the worker's labor, the worker can only sell his labor to the capitalist. However, there are far more workers than there are capitalists, so the worker must compete continually with her/his fellow workers, some of whom will be willing to sell their labor for less than s/he will.
Both must relate to one another in this fashion in order to survive. In this scheme of things, there are more workers than there are capitalists. The result is that the worker may have a difficult time demanding full value for his labor since he must compete with all of the other laborers. If labor is in great supply the owner is free to go to whoever will work for what he is willing to pay.
According to Marx, surplus value is generated when the owner pays the worker only subsistence and manages to get more than subsistence from the product of that labor. This difference (profit) is surplus value in the Marx scheme.
Unlike the serf, the industrial workers live in cities, come together in great numbers. This is an important feature in the formation of militant classes and in the Marxist revolution.
(3) forms of social consciousness: the legal structures and ideas that correspond to and support the first two. This will include unions and laws that protect labor as developed from conflict between the laboring classes and the owners. It also includes the associations of producers that work with the government to protect the interests of the manufacturers (e.g., the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Cattleman's Association and so forth).
This social consciousness consists of the laws, the values and religious values beliefs that support and justify the existing forces and relationships of production.
(4) The forces and relations of production are taken to be the substructure of the society, the social consciousness is then the superstructure resting on the former. This means that what happens in the society, i.e., changes, conflicts, etc., are a result of the underlying forces of production. All else merely supports and justifies these forces. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses in this context. Why? Consider how Christianity might be seen to support an existing social structure in the manner in which it suggests one will receive rewards.
critique: are using two principles here, forces and relations. To understand differences among societies with similar economic organizations must look to other factors and structures to understand what is happening in the society, e.g., the legal codes, the religious or military organization. This seems to suggest something less than the inevitable revolution that Karl Marx predicted.
I find it rather interesting that the 'proletarian revolution' that Marx predicted did not occur in 1917 in Russia, but in the 1980s in Poland when the Polish workers came together in SOLIDARITE to throw off the existing 'state capitalists.' True this did happen in a so-called communist country, but examine that change carefully and you will note it very closely parallels what Marx thought would happen in industrial societies.
2. class and economic base of conflict
a. Introduction
All forms of economic organization generate conflict between classes defined by common economic position
Three important propositions are part of this:
people whose economic position, or 'class,' is the same tend to act together as a group (klasse fur sich)
economic classes are the most important groups in society, their history is human history.
classes are mutually antagonistic, the interests of different classes do not coincide in anyway. Conflicts are inevitable and define how society develops
b. property and class
Class is "economic:" strictly speaking yes, but the definition is much narrower -- indicates how people are related to "property" -- those without property are members of the proletariat, including salaried engineers, teachers, managers and so on. (Please note that property in this sense refers exclusively to the means of production and 'resources' of the society. It does not refer to your home or personal property.) This is so because individuals are selling their labor to whoever owns the firm for which they work. Thus the professor sells his / her expertise to the state or the private university. The manager similarly sells her / his managerial skills in the service of the firm.
Class then is a group of people who have a similar relationship to the means of production in a society -- if they own, then they are the bourgeoisie, entrepreneurial or capitalist class. If they sell their labor, knowledge and skills, then they are technically members of the proletariat or working class. Note that this is a very narrow definition of the economic and it is hinged entirely on the ownership of production.
What would be the class of a group of professors who jointly have established a college or university? Where would the students fit into scheme of things? Who are the workers? Who the owners?
Economic theory of value / labor theory of value:
value of a commodity is seen to rest only in the labor that goes directly to making it. (this is the cost of maintaining the worker)
what each worker produces at work is much more than this minimal survival -- this is surplus value (see discussion in Charles Anderson, The Political Economy of Class for a further discussion of both the labor theory of value and surplus value)
Here is how the surplus value comes about: Suppose that it takes 6 hours of labor to provide for the worker and his/her family. The key here is that the capitalist schedules work so the worker produces enough goods to support himself in 6 hours, but in order to keep his job he must work the full 8 hours while only getting paid for the 6 hours. The product completed in the extra two hours constitute surplus value, what the worker gives to the capitalist for the privilege of working.
By definition this surplus value is exploitation. In this view of the capitalist scheme of things, there are more workers than there are jobs. The workers must compete with one another for the available jobs, the capitalist will pay the least amount that he can. In any event it cannot be less than subsistence or the workers will not survive.
c. class conflict
1. class consciousness and corporate action
The Marxist argument is that industrialization brings people together in communities where they are forced to interact with one another, in this forced interaction they come to realize their common interests, and from this realization begin to act as a corporate class -- to develop class consciousness. It is the responsibility of the revolutionary in this situation to bring that to the attention of these corporate classes (the proletariat), to focus their energies on the structure of the society and its exploitative relationships
The real interests of the workers are found in this coming together and throwing off the yoke of the capitalist, to begin to work for his own benefit and interests. This involves recapturing the manufacturing process and work setting, turning the output to meeting the needs of the worker and not the profits of the capitalist class.
The capitalist may distract the worker from these real interests by focusing on or emphasizing immediate or short term interests, such as the chance for promotion with higher pay, special bonuses and the like.
If corporate action fails to develop, other, non-Marxist analysts point out that changes in the structure of the society may alter the 'real' and immediate interests of the class. Changes in the society will alter all of these interests so that it is in the long term interest of the worker to accept the immediate benefits.
There is some evidence that this is what has happened in the United States. Through the process of Unionization some gains have been made in working conditions and pay so that the worker feels that s/he is gaining some part of the profits and a fairer share of the goods and services produced by the business and for the country.
d. class and patriarchy
Link family to economic organization: women are domestic slaves, encouraged by capitalist economic organization, the 'bourgeois family' will disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.
Radical feminists argue that the sexual division of labor predates capitalism and is rooted in patriarchy.
Capitalism reinforces this structure, getting rid of capitalism will not remove the patriarchy and its effect on women.
c. culture, ideology and alienation
1. introduction
2. culture and reproduction
B. conflict: but multidimensional: Max Weber
1. Introduction:
Weber introduces us to the idea that there are several dimensions to the inequality that exists in a society. He essentially agrees with Marx in the economic basis of social inequality of class, class is economic in nature and relates to what Marx had to say. Weber, however did not limit his interpretation and discussion to a dichotomy as did Marx (i.e., Marx says two classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat)
Further Weber sees class, as did Marx, as being based in power and the distribution of power. However, that power is not limited to the economic dimension, there are social and political dimensions as well.
Three dimensions are identified:
economic: social class
social: prestige or status group
political: "party" or political power group
2. Social class
As indicated, this very similar to the formulation made by Karl Marx. Class is economic and is established by what one does for a living, the contribution groups make to the productive system of the society. Unlike Marx, Weber suggested the possibility of a number of groups within this dimension. The top level would be divided between those who actually own the means of production and the managers and others who oversee and often run the enterprise in the name of the owners. Similar distinctions are made in the working class based upon skills and what one actually does.
One's occupation places one in the structure and adds to the way one lives. Location on this dimension establishes the kinds of life chances (what kind of medicine, education, how long one will live, how one will live) and life style (preferences for literature, music, recreation and so forth) that a person will have, it relates to income, occupation and the work world. Keep in mind that in this manner we see social class as establishing very important qualities of life for the individual and group. This formulation is closer to what we in America see as constituting a social class than is the Marxist formulation.
3. Status group
These are prestige positions, relate more to how long one has been in a given place or social position. Standing in these groups is based more on social tradition and history than on achievement or ability.
If your parents arrived in Colorado (or in Oregon or Washington) by covered wagon, then you belong to the 'pioneer' elite, a group who have standing simply because they were the first Europeans to settle in the area (note, I said EUROPEANs, there were Native-Americans here before us).
In this same vein, some claim superior social position because they claim membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution or Sons of the American Revolution -- by virtue of their ancestors having been here then.
Social standing in this sense can also derive from ancestry as indicated by being listed in the Social Register. The upper classes (nobility, junkers) of Europe are in this category. Note that often these people do NOT have much economic or political clout (power) in a modern urban - industrial society.
The Evans family was a pioneer in Colorado, one of the early governors of Colorado. The family had high social position in Colorado and Denver up to the death of the last of the Evans sisters, although they did not have a great deal of money by that time. The sisters lived in the Evans mansion at the corner of 14th and Bannock in relative poverty. The property had been lost or turned over to the state in earlier decades. Although poor, they had high social standing.
Thorstein Veblen was an early sociologist / economist who developed the idea of social status and status symbols in his Theory of the Leisure Class. The position of a status group is indicated by the symbols that they display. Thus in the US at one time the Ralph Loren polo pony on clothing was a status symbol, now it is imitated and available on nearly any piece of clothing at discount prices.
We are aware of how the size of our home, the furniture in it, the car we drive and the kinds of clothing we wear relate to and demonstrate our status within the community. Some even go to extremes to downplay status -- the grunge look, for example, with clothing from Nieman Marcus or Sacs Fifth Avenue. Knowledge of how to use wines, food, music, art, and literature are all symbols of status. These are consumption goods that only those with sufficient free time can use (learn to use). It is quite an experience to go to dinner with a wine connoisseur (snob!)
4. Party
Party as a stratification variable does not make much sense in the U.S. situation because we tend to think in terms of two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. However, if we think in terms of local power, political that is, we can see that it applies here as well as in Europe where there are often many political parties.
For example, look at groups such as the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) or the Weatherman (radical student political movements of the late 60s and early 70s). Or Think of the Libertarian party. In these cases we see smaller groups active in the political arena. Or the special interest groups that come together to pursue a particular action -- Douglas Bruce and Amendment 1, the proponents for Amendment 2, the term limitation amendment, school board positions, tax groups and so on.
The idea is that power is distributed across groups and this power is separate from either wealth or status, although often related to one or both. This can be seen most clearly in the "Black Power" of the 60s and 70s, or in the gray power of the 80s. It is this type of group and power that Weber had in mind.
The power groups discussed here can be best understood by examining the 'power resources' the groups command. In most of the examples given above the resource is numbers of active participants and in the cohesive organization of these participants. Other power resources exist as well: information, knowledge as well as wealth and control of force. Weber was very concerned with these distinctions and how they work out in human social organization.
5. Consequences
This multidimensional view raises some interesting possibilities
For example, individuals need not have the same rank in all dimensions. Consider the discussion earlier of the union leaders, these individuals have a great deal of political clout, but little social or economic power. Differences of this kind are know as 'status inconsistency.'
This existence of 'status inconsistency' has been seen by some (the concept was originally proposed by Gerhard Lenski) as an explanation for behavior that appears to run counter to purely social or economic class interests. For example, people of Jewish background tend to be quite wealthy and often hold powerful economic positions within the community. However, politically they will support very liberal causes, such as welfare, free education and so on. These political positions are seen to be against their "class interests." Status inconsistency is invoked to explain this apparently contradictory behavior.
Position and 'power' on each of these dimensions can be independent, one need not have the same ranking on all dimensions. It is quite clear that people (groups) do tend to develop relatively similar ranking on all dimensions. That is, whenever possible the group uses the 'power' in one dimension to enhance position in the other dimensions. In the US, the most obvious is the case of great new wealth used to purchase status and political power. It also works out that status can be traded for monetary gain, political power used to gain wealth.
For example, Lyndon Johnson came from relatively humble economic and social status in Texas. Through careful and diligent pursuit of politics he was able to amass considerable political power. Through this power he was eventually able to develop considerable economic power, fortune in the form of radio stations and other properties in Texas. However, he was never entirely able to overcome his rural, middle class roots in the social realm as shown by his display of surgical scars on the Whitehouse lawn and his handling of his dogs by the ears in public.
C. functionalist: Davis - Moore formulation
1. Introduction:
This position, view of inequality tends to be fairly conservative, to support and reinforce the status quo.
1. basic tenets:
Inequality is necessary and inevitable
Positions in the society have different functional importance
Ease of filling positions varies
Positions that require long tedious training will require higher rewards in order to ensure an adequate supply of candidates
Example: physicians are necessary for the health of the population and require long training. Higher incomes, status and prestige is necessary to ensure that people will take on the years of privation and training that lead to success in medical practice and to meet the needs of the society for health care.
Example: garbage collectors are necessary and important to the society to ensure that the streets are kept clean and free of junk and festering piles of decaying garbage. However, the position requires little skill and training. Garbage collectors receive only enough rewards to make sure the position is filled, and the garbage collected and disposed of somewhere out of sight and out of mind.
In these formulations the existence of a market is understood. The ideas depend on the operation of a free and open market. A market guarantees that people will compete for the positions, that they can freely choose to do their own bidding, they do not have to depend upon any one else. Any activity that restrains the free open movement of people to fill positions reduces the applicability of these ideas and challenges the notion that inequality is necessary for the smooth functioning of the society, or is necessary to provide for the needs of the society. The argument implies that this is the simplest and best way to meet the needs of the society.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that positions of inequality are not based upon the actions of the market, in fact it is often quite the opposite. E.g., return to our example of the doctor. The AMA restricts the numbers of positions in medical schools, thus keeping the numbers of doctors lower than would otherwise be the case, and therefore artificially raising the value of physicians in the US.
Contrast this to the situation of lawyers: until very recently any one could become a lawyer by studying for the law, i.e., reading case law and learning where applied, then taking and passing the bar examination - - no formal education, degree was required. Recently the ABA (American Bar Association) required the applicant for the exam to have degree from an accredited law school in order to take the bar exam. As yet the ABA does not control the number of law schools or the number of vacancies in the schools as does the AMA. But this move to limit Bar examinees to graduates of accredited law school is a step in restricting the numbers of lawyers (some wags would say that is a good idea!!)
These are instances of restrictions on the operation of market forces, artificial attempts to restrict the ease of replaceablity of a person in a position.
Summary.
The theoretical, conceptual formulation presented above attempt to relate the observed inequalities within given societies to a variety of historical processes.
Marx saw inequality as the inevitable outcome of the forces of production and that these forces were under pressure to change because of the conflict built into the productive system. He further saw inequality as disappearing when the proletarian revolution replaced individual, capitalist ownership of the means of production with collective ownership. For Marx the existence of social inequality based upon classes was unnecessary and bad for the society.
Weber on the other hand viewed inequality as a complex part of the total structure of the society. Inequality is multi-dimensional, a central part of the total social structure. Careful examination of Weber's discussion suggests that the key factor in inequality within a society is some variant of power.
Davis and Moore focus upon the necessity of social stratification as a motivating factor, as a structural device to ensure the filling of the most important positions in the society. Critics of this position have emphasized the centrality of a free, competitive 'market' system and how systems of inequality actually inhibit working of such markets.
I would draw your attention to the power dimension discussed by Weber and that this is likely to be the unifying theme in a universal theory of inequality. Social stratification is then seen as the inevitable outcome of the operation of power and the use of power to govern the distribution and access to the goods and services of the society.
