An important element of social life is social stratification (differentiation), i.e. the stratification of society into groups and layers. It is social stratification that shows how unequal the social status of members of society is, their social inequality. Different scientists have different definitions of what causes inequality. M. Weber saw these reasons in economic criteria (income), social prestige (status) and the attitude of a member of society to political circles. Parsons identified such differentiating characteristics as:

1) what a person has from birth (gender, ethnicity);

2) acquired status (work activity);

3) what a person has (property, moral values, rights).

Considering the history of society and those communities that existed previously, we can say that social stratification is a natural inequality between members of society, which has its own internal hierarchy and is regulated by various institutions.

It is important to distinguish between the concepts of “inequality” and “injustice”. “Inequality” is a natural and conditioned process, and “injustice” is a manifestation of selfish interests. Any person should understand that egametarism (the doctrine of the need for equality) is an unreal phenomenon that cannot simply exist. But many used this idea in the struggle for power.

There is stratification:

1) one-dimensional (a group is distinguished by one characteristic);

2) multidimensional (a group that has a set of common characteristics).

P. Sorokin tried to create a universal stratification map:

1) one-sided groups (on one basis):

a) biosocial (race, gender, age);

b) sociocultural (gender, linguistic, ethnic groups, professional, religious, political, economic);

2) multilateral (several characteristics): family, tribe, nation, estates, social class. In general, the manifestation of social stratification must be considered in a specific country and at a specific time. Therefore, those groups that are considered must be in constant movement, they must be in a society that functions fully. Therefore, social stratification is closely related to social mobility.

A change in position in the stratification system may be due to the following factors:

1) vertical and horizontal mobility;

2) change in social structure;

3) the emergence of a new stratification system. Moreover, the third factor is a very complex process that brings into the life of society many changes in the economic sphere, ideological principles, norms and values.

For a long time in our country there has been a rejection of such a phenomenon as inequality. It is important to understand that inequality in society is simply necessary. After all, without it, society will cease to function, since the members of this society will no longer have goals and will not strive to achieve them. Why does a schoolchild need to study well, go to college, study subjects, look for a good job, because everyone will be equal anyway? Social inequality stimulates the activities of members of society.

Lecture 21. Social inequality and social stratification. Historical types of stratification

The process and causes of the formation of inequality have been the object of study for many generations of sociologists. Traditionally, there are two main directions of the origin of social inequality: functionalist and conflictological.

First - functionalist , is based on the theoretical heritage of the French sociologist E. Durkheim. He derives social inequality from the division of labor:

· mechanical (natural, age and gender);

· organic (arising as a result of training and professional specialization).

In order to encourage the most capable individuals to engage in the most important activities, society must give them access to socially significant resources, benefits and privileges.

Prominent representatives of this direction of inequality analysis are K. Davis and W. E. Moore. They believe that society should arouse in individuals the desire to take a certain position. This is important not only because some social positions are traditionally considered preferable, but also because a number of social positions require special abilities and appropriate training, and some are functionally more important than others. Therefore, society must inevitably have, firstly, some kind of reward that it can use as an incentive, and, secondly, a way of differentially distributing this reward in accordance with social positions.

In a generalized form, the meaning of social inequality is justified by representatives of functionalism as functionally necessary for the preservation of society. In their opinion, inequality is a source of social energy in increasing social status.

The founder of the second - conflictological direction is considered to be K. Marx. According to his theory, classes arise and contend on the basis of the different positions and different roles performed by individuals in the productive structure of society. In other words, the most general basis for the formation of classes is the social division of labor. Those social groups that control the means of production occupy a higher position in society compared to those who cannot exercise such control. It is the amount of property that determines a person’s belonging to a particular class. Individuals who do not own property find themselves economically, and in some societies, legally dependent on those who manage it.

In modern sociology, the Weberian approach to the analysis of social inequality prevails. In contrast to Marx, Weber viewed property, power and prestige as three separate, interacting factors underlying hierarchies in any society. Differences in ownership give rise to economic classes; differences related to power give rise to political parties; and status groupings, or strata, give rise to prestigious differences.

The German sociologist R. Dahrendorf considers the distribution of power and authority as the basis of social inequality. Property, thus, is relegated to the rank of one of the forms of realization of power. Moreover, the declining importance of this form is noted due to the mass corporatization of property and the transfer of control functions into the hands of managers. And the authority of a manager of a modern corporation already has fundamentally different sources - the level of education and job positions in the bureaucratic hierarchy.

Thus, Dahrendorf makes an attempt to free the theory of classes from the burden of private property; classes become an analytical category reflecting the distribution of power and authority between social groups. Relations between groups inevitably take on the character of dominance and subordination. Power and authority remain a scarce resource, the struggle for which takes the form of conflict.

To understand what stratification is, let’s imagine a social space in which the vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. This is how, or approximately, this is how P. Sorokin thought about social stratification - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of this phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of vast empirical material extending over the entire human history. The word “stratification” itself was borrowed by him from geologists. Translated from Latin (stratum - flooring, layer and facere - to do) it is understood as a division into social layers.

Stratificationimplies that certain social differences between people acquire the character of a hierarchical ranking. This methodological premise is confirmed in the analysis of the main system characteristics of stratification.

The first of them is sociality. Its essence is that existing differences between people in gender, age, intelligence, health do not explain why some statuses give people power, property or prestige, while others do not.

Second characteristic - traditionalism, since with the historical mobility of the form its essence, i.e. inequality has persisted throughout the history of civilization.

There are many concepts of social stratification in sociology. Historically, one of the first is Marxist teaching.

In Marxist sociology, the leading place is given to the social class structure of society, which represents the interaction of three main elements: classes, social strata and social groups. The core of social structure is classes. Studying their nature, K. Marx made the following assumptions:

Every society produces a surplus of food, shelter, clothing and other resources. Class differences arise when one group of the population appropriates resources and treats them as private property.

Classes are determined based on the fact of ownership or non-ownership of the produced property. Therefore, all social systems were based on two antagonistic social classes. In the modern era, they are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The importance of studying classes lies in the fact that class relations involve the exploitation of one class by another, i.e. one class appropriates the results of the labor of another class, exploits and suppresses it. This leads to the reproduction of class conflict.

There are objective (for example, possession of resources) and subjective (a sense of belonging to a class and awareness of its interests) characteristics of a class. In the latter case, members of society begin to act in the interests of their class.

The main contradiction between M. Weber and Marx is that, according to Weber, a class cannot be a subject of action, since it is not a community. Unlike Marx, he associated the concept of class only with capitalist society, where the most important regulator of relations is the market. And although it does not have a clear class structure of a given society, it can be modeled based on methodological principles and reconstruction Weber's typology of classes under capitalism.

1. The working class, deprived of property. He offers his services on the labor market.

2. Petty bourgeoisie - a class of small businessmen and traders.

3. Dispossessed “white collars”: technical specialists and intellectuals.

4. Administrators and managers.

5. Proprietors who strive through education for the same advantages enjoyed by intellectuals.

6. Owner class, i.e. those who receive rent from holdings.

7. “Commercial class”, i.e. entrepreneurs.

The second change in stratification is the hierarchy of status groups. Weber developed a holistic doctrine about the conditions necessary for the formation of status groups. In his opinion, they are based on communities, which consist of status groups. In turn, these groups are based on some shared amount of socially prescribed prestige (or honor).

Status groups acquire prestige mainly through usurpation: they claim certain rewards and achieve their claims in the form of certain norms and styles of behavior and special advantages for engaging in certain exclusive activities.

As Weber notes, stratification by status goes hand in hand with the monopolization of ideal and material goods and opportunities.

The third form of stratification is the party. Parties are the embodiment of power. They exist only in communities that have some kind of rational order and staff who would monitor the implementation of this order.

Weber saw a strong connection between classes, status groups and parties. Parties can represent interests based on “class” or “status position” and recruit their adherents either from a given class or from a status group and at the same time not be class or status oriented.

Thus, Weber's interpretation of social inequality is the basis of three types of stratification hierarchies.

Modern interpretations of social stratification develop mainly within the framework of classical theoretical models: neo-Marxism and neo-Weberalism.

In the neo-Marxist model, the following are given as the main interpretations of social stratification: property and control (M. Tseitlin); content of labor functions and control over the labor process (H. Bravermann); reproduction of a certain structure of social places, which correspond to functional social practices (N. Poulantzas).

Neo-Weberians named the following as the main causes of social stratification: power, authority (R. Dahrendorf); method of structuring (E. Giddens); class as the most important explanatory variable (G. Marshall, D. Rose).

Thus, the analysis of social stratification is dominated by two approaches: Marxist and Weberian, as well as their modern modifications.

In modern sociological science, there are many stratification criteria by which any society can be divided. Each of these is associated with special ways of determining and reproducing social inequality. The nature of social stratification and the way it is established form what we call stratification system.

When it comes to basic types of stratification systems, then they prefer to talk about “ideal types”, which have broad foundations in the history of different societies. This is precisely the typology presented by the Russian sociologist V.V. Radaev, who highlighted nine types of stratification systems.

System type	Basis of differentiation	Method for determining differences
Physico-genetic	Gender, age, physical characteristics.	Physical coercion, custom.
Slaveholding	Citizenship and property rights.	Military coercion, enslaving law.
Caste	Religious and ethical division of labor.	Religious ritual, ethnic isolation.
Estate	Responsibilities to the state.	Legal registration.
Etacratic	Ranks in the power hierarchy	Military-political domination.
Social and professional	Occupation and qualifications.	Educational certificates.
Class	Amount of income and property.	Market exchange.
Cultural-symbolic	Sacred knowledge.	Religious, scientific and ideological manipulation.
Cultural-normative	Norms of behavior, lifestyles.	Moral regulation, imitation.

In social reality, stratification types are intertwined and complement each other. Some of them may change places over time. Thus, stratification types should be used as complementary tools, without absolutizing one to the detriment of others.

Social inequality - conditions under which people have unequal access to social goods such as money, power and prestige; these are some types of relationships between people: personal inequality, inequality of opportunities to achieve desired goals (inequality of chances). Inequality of living conditions (welfare, education, etc.), inequality of results; it is a system of priorities and social advantages that regulates the factors of social survival, which may be associated with an advantageous position in social disposition, ease of movement into privileged strata, social strata and a whole set of characteristics that demonstrate an increase in the degree of social freedom and security. The main measure of inequality is the amount of liquid assets; in modern society, this function is usually performed by money. If inequality is represented as a scale, then at one pole there will be those who own the most goods (the rich), and at the other - the least. Social inequality in power relations is manifested in the ability of a certain social subject (social layer, or stratum), in its own interests, to determine the goals and direction of the activities of other social subjects (irrespective of their interests), to manage the material, information and status resources of society, to form and impose rules and code of Conduct. Of key importance in measuring social inequality by power relations is the control of resources, which allows the ruling subject to subjugate other people. Social inequality in terms of level of education and prestige of social status, profession, position, occupation is determined by the inequality of starting conditions or the unequal conditions for the development of different social layers and strata. Social stratification is a constant ranking of social statuses and roles in the social system (from a small group to society); this is the distribution of social groups in a hierarchically ordered rank (in ascending or descending order of some attribute); this is a concept that designates, firstly, the structure of society, and secondly, a system of signs of social stratification and inequality. Social stratification is the structuring of inequality between different social communities, groups or groups of people, or the hierarchical organized structure of social inequality existing in society. Social stratification is a rank stratification when the upper, or upper, strata, which are significantly smaller in the number of members of society included in them, are in a more privileged position (in terms of the possession of resources or the opportunity to receive remuneration) than the lower strata. All complex societies have several stratification systems, according to which individuals are ranked into strata. The main types of social stratification are: economic, political and professional. In accordance with the data, types of social stratification of society, it is customary to distinguish by the criterion of income (and wealth, i.e. accumulation) the criteria for influencing the behavior of members of society and the criteria associated with the successful fulfillment of social roles, the presence of knowledge, skills, abilities and intuition, which are assessed and are rewarded by society.

There are four main types of social stratification - slavery, caste, class - closed societies, and class - open societies. The closedness of society is determined by the prohibition of social movement from the lower to the higher stratum. In an open society there are no official restrictions on transition. Slavery. Slavery is a type of stratification that is characterized by an economic, legal and social form of enslavement of people, which borders on extreme social inequality and complete lack of rights. On the path of its formation, slavery completed its evolutionary development. There are two forms of slavery: classical and patriarchal. At the maturity type, slavery becomes slavery. When slavery is mentioned as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage - slave ownership. This form of social relations is the only one in history when a person belonging to the lower stratum is the property of someone higher in rank. Castes The caste system is not as ancient as the slave system. Slavery was observed in almost all countries, and it is advisable to talk about castes only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic caste society. In the first centuries of the new era, it replaced the slave society. Caste is a social group (stratum) to which a person is allowed to belong solely based on birth. It is impossible to move to another caste during life; only when a person is born again can he be in another caste. Caste status is fixed by the Hindu religion. Religious ideas are such that a person is given more than one life to live. Getting into one or another caste depends on how a person behaves in a previous life. Estates. Estates are a characteristic of feudal societies that were observed in Europe during the period IV-XIV centuries. An estate is a social group where customs and legal laws are enshrined, which are inherited by responsibilities and rights. The class system includes several strata and has a hierarchical structure, which is determined by inequalities of privilege and position. Europe at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries is a classic example of a class society. The basis for distribution into classes was land ownership. In each class, rights and obligations were fixed by legal law and reinforced by the sacred bonds of religious doctrine. Inheritance determined membership in the estate. As for social barriers, they were very strict in the class. Each class had a large number of ranks, professions, levels and ranks. The class that was in the highest hierarchical position had a higher status. Marriage between representatives of different classes was prohibited. Sometimes the phenomenon of individual mobility was observed. Classes. There is a broad and narrow concept of class. A class in a broad sense is a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, which takes its place in the system of division of labor in society and is characterized by a certain way of generating income. During the period of the birth of the state foundation, private property arose. The Ancient East and ancient Greece had two classes of the opposite type - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception here - exploiters and exploited.

INTRODUCTION

CONCLUSION

The relevance of the topic of social stratification and social mobility is currently determined by the fact that social stratification and mobility describe social inequality in society, the division of social layers by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there.
Social stratification and mobility are a central theme in sociology.

The purpose of this work: to consider the features of social stratification and social mobility in Russian society, to analyze the diversity of social groups and their classification.

The main mechanisms of social inequality are relations of property, power, social division of labor, as well as uncontrolled, spontaneous social differentiation. These mechanisms are mainly associated with the characteristics of a market economy, with inevitable competition and unemployment. Social inequality and wealth stratification in society, as a rule, lead to increased social tension, especially during the transition period. This is precisely what is typical for Russia at present.

Social stratification - This is a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically located social layers (strata). A stratum is understood as a set of people united by common status characteristics.

Historically, there are four main types of stratification systems:

Slavery;

Estates;

The first three characterize closed societies, and the fourth type is an open society. In this context, a closed society is considered to be a society where social movements from one stratum to another are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. An open society is a society where transitions from lower to higher strata are not officially limited in any way.

Slavery - a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in the lower strata. This is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, deprived of all rights and freedoms.

Caste system - a stratification system that presupposes the lifelong assignment of a person to a certain stratum on ethnic, religious or economic grounds.

The class system is a stratification system that presupposes the legal assignment of a person to a particular stratum. The rights and duties of each class were determined by law and sanctified by religion. Belonging to the class was mainly inherited, but as an exception it could be acquired for money or granted by power.

Class system - an open stratification system that does not imply a legal or any other way of assigning an individual to a specific stratum. Unlike previous closed-type stratification systems, class membership is not regulated by the authorities, is not established by law, and is not inherited. It is determined, first of all, by its place in the system of social production, ownership of property, and the level of income received.

There are other types of stratification systems, a combination of which is found in any society:

Physico-genetic stratification system , which is based on ranking people according to natural characteristics: gender, age, the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, dexterity, beauty, etc.

Etacratic stratification system, in which differentiation between groups is carried out according to their position in power-state hierarchies, according to the possibilities of mobilization and distribution of resources, as well as the privileges that these groups have depending on their rank in the power structures.

A socio-professional stratification system, according to which groups are divided according to content and working conditions.

A cultural-symbolic stratification system that arises from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to select, preserve and interpret this information.

A cultural-normative stratification system in which differentiation is based on differences in respect and prestige that arise as a result of comparison of existing norms and lifestyles inherent in certain social groups.

A socio-territorial stratification system formed due to the unequal distribution of resources between regions, differences in access to jobs, housing, quality goods and services, educational and cultural institutions, etc.

The processes of stratification in modern Russian society can hardly be understood and explained in their entirety if we do not take into account the historically operating mechanisms of layer formation in it. These mechanisms were to a large extent determined by the nature of Russian culture, and at the stage of its formation - by the very place of settlement of the East Slavic tribes between Western European civilization and the civilizations of the East. Thus, the geographical location of the country, the extended and low quality of communications, sparsely located urban centers in communication nodes, their vulnerability - all this affected the rate of accumulation, methods of preserving the sociocultural fund, and influenced specific forms of redistribution of social energy and cultural resources.

Beginning with the Kingdom of Moscow, the most important units of social stratification are distinguished in Russian society: the court of the prince and the circle of people close to the court; service people: professional military and bureaucratic apparatus; peasants.

Reforms of the second half of the 19th and the first decade of the 20th century. expressed an attempt by the ruling circles to include Russian society in the dynamic movement of the developed countries of the world while maintaining the previous socio-political and class framework.

The October Revolution of 1917 creates a fundamentally different situation in the integral processes of social differentiation. At the forefront is an attempt to regulate the division of people into classes and strata by administrative measures.

The social structure of Soviet society of the 30-50s is characterized by Russia's transition to an industrial society. Within the framework of this model, a certain type of worker was formed, completely dependent on the state.

By the 60s, the model of socio-economic and cultural development, based on autocratic centralism and state ownership, revealed the exhaustion of its potential for effective action: at the cost of the loss of enormous human, material, and natural resources, it turned out to be capable of solving a number of priority problems of the early industrial type , but fundamentally was not suitable for self-development, for entering a developed industrial and post-industrial society.

A new stage of stratification processes begins in the 90s. A powerful non-state employment sector with various types of ownership and economic entities is beginning to form in the country on a legal basis.

The dynamics of stratification in recent decades indicate that in the current conditions there are grounds both for maintaining state property and redistribution mechanisms, and for restoring small private property, as well as associated (group) property, for the revival of market relations.

All social movements of an individual or social group are included in the process of mobility. According to P. Sorokin’s definition, “social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another.”

P. Sorokin distinguishes two types of social mobility: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mobility is the transition of an individual or social object from one social position to another lying at the same level, for example, the transition of an individual from one family to another, from one religious group to another, as well as a change of place of residence. In all these cases, the individual does not change the social stratum to which he belongs or his social status. But the most important process is vertical mobility, which is a set of interactions that contribute to the transition of an individual or social object from one social stratum to another. This includes, for example, a career advancement (professional vertical mobility), a significant improvement in well-being (economic vertical mobility), or a transition to a higher social stratum to another level of power (political vertical mobility).

Society can elevate the status of some individuals and lower the status of others. Depending on this, a distinction is made between upward and downward social mobility, or social ascent and social decline. Upward currents of professional, economic and political mobility exist in two main forms: as individual ascent, or the infiltration of individuals from a lower stratum into a higher one, and as the creation of new groups of individuals with the inclusion of groups in the upper stratum next to or instead of existing groups of this stratum. Similarly, downward mobility exists both in the form of pushing individuals from high social statuses to lower ones, and in the form of lowering the social statuses of an entire group. An example of the second form of downward mobility is the decline in the social status of a professional group of engineers, which once occupied very high positions in our society, or the decline in the status of a political party that is losing real power. In the figurative expression of P. Sorokin, “the first case of decline is reminiscent of a person falling from a ship; the second is a ship that sank with everyone on board.”

GLOSSARY

1. Social stratification is a description of social inequality in society, its division into social strata according to income, the presence or absence of privileges, and lifestyle.

2. Social mobility is the movement of an individual (or social group) between different positions in the system of social stratification.

3. Social inequality is a form of social differentiation in which individuals, social groups, strata, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to satisfy needs.

4. Strat – a set of people united by common status characteristics.

5. Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.

6. Caste – a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth.

7. Estate - a social group that has rights and responsibilities fixed by custom or legal law and inherited.

8. Class is a social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.

9. Horizontal social mobility is a transition from one social group to another without changing social status.

10. Vertical social mobility is a transition from one stratum to another with a change in social status.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this work: to consider the features of social stratification and social mobility in Russian society, to analyze the diversity of social groups and their classification.

In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set:

Analyze the main theories of social stratification and mobility;

Identify the main types and types of social stratification and mobility;

Based on the data obtained, highlight the features of modern stratification of Russian society and factors of social mobility of the population.

The analysis of social stratification is closely related to the analysis of social mobility. How else can we explain social stratification if, without exploring, the social movements of individuals and social groups are due to which various hierarchically located social layers are supported. For example, vacancies appear in higher strata, they must be filled using promotion through the ranks.

Unfortunately, the problem of social stratification in Russia in the 21st century. insufficient attention has been paid in modern literature. This circumstance is partly explained by the lack of stability of Russian society and the need to conduct complex demographic and sociological research. In addition, when assigning a person to any social group, there is a large share of the subjective factor.

The subject of the study is the types of stratification systems: slavery, castes, estates, classes, etc.; types of social mobility: horizontal and vertical, their forms. The object of the study was social stratification and social mobility.

The study used a systematic approach: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction.

To describe the system of inequality between groups (communities) of people in sociology, the concept of “social stratification” is widely used, which is a rank stratification when the upper layers are in a more privileged position than the lower layers; the upper strata are significantly smaller in number of members of society. The study of social stratification in society is carried out for various scientific, educational and practical purposes, without clarification of which it is impossible to determine the significance of its aspects.

Social mobility is an integral part of culture in any modern democratic society. Her research will help to understand the reasons for an individual’s transition from one status to another.

SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND STRATIFICATION

Social inequality is a form of social differentiation in which individuals, social groups, layers, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs.

In its most general form, inequality means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources for material and spiritual consumption.

Fulfilling qualitatively unequal working conditions and satisfying social needs to varying degrees, people sometimes find themselves engaged in economically heterogeneous labor, because these types of labor have different assessments of their social usefulness. Considering the dissatisfaction of members of society with the existing system of distribution of power, property and conditions for individual development, it is still necessary to keep in mind the universality of human inequality.

The main mechanisms of social inequality are relations of property, power (dominance and subordination), social (i.e. socially assigned and hierarchized) division of labor, as well as uncontrolled, spontaneous social differentiation. These mechanisms are mainly associated with the characteristics of a market economy, with inevitable competition (including in the labor market) and unemployment. Social inequality is perceived and experienced by many people (primarily the unemployed, economic migrants, those who find themselves at or below the poverty line) as a manifestation of injustice. Social inequality and wealth stratification in society, as a rule, lead to increased social tension, especially during the transition period. This is precisely what is typical for Russia at present.

The main principles of social policy are:

1. protecting the standard of living by introducing various forms of compensation for price increases and indexing;

2. providing assistance to the poorest families;

3. provision of assistance in case of unemployment;

4. ensuring social insurance policy, establishing a minimum wage for workers;

5. development of education, health protection, and the environment mainly at the expense of the state;

6. pursuing an active policy aimed at ensuring qualifications.

The sociological concept of stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, layer) reflects the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members.

Social stratification is a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically located social layers (strata). A stratum is understood as a set of people united by common status characteristics.

Considering social stratification as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized social space, sociologists explain its nature and reasons for its origin in different ways. Thus, Marxist researchers believe that the basis of social inequality, which determines the stratification system of society, lies in property relations, the nature and form of ownership of the means of production. According to supporters of the functional approach (K. Davis and W. Moore), the distribution of individuals among social strata occurs in accordance with their contribution to achieving the goals of society, depending on the importance of their professional activities. According to the theory of social exchange (J. Homans), inequality in society arises in the process of unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria.

One of the creators of the stratification theory, P. Sorokin, distinguished three types of stratification:

1. economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth);

2. political (according to the criteria of influence and power);

3. professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

In turn, the founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons identified three groups of signs of social stratification:

1. qualitative characteristics of members of society that they possess from birth (origin, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities, congenital characteristics, etc.);

2. role characteristics, determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (education, profession, position, qualifications, various types of work activities, etc.);

3. characteristics associated with the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, works of art, social privileges, the ability to influence other people, etc.).

In modern sociology, there are many models of social stratification. Sociologists mainly distinguish three main classes: higher, middle and lower. At the same time, the share of the upper class is approximately 5-7%, the middle class - 60-80% and the lower class - 13-35%.

The upper class includes persons occupying the highest positions in terms of wealth, power, prestige, and education. These are influential politicians and public figures, the military elite, large businessmen, bankers, managers of leading companies, prominent representatives of the scientific and creative intelligentsia.

The middle class includes medium and small entrepreneurs, managerial workers, civil servants, military personnel, financial workers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, representatives of the scientific and humanitarian intelligentsia, engineering and technical workers, highly qualified workers, farmers and some other categories.

The lower class consists of people who have low incomes and are mainly employed by unskilled labor (loaders, cleaners, auxiliary workers, etc.), as well as various declassed elements (the chronically unemployed, the homeless, tramps, beggars, etc.).

Inequality is a situation in which people do not have equal access to social benefits (money, power, education, prestige).

Social inequality is omnipresent. No two people are the same. They differ in skin color, language, gender, age, education, wealth, respect, the ability to impose their will on others, but these differences become social only when they determine the place a person occupies in the social hierarchy, i.e. when they become an obstacle/condition for obtaining a job, promotion, or exercising the right to vote. If differences in skin color become such, then racism and racial discrimination arise. If ethnic differences become social, a type of inequality arises such as ethnonationalism (chauvinism, Nazism, ethnocentrism), or ethnic discrimination. If age differences are social, then ageism arises (discrimination carried out by one or more age groups in relation to others). If inequality is based on differences between men and women, then gender discrimination arises, etc.

The term “deprivation” is also associated with the problem of inequality. Sociological analysis defines deprivation in a broad sense as inequality of access to social benefits. Deprivation includes poverty and broader forms of disadvantage. The concept of “multiple deprivation” refers to the intersection of inequalities in access to social benefits in different areas. Thus, low income or unemployment can be combined with poor housing, poor health and access to only inferior education.

The presence in society of groups, layers, socially unequal to one another, i.e. standing one above the other, consolidating inequality at the group level is called social stratification. According to N. Smelser, “stratification characterizes the ways in which inequality is transmitted from one generation to the next, thereby forming estates or social strata.”

Social differences become social stratification when people are arranged hierarchically along some dimension of inequality, which may be income, wealth, power, prestige, age, ethnicity, or other characteristic. Members of the various strata that make up each level of the stratification hierarchy tend to share common life chances and life styles and may exhibit an awareness of collective identity that differs in these characteristics from members of other strata.

The sociological literature reflects controversy regarding the universality of stratification:

1) alignment into strata is based on various criteria, such as income, profession, power, ethnicity, religion and education; individuals may have high status or prestige on some criteria and low on others, forming parallel lines of stratification and rendering any structured system of stratification imperfect;

2) the hierarchy is a single line, usually based on a profession, in which the income and prestige associated with the profession are combined to create a system containing a large number of strata, between which there are no significant gaps;

3) L. Warner, in Social Class in America, defined stratification in terms of status and identified five or six discrete groups. The multiple strata, importance of difference, and exaggerated ideas about the possibilities of individual social mobility in the United States lead sociologists to assume that the life chances, life styles, and group consciousness common in European societies are not characteristic of all social systems.

The foundations of the theory of social stratification were laid by M. Weber, T. Parsons and others, and currently the theory of social stratification occupies a prominent place in Western sociology. Its followers introduce (less often, along with the concept of “class”, more often - instead of the latter) the term “strata” (layer), taken from geological science (a person is enrolled in one or another “stratum” based on his “social status”).

In sociology, the concept of “status” is used in two ways: R. Linton in his work “The Study of Man” defined status as a position in the social system, such as “child” or “parent”. Status refers to what a person is, while the closely related concept of role refers to the behavior expected of people in a given status. The concept of status is also used as a synonym for reputation or prestige, where social status denotes a person's relative position on a socially recognized scale or hierarchy of social worth. M. Weber used the concept of status group as an element of social stratification, distinct from class, to describe certain groups that are distinguished from other social groups in society through socially determined criteria of status, such as caste or ethnicity.

In multidimensional systems of stratification, individuals may have incompatible statuses. For example, individuals with a high level of education, which provides high social status in one of the dimensions of stratification, may be engaged in a type of professional activity that is poorly paid and has low prestige, which also indicates a low status in other dimensions. J. Lenski, in the article “Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status” (1954), developed this term together with the term “status crystallization,” which denotes the compatibility of different statuses of an individual. He cites four important dimensions of status: income, occupational prestige, education, and ethnicity.

Each theorist has his own interpretation of status. For some, status is determined by natural biological characteristics (age, gender, health, height), which is more applicable for demographic analysis rather than for identifying classes and social strata in society. Other sociologists (for example, Z. Katz, USA) highlight psychological and cultural-educational characteristics (prestige, interpersonal relationships, awareness of common group interests, knowledge and qualifications, value system). A number of authors call “quality” criteria for social stratification, i.e. a certain personal characteristic of an individual (for example, responsibility, competence), “performance”, or evaluation of the individual’s activities in comparison with the activities of other people, “possession” of material values, skill, cultural resources. (N. Smelser, for example, defines social status as a person’s position in society, associated with certain rights and responsibilities).

Based on the degree of importance in an individual’s life, primary and secondary statuses are distinguished. The main status determines a person’s social position, while additional status characterizes his position in a particular area. According to the principle of acquisition, statuses are distinguished as prescribed (inherited from parents, innate - gender, race, age characteristics) and achievable (acquired by an individual through his own efforts). Ascription means that certain qualities of individuals - status, profession or income - are determined by the position into which these individuals are born, or over which they have no control, and not by their own achievements.

The concept of social mobility, as used in sociological studies of inequality, refers to the movement of individuals between different levels of the social hierarchy, usually defined in terms of broad occupational or social class categories. The magnitude of social mobility is often used as an indicator of the degree of openness and mobility of a society. Social mobility is the ability of a person or social group to change their social position, social status, position in the stratification system.

According to the possibilities of social movement, open and closed societies are distinguished. K. Popper in the book “The Open Society and Its Enemies” writes: “In what follows we will call a magical, tribal or collectivist society a closed society, and a society in which individuals are forced to make personal decisions - an open society. ... One of the most important characteristics of an open society society - competition for status among its members... Such properties are practically not inherent in a closed society. Its institutions, including castes, receive a sacred sanction - a taboo." He emphasizes that in a closed society, “the tribe is everything, and the individual is nothing,” and in an open society, individual initiative and self-assertion reign, ... “a closed society collapses when the reverence with which the social order is perceived is replaced by active intervention in this order and a conscious desire to realize one’s own or group interests.”

M. Weber used the term “social closure” to describe the action of social groups that maximize their benefits by closing access to rewards to outsiders. This term was introduced into the analysis of social class by F. Parkin in the 1970s, who considered “closure” as an aspect of the distribution of power between classes. F. Parkin identifies a strategy of exclusion, whereby groups with privileged access to rewards try to exclude outsiders and provide privileges only to their own members, and a strategy of usurpation, whereby outsiders, often organized collectively, try to obtain a larger share of resources.

In sociology, there are four types of social stratification: slave, caste, class and class. The first three are inherent in a closed society.

Social differences group people into certain communities: either into those, the differences in the social status of which are also enshrined in customs and laws and are inherited (castes and classes), or into those, differentiation between which exists only in economic, functional, cultural and in another respect, but is not fixed in law and is not inherited (classes, strata-layers, social groups of an open, i.e. modern, society).

Castes (from the Latin castus - pure) and estates, while not being identical social groups, nevertheless have some common features - these are hereditary groups of people that occupy a certain place in the social hierarchy, often associated with traditional occupations and limited in communication with each other with a friend. Differences between castes and estates are as follows:

a) the main difference: castes are completely closed communities (it is impossible to move from caste to caste). Unlike castes, the principle of inheritance in estates is not so absolute and membership in an estate could be acquired;

b) minor differences: castes are assigned to individual professions, and inter-caste communication is prohibited in some cases; estates were created politically, enshrined in laws, and not in religious rules.

The caste system is a form of social stratification in which castes are hierarchically organized and separated from each other by rules of ritual purity. The lowest stratum of the caste system is designated as “untouchables” because these people are excluded from performing rituals that confer religious purity. In this hierarchical system, each caste is ritually purer than the one below. The caste system is an illustration of social closure, in which access to wealth and prestige is closed to social groups excluded from performing purifying rituals.

If castes are maintained by social closure, then they originate either in the segregation of ethnic groups or in professional specialization; in both cases, caste regulates access to the market and social prestige in the competition between social groups. Elements of the caste system existed in Ancient Egypt (priest castes), among the Incas in Peru, Iran, Japan (“samurai class”), but only in India did the caste organization become a comprehensive social system. Traditional society in India was divided into four main castes (varnas), the criterion for distinguishing them was “ritual purity”: 1) brahmans - priests, 2) kshatriyas - military aristocracy, 3) vaishyas - farmers, artisans, traders, free community members, 4 ) Shudras are not full-fledged community members, slaves, defeated tribes. Outside these varnas there were non-systemic “untouchables” whose contacts with other varnas were prohibited. By the Middle Ages, the Varnas were divided into many rigid castes.

In 1950-1955 Caste division and discrimination are prohibited in India, but caste prejudices and inequality have not yet been overcome.

The second type of social stratification of a closed society represents class division in feudal society. Unlike castes, estates were created politically through man-made laws rather than by religious rules. Estates existed in feudal societies in the post-feudal period. Usually, such classes as clergy, nobility and common people (common people) were distinguished, and sometimes city dwellers and peasants were distinguished among the common people. Estate is a social group of pre-capitalist societies with hereditary rights and responsibilities enshrined in custom or law. Like castes, estates form a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. The number of estates (which are associated with class division) usually exceeded the number of classes, which is associated with a variety of forms and methods of non-economic coercion. The law fixed their property inequality, social functions (military, religious, professional classes), political rights; a certain class morality was formed.

Unlike castes, membership in an estate could be purchased, granted, and the clergy of Europe was replenished by recruitment. A classic example of a class organization is feudal France in the 14th-15th centuries: the clergy, nobility and third classes (peasants, bourgeois, pre-proletariat) had different, strictly limited rights and privileges. In Russia, from Ivan the Terrible (mid-16th century) to Catherine II (until 1762-1785), the formation of six classes took place: the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and the philistines (citizens), with the separation of the latter from the merchant class, and the paramilitary class - the Cossacks, which existed until February 1917. Extra-system elements (marginals) were partially united by the term “raznochintsy”; the Cossacks and the population of different regions had their own characteristics. Class vestiges persist from developed countries in Europe and Japan. They are being revived in new states formed on post-Soviet territory. In the transforming Russian society, the population's orientation towards social elitism and social plebeianism can be traced.

Unlike caste and class stratification, class stratification is characteristic of an open society and provides ample opportunities for social mobility.

A class, as the largest of social groups, is usually distinguished by its specific relationship to the means of production. Its economic anatomy was given by A. Smith and D. Ricardo. Marx revealed ways to overcome class division, and Lenin defined the main characteristics of class.

Sociologists define class as one of the fundamental types of social stratification, along with caste and class. The main theoretical tradition in class analysis comes from the works of K. Marx and M. Weber, which examine the emerging class structure of industrial capitalism in the 19th century. In these works, classes are defined in economic terms, although the views of Marx and Weber differ on which economic factors are decisive.

K. Marx in the last, 52nd chapter of “Capital” names such criteria for determining classes as relations of ownership of the means of production (the decisive criterion) and relations of division and organization of labor (including relations of hiring, labor functions: management-execution, etc.) , accordingly distinguishing two main classes: the bourgeoisie - the class that owns the main means of production; and the proletariat is a class that does not own the means of production, but only its labor power and is therefore forced to be exploited due to the withdrawal of surplus value. In addition, Marx identifies classes that are not fundamental to capitalism: the intermediate petty bourgeoisie, which owns its labor power and means of production on such an insignificant scale that it is forced, like the proletarians, to work; and the landed aristocracy living on rent. There are also extra-class and intra-class layers: non-class- bureaucracy, which has appropriated ownership of the state as a coercive apparatus; persons of liberal professions who work and have ownership of their labor force and intellect; lumpen proletariat - a declassed, marginal, dysfunctional layer of the unemployed, criminals, drug addicts, thrown out of society; intraclass- (within the proletariat - layers with different qualifications, education and degrees of class consciousness; among the bourgeoisie - layers with differences in position in the social hierarchy, for example, traders and owners of the most important means of production).

M. Weber, unlike K. Marx, did not consider the organization of the economy to be the basis of stratification. Weber identified three main interrelated forms of inequality, stratification factors: property inequality; unequal prestige; power. He defined a class as a group of people who share similar positions in a market economy, receive similar economic rewards, and thus have similar life chances overall. An individual's chances of possessing the economic and cultural benefits of society are designated in Weberian sociology by the concept of “life chances.” Material wealth, according to Weber, is unequally distributed in most societies, as evidenced, for example, by differential access to education. The access of classes to social wealth is also unequal: wealth is not only access to material goods, but also the ability to work in general. However, Weber's positions in a market economy include not only the attitude towards the means of production, but also such prerequisites for effective work as qualifications and education. Individuals with rare qualifications and better education have a higher position, as do the owners of capital. Thus, Weber, in addition to the factor of wealth, introduces two more criteria for the stratification of society: status based on prestige and power. In accordance with these criteria, Weber distinguishes four main classes: the class of owners, the class of specialist workers (white collar workers), the class of the petty bourgeoisie, and the working class.

Modern descriptions of class often abandon the Marxist definition. The separation of ownership of capital from management and control of production makes non-ownership such a broad category that it cannot be used to differentiate between groups with different economic positions, such as managers and ordinary workers. British and American theories of class have developed in different directions. Postwar American sociologists viewed their society as classless. This was partly because there were no sharp discontinuities in the distribution of material rewards, and partly because they believed that individuals in modern society could be classified on the basis of a number of factors unrelated to economically defined class, such as occupation, religion, education, ethnicity. They accepted Weber's idea of status and developed an approach that treated social status or prestige as an independent factor that diluted or even replaced economically defined class.

The division of the population into three classes - working, intermediate (middle) and higher - is a generally accepted model in sociology of the class structure of society. Manual workers are placed in the working class; low-level non-manual workers, such as clerks and technical staff, are classified as intermediate; and managers, administrators and specialists - to the highest.

The class system is inherent in an open society because it does not create legal barriers to upward mobility. Origin (birth) does not uniquely determine class membership. However, even in a class society there are obstacles in the form of different starting opportunities and personality dispositions. Starting opportunities are what are given by parents: the social status of the family, its material capabilities in providing children with education, qualifications, connections, etc. Personal dispositions are a system of predispositions to a certain perception of life conditions and to appropriate behavior. They are divided into three groups: higher dispositions - the general orientation of a person’s interests, his value orientations; average dispositions – attitudes towards social objects, including the level of aspirations. The level of aspiration determines what status a person claims; lower level dispositions – situational attitudes at a certain moment. Dispositions are a product of social conditions of life, but they themselves are very active, providing various adaptations (i.e. adaptation) of a person to changing conditions.

The possibilities of social mobility and increasing the status of a young person are largely determined by his starting capabilities, his life goals and values, his ability to adapt (both active - in the form of changing the environment, and passive - reconciliation with it).

The basis of class division at present is the unequal distribution of various benefits and the associated patterns of exploitation. In capitalism, the main good is ownership of the means of production (capital), but there are other, additional goods that include organizational control, rare skills and talent. Most managers are excluded from capital ownership, but they control organizational and skill benefits.

The class typology that arises from the intersection of the three principles of stratification is complex. Class analysis has been criticized by sociologists on the grounds that there are high levels of social mobility, meaning that class is a weak determinant of life chances: other principles of stratification, such as race and gender, are very important; people no longer act or think in class-differentiated ways, so the old connection between class and belief disappears; people no longer consider class and class distinctions to be of great importance.

In Soviet sociology, the class approach was absolutized to the detriment of an adequate analysis of social differences.

The concept of “social structure” is often used in sociology, but rarely analyzed. A.R. Radcliffe-Brown understands social structure as relations of a general and regular type between people, and S.F. Neidl proposes roles as elements of social structure; functionalists - social institutions.

Social structure is a set of interconnected and interacting social groups, as well as social institutions and relationships between them. In order to exist, people cooperate, share functions, i.e. enter into certain social relations, primarily production ones. The typology of social structures can be very different: according to the subjects of relations: social group(which is formed by social strata, classes, estates and castes) and institutional(consisting of social institutions). The main source of the emergence of social groups and institutions is the social division of labor - the deepest source of social differences. Social structure in a broad sense covers all divisions in society: by sphere (organizational-technical, economic, ideological-political structures), by type of social groups (structure of the employed population and structure of an enterprise, family or party, class, intrastate, socio-demographic, settlement, social-functional, ethnic, professional, educational structures). The measure of the development of a social structure is not the degree of its homogeneity, but the polyvariance of types and forms of activity, methods of connections between people, social groups and institutions. Social structure can be "vertical"(antagonistic and non-antagonistic classes, official management hierarchy, division by education, income, complexity of work) and "horizontal"(division by professions, industries or spheres of society).

The idea that the status or "reputation" of various groups constitutes an important indicator of social stratification has long been traditional in American approaches to occupational differences and dates back to at least the 1920s. A well-known contribution to the development of this direction was made by L. Warner. Professional prestige is determined by the value system of society and the perceived functional importance of various professions in society. The measurement of occupational prestige is carried out using prestige scales, which are compiled through surveys of people conducted to qualify professions according to their social status or desires. The assessment of professions remains unchanged when using different measurement methods. The concept of prestige remains somewhat vague. M. Weber conceptualized status as social reputation and considered it as an indicator of social stratification, distinct from class. Class inequality is based on unequal access to material rewards and different life chances. American researchers combined a number of indicators of occupational differences and combined income, power, level of education, and social reputation. However, the substantive aspect of prestige scales is problematic: 1) it is not always clear what respondents in surveys mean – the actual classification of professions, or whether they record the desired classification; 2) respondents have ambiguous knowledge about the professional structure; 3) there are significant variations in the positions of respondents, which are not accurately taken into account when entering responses into a single prestige scale.

Status groups are groups of people who are honored and respected to varying degrees and have unequal prestige. Among the features of status groups, a special lifestyle can be traced (way of speaking and spending free time, tastes, including clothing style, similar diet). Prestige may be determined not only and not so much by wealth: professors, priests and officials have higher prestige than a drug dealer whose prestige is limited to his group.

The third criterion characterizing social stratification is power. Power is the ability of a person or group to carry out plans, actions, policies even in the face of objections from other people and groups. The system of power is formed by parties and interest groups fighting for power. To dominate, you must have resources and control the resources of others. Therefore, the growing complexity of modern rational society leads to the development of huge bureaucracies and centralization.

Bureaucracy can also be considered in the context of social stratification. Bureaucracy (from French: bureau, office, - and Greek: power, domination, office power) is a specific form of management structures and relationships, characterized by: 1) the existence of a privileged layer of employees called upon to exercise power and dominance in the organization; 2) separation of the executive branch from the legislative branch and of both of them from the will and decisions of the majority of members of the organization; 3) impersonal (depersonalized) control system; 4) assigning control functions to persons responsible for execution; 5) the creation of a system of service dependence, leading to the primacy of form over the content of activity. The main component of the consciousness of bureaucracy is a sense of status, belonging to the “power elite”.

The analysis of bureaucracy was started by K. Marx and M. Weber. “The bureaucracy considers itself the ultimate goal of the state,” wrote K. Marx. “Government tasks turn into clerical tasks, or clerical tasks into state ones.” Over time, the bureaucracy is formed into a special social stratum, whose specific interests may in many ways not coincide with the interests of the ruling class. Moreover, under conditions of monopoly of state property or subsistence farming, i.e. in the absence of a class of owners (private or collective) and free market relations, i.e. civil society, its role can increase many times over. The role of the bureaucracy also becomes inadequate when redistribution relations prevail.

M. Weber considered bureaucracy as a necessary form of public order and effective social organization, as an expression of formal rationality inherent in a developed society and presupposing the following features: a hierarchical management structure, obedience, discipline, impersonality, regulation, limited responsibility. This assessment of bureaucracy is also given by the concept of managers.

Modern Western sociologists use three main approaches to the stratification of society: a) “self-assessment,” or the method of class identification, when respondents themselves identify themselves as belonging to any social group in accordance with the scale of the class composition of the population; b) the “reputation” method, in which respondents are asked to speak about each other, determine the class affiliation of certain residents themselves, and assess their status by other members of society, i.e. their reputation. Thus, W.L. Warner (in the USA in 1941) ranked a bank employee above a grocer, according to the latter. As a result, L. Warner, in his work “Social Class in America,” identified six classes in the Yankee City settler community: the upper upper class included rich people with “noble” origins; lower upper - people of high income, but not from aristocratic families. These nouveau riche (new rich) behave like parvenus (upstarts imitating aristocrats); the upper middle class consisted of intellectuals and businessmen with high incomes (doctors, lawyers, capital owners); lower middle class - white-collar workers (clerical workers, secretaries, cashiers, clerks); the upper lower class consisted of “blue collar workers” (manual workers: blue-collar workers, etc.); the lower underclass are the poor and outcasts, similar to Marx's lumpenproletariat. “Objective approach”, in which they use a certain objective criterion related to socio-economic status, which includes three parameters: income and education levels, and the prestige of the profession.

Adherents of the “objective approach” propose various stratification systems. According to one of them, modern Western society is stratified as follows: the highest class of professionals, administrators; mid-level technical specialists; commercial grade; petty bourgeoisie; technicians and workers performing supervisory functions; skilled workers; unskilled workers. According to the functionalist concept, society is divided into upper, middle and working classes. The upper class differs from the middle and working class in its wealth, unity and power.

The middle class is usually divided into three groups: professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, scientists, etc.); intermediate (teachers, nurses, technicians, journalists, actors, farmers, etc.); low-skilled group of non-manual labor (typists, cashiers, bank employees, salespeople, auctioneers, photographers, police officers, fashion models, etc.). Sociologists have long debated the limits of homogeneity and even the very existence of a middle class, which is usually defined as the class that includes those engaged in non-manual labor. These disputes have a dual origin. The Marxist thesis that there are two main classes in society, leaving little space for a true middle class, has generated considerable debate. The debate has also been fueled by the rise in occupations that tend to be classified as middle class.

It is generally accepted that there is a significant discrepancy between the wages of manual and non-manual occupations. However, this comparison is misleading because... There are a number of categories of non-manual labor (clerks, salespeople), the salaries of which differ very little from the level of salaries of manual workers. In terms of hours, insurance benefits, pensions, health care, and job security, these typical white-collar workers may have slightly more prestigious jobs than manual workers, but the distinctions are blurred. According to this view, clerks have good prospects for advancement, but this statement applies, as a rule, only to male clerks, and since three-quarters of those engaged in this line of work are women, the overall prospects for advancement are small. Working conditions for white-collar employees may be little better as the increasing division of labor and the use of computers and other equipment impact office work, which consequently becomes more routine, demanding, less skillful, more under management control and limited in scope. for independent action.

Compared to the situation of ordinary white-collar workers, the upper middle class, especially highly skilled professionals and high-level managers, enjoy high levels of pay with clear career expectations, shorter work hours, and better pension and health care arrangements. Their work situation is also more favorable, allowing for greater independence, a degree of control over others and opportunities to use their skills. The situation faced by workers in these types of employment is in many respects similar to that of the traditional upper class of employers, with the consequence that it is argued that in reality only middle-level managers, smaller businessmen and skilled workers constitute the middle class.

The lower class in many Western societies is filled by women and members of ethnic minorities, employed in the least paid, least secure and most unpleasant types of work. The characteristics of status groups (gender, ethnicity) are transformed into attributes of the class located at the bottom of the class hierarchy.

The lower or working class is divided into three groups: 1) skilled manual labor (electricians, hairdressers, bus drivers, masons, carpenters, plumbers, cooks, printers, shoemakers, etc.); 2) semi-skilled physical labor (seamstresses, agricultural workers, bartenders, bus conductors, orderlies, telephone operators, gardeners, packers in supermarkets, etc.); 3) unskilled physical labor (cleaners, window cleaners, laborers, loaders, porters, couriers, kitchen workers, etc.).