Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
When sociologists use the term "social structure" they are typically referring to
macro level social forces including social institutions and patterns of
institutionalized relationships. The major social institutions recognized by
sociologists include family, religion, education, media, law, politics, and economy.
We see these as distinct institutions that are interrelated and interdependent, and
together help compose the overarching social structure of a society.
These institutions organize our social relationships to others, and create patterns of
social relations when viewed on a large scale. For example, the institution of family
organizes people into distinct social relationships and roles, including mother,
father, son, daughter, husband, wife, etc., and there is typically a hierarchy to these
relationships, which results in a power differential.
These social facts may be less obvious within the institutions of media and
economy, but they are present there too. Within these there are organizations and
people who hold greater amounts of power than others to determine what happens
within them, and as such, they hold more power in society.
What these people and their organizations do act as structuring forces in the lives of
all of us. The organization and operation of these social institutions in a given
society results in other aspects of social structure, including socio-economic
stratification.
The way we create relationships with others is based on certain patterns we use
daily. This lesson takes you through the definition and theory of social structure in
society and offers a quiz to test your knowledge.
This example of social structure demonstrates how people in society develop a code
of conduct in regards to living in society. There are specific elements and
frameworks that we use to fit into mainstream society and to develop the concept
of social structure.
What kinds of social groups do you belong to? Do you ever stop to think that your
role within your social groups determines how you take part in the structure and
organization of society? Most times we don't, but we, the individuals, are society.
Status is our social position within a group (for example, leader, organizer, founder)
whereas role is the part we are expected to play in our lives (for example, mother,
father, sister, brother). Therefore, in the formation of the social structure in society,
we develop our roles and status through our social interactions, relationships, and
patterns of behavior.
There are two types of statuses that help us understand our status in society.
Achieved status is when someone does something that may define his or her role.
For example, a person becomes a musician by studying music, or a woman
becomes a mother by giving birth.
Ascribed statuses are assigned roles given to us in life. For example, we do not
pick the family we are born into.
Why does social stratification exist, and why are some countries more stratified
than others? To analyze this question, we can look at social stratification through
three major perspectives: structural functionalism, social conflict, and symbolic
interaction.
Structural functionalists argue that social inequality plays a vital role in the
smooth operation of a society. The Davis-Moore thesis states that social
stratification has beneficial consequences for the operation of society. Davis and
Moore argue that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and
require the highest rewards and compensation to sufficiently motivate individuals to
fill them. Certain jobs, like mowing grass or cleaning toilets, can be performed by
almost anyone, while other jobs, such as performing brain surgery, are difficult and
require the most talented people to perform them.
In order to lure the most talented people away from less important work, a society
must offer those people rewards and incentives. Davis and Moore further claim that
any society can be equal, but only to the extent that people are willing to let anyone
perform any job. This would also require that even those who do their job poorly are
rewarded equally. What would be the incentive for people to do their best if
everyone was rewarded equally?
Max Weber, also a conflict theorist, agreed with Marx that social stratification
causes social conflict. Unlike Marx, he portrays social stratification as a
multidimensional ranking rather than a hierarchy of two clearly-defined classes.
Weber saw three dimensions of social stratification in terms of a continuum. Social
class for Weber included power and prestige in addition to property or wealth.
Today, sociologists use the term socioeconomic status (SES) to refer to this
ranking based on various dimensions of social inequality.
Based on social anthropology, Warner divided Americans into three classes (upper,
middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and
"lower" segment, with the following postulates:
1. Upper-upper class.
"Old money." People who have been born into and raised with wealth; mostly
consists of old, noble, or prestigious families (e.g., Vanderbilt, Rockefeller,
Hilton).
2. Lower-upper class.
"New money." Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes
(entrepreneurs, movie stars, as well as some prominent professionals).
3. Upper-middle class.
High-salaried professionals (doctors, lawyers, higher rung (were in the
corporate market, yet left for a reason such as family time) professors,
corporate executives).
4. Lower-middle class.
Lower-paid professionals, but not manual laborers (police officers, non-
management office workers, small business owners).
5. Upper-lower class.
Blue-collar workers and manual laborers. Also known as the "working class."
6. Lower-lower class.
The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the "working poor."
To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the actual
amount of money an individual made. For example, the richest people in America
would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them created their own
fortunes; one can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of the
wealthy upper-upper class tend to be more powerful, as a simple survey of U.S.
presidents demonstrates (the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes).
Another observation: Members of the upper-lower class might make more money
than members of the lower-middle class (a well-salaried factory worker vs. a
secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work they
perform.
In his research findings, Warner observed that American social class was largely
based on these shared attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle class
tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little separated them
from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a relatively small section of
the population, usually "set the standard" for proper American behavior, as
reflected in the mass media.
Professionals with salaries and educational attainment higher than those found in
the middle of the income strata (bottom rung professors, managerial office workers,
architects) may also be considered as being true middle class.
Mike Savage from London School of Economics and Fiona Devine from the University
of Manchester, examined class in a brand new way. Their survey results identified a
new model of class with seven classes ranging from the Elite at the top to a
'Precariat' at the bottom. Suggesting that defining class must not only be based by
the job that you do, but by the different kinds of economic, cultural and social
resources or 'capitals' that people possess.