Social Stratification & Mobility — Module 1
1) Concept of Equality
Equality means institutional arrangements that guarantee equal basic respect and fair opportunities to develop capabilities. It differs from sameness: societies pursue equality of status and equality of opportunity rather than identical outcomes.
Thinkers
T. H. Marshall links equality to the historical expansion of citizenship in three stages, each tied to distinct institutions:
- Civil rights (18th c.) — rights of the individual (freedom of speech, contract, property) institutionalized by courts and rule of law.
- Political rights (19th c.) — mass suffrage and representation via parliamentary institutions.
- Social rights (20th c.) — claims to well-being (education, health, income security) delivered by the welfare state.
Marshall shows how welfare transforms equality from legal form to substantive experience.
John Rawls reframes equality as the product of just institutions. Behind a “veil of ignorance”, rational actors would choose:
- Equal basic liberties for all.
- Fair equality of opportunity plus the difference principle: inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged.
Rawls thus makes equality a moral criterion for social arrangements.
Amartya Sen argues that equality must target capabilities (real freedoms to achieve valued functionings), not just resources or utility. People have different conversion factors; hence policy must expand substantive freedoms—education, health, mobility, voice.
Karl Marx critiques bourgeois equality: in capitalism, legal equality hides class inequality. The worker and capitalist meet as equals in contract, but this masks exploitation. Real equality requires altering property relations.
flowchart LR
A[Equality] --> B[Marshall: Citizenship Stages]
A --> C[Rawls: Justice as Fairness]
A --> D[Sen: Capability Approach]
A --> E[Marx: Formal vs Real Equality]
2) Concept of Inequality
Inequality is a structured pattern of unequal access to resources, power, prestige, and opportunities, reproduced by institutions across generations.
Thinkers
Karl Marx anchors inequality in relations of production: owners of capital extract surplus value from labor. The reserve army of labour keeps wages low, and ideology masks this exploitation.
Max Weber makes inequality multidimensional — by class (market situation), status (honor, lifestyle), and party (power). High status can persist without wealth; political groups can reshape life chances.
Pierre Bourdieu explains how inequality reproduces via economic, cultural, and social capital. Schools and institutions reward dominant-class culture as “merit,” legitimizing inequality through symbolic violence.
| Dimension | Marx | Weber | Bourdieu |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cause | Ownership & exploitation | Market & social honor | Unequal capitals |
| Mechanism | Property & ideology | Status closure | Education & habitus |
| Outcome | Class conflict | Stratified life chances | Intergenerational privilege |
3) Hierarchy
Hierarchy is an ordered ranking of persons or groups by power, status, or ritual purity. It stabilizes order but legitimizes domination.
Thinkers
Louis Dumont views caste as an ideological hierarchy of purity and pollution. It is holistic, ranking entire groups rather than individuals, and values difference over equality.
Talcott Parsons sees hierarchy as a value consensus system: societies rank roles by importance; rewards attract talent. Weber adds that status groups monopolize honor through social closure.
André Béteille shows that in India, caste and class hierarchies intersect—ritual rank coexists with economic power.
flowchart TD
A[Hierarchy] --> B[Caste (Dumont)]
A --> C[Class (Weber/Marx)]
A --> D[Gender (Walby)]
A --> E[Ethnicity/Race]
4) Exclusion
Social exclusion means denial of access, participation, and recognition. It is both cause and effect of inequality.
Thinkers
B. R. Ambedkar defines caste as graded inequality—exclusion by religious sanction and endogamy. Excluded groups lose dignity, rights, and power; remedy lies in constitutional democracy and fraternity.
Amartya Sen distinguishes active exclusion (discrimination) and passive exclusion (market neglect), both causing capability loss.
Pierre Bourdieu shows symbolic exclusion: lack of cultural capital excludes groups from power networks. Frank Parkin adds the idea of social closure—elites monopolize credentials; outsiders try “usurpation.”
Iris Young identifies five faces of oppression—exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, violence.
| Form | Mechanism | Example (India) | Thinker |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | Hiring bias | Informal sector traps | Sen, Parkin |
| Social | Endogamy, stigma | Caste segregation | Ambedkar |
| Political | Under-representation | Tribal councils | Young |
| Cultural | Language barriers | Curriculum bias | Bourdieu |
flowchart LR
A[Exclusion] --> B[Low Participation]
B --> C[Skill Deprivation]
C --> D[Low Employability]
D --> E[Further Exclusion]
5) Poverty
Poverty is multi-dimensional—absolute (basic needs unmet) or relative (below societal norms). It reflects structure and policy failures.
Thinkers
Karl Marx views poverty as structural to capitalism. The reserve army of labour keeps wages low; crises deepen pauperization. Real solution: change property relations.
Oscar Lewis describes a culture of poverty: adaptive values for survival become barriers to progress, perpetuating generational poverty.
Amartya Sen defines poverty as capability deprivation. Famines and deprivation occur not due to lack of food but loss of entitlements. Development must expand real freedoms.
Peter Townsend introduces relative deprivation: inability to “participate in customary life.” He created measurable deprivation indices.
| Thinker | Mechanism | Concept | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marx | Exploitation | Surplus value | Change ownership |
| Lewis | Subculture | Culture of poverty | Address values & structure |
| Sen | Capability loss | Entitlements | Expand freedoms |
| Townsend | Social participation failure | Relative deprivation | Target multi-deprivation |
flowchart TD
A[Poverty] --> B[Structural (Marx)]
A --> C[Cultural (Lewis)]
A --> D[Capability (Sen)]
A --> E[Relative (Townsend)]
6) Deprivation
Deprivation means denial of material and non-material resources essential for well-being. It integrates poverty, exclusion, and inequality.
Thinkers
Peter Townsend defines deprivation as inability to participate in normal life. He developed indices on diet, housing, and social activity to measure it objectively.
Walter Runciman explains relative deprivation through comparison—grievances emerge when people feel unfairly disadvantaged relative to peers.
Amartya Sen sees deprivation as capability loss—from survival deficits to lack of agency. Martha Nussbaum expands it with a list of central capabilities (life, health, education, dignity) as universal human minima.
| Type | Description | Example | Thinker |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | Income, asset deficits | Migrant labour | Townsend |
| Social | Status denial | Dalit segregation | Sen, Runciman |
| Political | Voice deficit | Women in panchayats | Sen, Nussbaum |
| Cultural | Recognition denial | Language minorities | Nussbaum |
flowchart LR
A[Inequality] --> B[Poverty]
B --> C[Exclusion]
C --> D[Deprivation]
D --> E[Reduced Capabilities]
UPSC Integrative Snapshot
- Stratification persists through exploitation (Marx), status/party closure (Weber, Parkin), and cultural reproduction (Bourdieu).
- Equality becomes substantive via citizenship (Marshall), fairness (Rawls), and capability expansion (Sen, Nussbaum).
Thinkers covered Marshall, Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum, Marx, Weber, Bourdieu, Davis–Moore, Tumin, Dumont, Parsons, Béteille, Ambedkar, Parkin, Young, Townsend, Runciman, Oscar Lewis.
