THE ECOLOGY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION 

Topics covered in this lecture:

1) What is stratification?

2) What are the main ecological explanations for stratification?

3) Illustrative examples:  Pomo Indian trade feasts; role of irrigation in state formation

What is Stratification?

Stratification can be defined various ways, but most commonly refers to institutionalized inequalities in power, wealth, and
status betweencategories of persons within a single social system (e.g., classes, castes, ethnic groups)

Status inequalities between individuals are found everywhere, so how much inequality does it take to qualify as a stratified society?

On one hand, inequalities based on personal qualities (charisma, economic or social skills, etc.) do not constitute stratification, since they aren't
defined by membership in a particular category

So, if in a hunting band the best hunter or the healer/shaman is held in high regard and has preferential access to some resources, this ain't
social stratification

On other hand, all human societies known to date exhibit institutionalized inequalities based on age, and most (all?) have gender-based
inequalities as well; so by the general definition given above, all known human societies are stratified

But most students of social stratification are interested in differences between categories of persons other than age-classes or genders -- i.e.,
they treat inequalities based strictly on age and gender in separate categories

Thus, its common to see some societies classified as "egalitarian" even though they may be patriarchal gerontocracies (e.g., some Australian
aborigines, many pastoralist groups), where the elder males have considerably more power and control substantially more wealth than do others
(women, younger men) in the society

Social scientists disagree about "intermediate" cases such as chiefdoms (e.g., NW Coast Indians, various Polynesian societies) -- are they
stratified, or merely "ranked"?

By narrower definition, where stratification is defined by socioeconomic class, "stratified society" is essentially limited to nation-states

States have some additional characteristics besides socioeconomic stratification:

1. Centralized and hierarchical/bureaucratic political organization
2. Highly codified legal system of decision-making and enforcement
3. Governmental monopoly on use of lethal force (police, armies)
4. System of economic expropriation (taxation) and redistribution
5. Dense population
6. Large scale (population generally well over 100,000)
7. Complex economic division of labor (occupational specialization)

Even by narrow definition, all people are now incorporated into stratified societies (nation-states), though even 100 yrs ago there were many
autonomous small-scale societies (e.g., Amazonian Indians, highland New Guinea, Borneo, central Arctic Inuit), and 5,000 yrs ago states were
virtually nonexistent

Though arising relatively late in human history, stratification involves a massive transformation of socioeconomic systems, with profound
ecological consequences

For example, only with stratification do we find the socioeconomic integration of large regions embracing millions of people; this shift from local
resource utilization and self-sufficiency to production for regional markets seems to be associated with increased resource depletion and
ecological instability (an issue we return to later in the course)

Causes of Stratification

Understanding origins of stratification is difficult, in part because we are virtually limited to archaeological record for direct evidence on the
process

Reason for this is that written records only emerge with stratification (in fact, evidence suggests that in most cases writing was first developed in
order to carry out two specific functions of stratified societies:  maintain tax records, and record genealogies and histories of hereditary rulers)

Although there is much that we don't know about origins of stratification, it is clear that it is a relatively recent development (e.g., as revealed
through study of grave goods, and historical record of state expansion and conquest of more egalitarian societies)

Once they arise, stratified systems tend to expand at expense of egalitarian systems, but this cannot explain origins of first stratified systems
(i.e., cases of "pristine" state formation)

What drives egalitarian societies towards stratification?  Are there ecological explanations?

It is not simply subsistence mode, since some foragers are less egalitarian than many agricultural and most pastoralist societies

Attempts to explain cultural evolution of social stratification in ecological terms generally rely on one or another of two basic approaches:

1. Stratification = solution to an ecological problem

2. Stratification = system by which one class extracts resources from another

These two approaches often termed functional and conflict theories, respectively

Functional theories focus on benefits to all parties; in contrast, conflict theories argue that elites benefit at expense of commoners

(Note: These divisions run very deep in social science -- not confined to ecological analyses of stratification)

These 2 views give diametrically opposite interpretations of most aspects of social stratification (see Table)

Functionalist Theories

Functionalists see rise of state systems as driven by reciprocity, a "social contract" (as Hobbes argued over 300 yrs ago)

In this view, centralized rule is a bargain that benefits everyone:  citizens pay taxes (share of crops, labor, etc.) and give up some freedom,
and in return the state provides public order, military security, various public works (e.g., irrigation, highways, public buildings)

Conflict theorists (of whom the most famous/influential is Marx) see states as essentially exploitative, primarily benefiting ruling elites, and
arising only when masses must submit to dominance & exploitation, or else face starvation and repression

Functional theories emphasize mutualistic relations between elites and commoners; elites are seen as providing managerial benefits, and the
commoners' part of the bargain is to produce the surplus necessary to adequately reward these services

Conflict theories by contrast see elites as parasitic, extracting surplus from commoners by various means:  ideological control (patriotism,
theocracy, etc.), monopoly on technical knowledge, and (if necessary) force

What about more specific scenarios of the development of stratification?

Older theories (popular in 19th century) viewed social stratification as a manifestation of the general "progress" & increase in complexity
characteristic of sociocultural evolution

Modern scholars dismiss these arguments as teleological (societies don't have any automatic tendency to become more
complex), tautological(they simple re-label what needs to be explained, and call it the cause), and ethnocentric (they position modern states as
proper culmination of last 40,000 yrs of human history)

Following the discrediting of these "social progress" explanations, many social theorists sought to isolate a "prime mover" (key variable, primary
cause) responsible for development of stratification

As table shows, favored prime movers (and associated ecological, economic, and social prerequisites) differ between functional & conflict
theories of stratification
On one hand, functionalists point to benefits obtained through stratification:

1) Conflict reduction (state as police force to prevent anarchy, quell the Hobbesian "warre" of all against all):  in this view, individuals voluntarily
sacrifice some freedoms in order to obtain benefits of safety & domestic order

2) Redistribution:  ruling elites as (benevolent?) economic administrators who manage redistribution networks that buffer disparities in resources
due to environmental & socioeconomic fluctuations or heterogeneity

3) Military defense:  effective defense from enemies favors hierarchical organization, larger social unit (� bigger army), surplus production to
support military and administrative specialists

Conflict Theories

In contrast, conflict theories see stratification as driven by resource competition, with elites establishing themselves whenever ecological and
socioeconomic conditions permit:

Since resource competition of some form is ubiquitous, convincing conflict theories must explain why competition leads to stratification in some
instances and not in others

One influential argument (Carneiro, Boone) proposes a combination of 1) economies of scale and 2) environmental circumscription

Economy of scale refers to situations where per-capita economic efficiency is greater at larger scales (number of people cooperating, area under
production, size of factory, etc.); for example, using a few large ships to carry out trade between islands, rather than many small ships

Circumscription refers to environmental or economic heterogeneity that imposes very high costs for leaving an area (for example, a river
floodplain with rich, well-watered soil surrounded by desert)

Given severe circumscription (or really any situation of extreme environmental heterogeneity), there's a higher chance that a segment of society
can monopolize or dominate access to resources, and use this control to extract value (in form of taxes, labor, military service, etc.) from other
members of society

In the typical scenario, population growth � intensified resource competition � development of incipient hierarchical social organization within
local groups for more effective competition; permanent stratification occurs when one segment able to effectively control access to resources,
and subordinates cannot afford to emigrate because surrounding area much poorer in resources (circumscription), or occupied by other groups
unwilling to allow immigration

This scenario fits the 6 accepted cases of "pristine" (independent) state development: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley, Shang/central China,
Valley of Mexico, coastal Peru, all river valleys or basins ringed by arid land and/or mountains; it also fits areas that were on threshold of state
formation prior to European colonization (NW Coast, parts of Polynesia, etc.); but in addition seems to fit some areas lacking stratification
Technological complexity provides an alternative reason elites are able to control means of production & extract surplus from producers, and this
is central to Marx & Engels' model of the emergence of stratification (see "hydraulic hypothesis" below)

Examples

When we examine specific instances of stratification, usually find that the rigid dichotomy between functional and conflict theories does not hold
up very well, nor does one factor usually emerge as a "prime mover" (unitary cause)

Example 1:  Pomo Trade Feast illustrates incipient stratification, functional role of elites in managing economic redistribution

Pomo Indians were the indigenous inhabints of an extensive area of northern coastal Calif (currently = Sonoma & Mendocino Counties)

This area stretched from ocean to interior over coast range, covering 3 zones:

1) coastline & redwood forest (marine foods, salmon runs, but least favorable habitat for human subsistence)
2) interior valleys (grassy, oak groves--abundant acorns & game)
3) Clear Lake area (fish, waterfowl, much game, roots, etc. -- most favorable)

Prior to European colonial intrusion, Pomo were divided into at least 34 politically autonomous groups (termed "tribelets") of a few hundred
members each

Because of environmental diversity just noted, as well as seasonality of some resources, adjacent tribelets often had access to very different
sets of resources

When an abundance of a particular resource was harvested in any one tribelet's area, a trade feast was held; these usually linked tribelets
occupying different environmental zones (and hence enjoying complementary sets of resources)

As was typical throughout Native California, each Pomo tribelet was headed by a chief who lived in main village in largest house, had control
over public storehouse with foodstuffs and other goods, supported a number of craft specialists, and was assisted by various administrative
assistants and ceremonial leaders (many of these being close kinsmen of chief)

Position of chief was not strictly inherited, but tended to be monopolized by a few family lines who constituted local aristocracy

Power of chief did not come from force or divine sanction -- he had neither -- but rather from his control over economic, diplomatic, and
ceremonial life of his group

Trade Feast exemplifies how this worked

Chief decided when to call a feast, and sent out a runner to a tribelet chosen to be guests
Guest chief decided whether to accept invitation, and if so sent word to all households of his tribelet that they should send him shell money

Guest villagers & chief then journeyed to host village on appointed date, and guest chief presented shell money to host chief

There followed several days of feasting, social and ceremonial activities

Meanwhile, host chief and advisers counted up shell money, and based on estimated amount of surplus food to be traded, established
exchange value (e.g., string of 100 beads = 5 salmon); this exchange rate was not fixed, but rather fluctuated according to supply and demand

At conclusion of Trade Feast, exchange of shell money for surplus foods took place, supervised by host chief and his assistants; any shell
money left over at end was appropriated by host chief for public coffers

Finally, guest chief redistributed food in equal shares to each of his tribelet's households; he kept some of the food as "fee" for his
administrative labors

Note that because of rules governing exchange of beads for food, trade feasts resulted in reducing disparity of resources between tribelets,
andreducing wealth diffs. within guest tribelets (except chief), but increasing it within host tribelet (though keep in mind that every tribelet got to
play both roles over the years)

It appears that wealthier families were motivated to contribute a disproportionate share of shell beads because of the increased prestige for
doing so (somewhat akin to charity galas attended by members of socioeconomic elite in modern states)

Trade feast also functioned to redistribute resource surpluses, allowing members of a tribelet (when playing the host role) to "bank" excess food
resources by converting them into durable wealth; thus, it appears to have had functional (adaptive) value for all parties

Trade feasts also served as a prominent venue for chiefs to demonstrate their administrative & diplomatic skills, and to accumulate wealth in
payment for this, thus creating or reinforcing political and socioeconomic inequalities (if not true class stratification)

Example 2.  Hydraulic hypothesis of state emergence illustrates more intensive form of social stratification

This scenario propounded by Karl Wittfogel (historian) & Julian Steward (ecological anthropologist), who posited that large-scale irrigation
requires centralized co-ordination & direction � growth of administrative bureaucracy that lives off of agricultural surplus taxed from the
producing (peasant) class

Thus, the monopolizable resource (and environmental circumscription) here is anthropogenic -- the irrigation system itself -- though of course
there are environmental prerequisites (distribution of water, soil, topography, etc.) that make irrigation system more or less feasible and
productive

Proponents of hydraulic hypothesis cite existence of waterworks in each of 6 earliest states in support of the hypothesis

However, critics of the hypothesis cite a) existence of irrigation networks before rise of states in some cases; b) existence of states before
irrigation in others; and c) cases where irrigation systems never led to class stratification (e.g., Hohokam culture of prehistoric SW)
Nevertheless, most scholars agree than once both hierarchy & irrigation were present, positive feedback ensued and both increased thru mutual
reinforcement

Conclusions

In evaluating alternative views on stratification, draw three conclusions:

1) Many, perhaps most, cases of stratification reveal complex mix of prerequisites and causal factors (some environmental, some sociocultural)

2) Whatever its causes, stratification associated with massive increase in rate of resource extraction (reflected in rapid & sustained population
growth) so in Darwinian terms appears to be "beneficial" to masses -- but perhaps even more so to ruling elites, who pump off "surplus" to
benefit themselves and their close kin

3) This increase in resource extraction and population ultimately has some serious environmental consequences -- a topic we return to in last
week of this course

Social mobility;

Movement from one class—or more usually status group—to another. There has been extensive and detailed study of social mobility both
between generations and within individuals' careers. Those who study mobility from occupations of one status to those of another typically note
that the proportion of occupations which require formal qualifications and where work is physically light and done in a relatively pleasant
environment is increasing at the expense of their opposites. Thus there can be more ‘upward’ than ‘downward’ mobility despite the laws of
arithmetic. Their opponents point out that a change of occupation is not necessarily a change of class: and that there is no long-term upward
trend in the proportion of the population who are in higher-class jobs. Indeed, in so far as class is defined in terms of hierarchy at work, it could
be argued that there never could be net upward mobility. The proportion of those who give orders to those who take them is likely to be stable.
Feminists point out that for decades social mobility and related subjects were studied by reference to the occupation of the head of the
household, making women almost invisible to mobility researchers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Inequality, a result of the unequal distribution of scarce resources, is found in most, if not all, societies. The

introductory issue in this chapter, “The Consequences of Income Inequality,” examines the effects of race on

patterns of poverty in the United States. This chapter examines the origin, causes, and perpetuation of social

stratification, a hierarchical ranking of people according to their wealth or prestige. Stratification affects

virtually every aspect of an individual’s life; it creates inequality, and inequality profoundly affects one’s life
chances. Inequality is not a naturally occurring phenomenon; it is socially induced by a social selective

process that values some things over others. Types of societies and social differentiation, which is the

variation of people based on selected social characteristics, are identified and investigated. Sources of power

in a class system, theories of social stratification, and inequality in the United States are major topics of

discussion. The chapter concludes by examining social mobility in the United States from structural

characteristics of mobility and individual characteristics contributing to upward mobility. The data indicate

that, for the first time in recent history, the chances of lower-income groups to achieve a higher social

position are diminishing.

1. Social stratification is a hierarchical system of ranking people according to their wealth or prestige.

a. INEQUALITY, the unequal distribution of scarce goods or resources, exists in many different types

of cultures.

Chapter 8 • 71b. SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION: How people vary according to social characteristics.

c. SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: How people are ranked according to the scarce resources they

control.

2. The research of Lenski has shown that stratification increases as societies grow more complex and

wealthy. He has discerned five basic types of societies.

a. HUNTING-AND-GATHERING SOCIETIES: These consist of fifty or fewer people who live on

what they can find to eat. There is little stratification.

b. SIMPLE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES: Farming is the primary occupation; the digging stick

is the basic tool. A surplus of food and supplies allows some leisure time. A division of labor exists

and, as wealth and status accumulate, a stratification system develops.

c. ADVANCED HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES: Farming is still the focus, but includes more

advanced techniques of irrigation, terracing, and fertilization. The level of food supply increases—as

well as the population. Stratification is much more pronounced than in simple horticulture societies.

d. AGRARIAN SOCIETIES: Relatively sophisticated technology is developed; a variety of goods are

grown; and classes of soldiers and merchants arise. Wealth and power become concentrated, and

severe stratification results.

e. INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES: Mass production technologies, extensive division of labor, enormous

wealth, and a much more elaborate stratification system are the hallmarks of this type of society.

Durkheim believed that division of labor created ORGANIC SOLIDARITY though mutual

interdependence.

3. There are two basic types of stratification in the world today.

a. In a CLOSED SYSTEM, social class or caste is ascribed at birth. Rank is ascribed on the basis of

religious or individual or family position. This system is very rigid.

b. In an OPEN SYSTEM, social rank is defined in terms of wealth and income. There is movement

between classes. That is, the system is fluid.

4. Three scarce resources are sources of social rank in open systems of stratification: class, status, and power.

a. SOCIAL CLASS is based on wealth, the power derived from wealth, and “life chances” to acquire

wealth.

b. SOCIAL STATUS is a function of the honor and prestige a person receives from others in the

community.

c. POWER is about having authority and respect, usually within an organization in which decisions

are made to reach the group’s goals.

d. Sociologists use the concept of socioeconomic status (SES) to assess status, basing the measure on a

person’s income, education, and occupation.

5. In examining inequality in the United States, the distribution of income and wealth indicate great

division, even though our society is predominantly a class system.

a. A higher social status has always been conferred on people on the basis of their wealth.

b. Distinctions between the wealthy and the worker (class consciousness) have been quite substantial in

the past, but during the 1980s Americans appeared to be uninterested in any governmental action to
reduce inequality; as a result, the rich continue to get richer while the poor continued to suffer.

6. Inequality and life chances in the United States are examined by comparing occupations, housing and

lifestyle, education, and medical care All indicate great disparity between the classes.

7. SOCIAL MOBILITY, changing one’s social position, occurs in a variety of ways:

a. UPWARD MOBILITY: The change to a higher rank.

b. DOWNWARD MOBILITY: Movement to a lower rank.

c. INTRAGENERATIONAL MOBILITY: The change of people’s class or status within their own

lifetime experience.

d. INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY: The movement between generations, usually measured by

comparing the positions of parents and children.

Chapter 8 • 728. Structural characteristics of mobility in the United States indicate that mobility in this country is

influenced by numerous factors, including:

a. growth of large corporations

b. increased standard of living

c. growth of urban areas

d. maintenance of a split labor market, wherein some jobs afford upward mobility and others do not

e. advanced technology, such as the use of computers and robots

9. Individual characteristics and upward mobility have been studied by examining the influence of such

factors as family background, grades in school, years of education, and attitudes. It appears that the

most important determinant of class position in this country is family background.

10. Why are societies stratified? This question has been debated by early sociologists, with Spencer arguing

for “survival of the fittest” and Marx arguing the opposing view that stratification would eventually

create revolution. These two positions have influenced the present positions of the structuralfunctional and conflict theory.

a. According to structural-functional theory, stratification is necessary for society to function.

Inequality is created by the needs of the society, not by the desires and needs of individuals. If
society had an equal need for all types of work, then all its members would be equal. Those who

perform important social roles should receive large rewards.

b. Conflict theory argues that inequality arises when one group acquires more resources than other

groups.

– Once a dominant group gets power, a group legitimates its power and makes it acceptable by

appealing to the values of the masses.

– These beliefs and perceptions, when accepted by the masses, become the prevailing

IDEOLOGY that refers to our ideas of society.

– If the masses are influenced by elite ideology, they are said to have FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS; if

they are aware of the fate of their own class, they are said to have CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS.

c. The text presents a synthesis of Spencer and Marx’s ideas, because neither theory fully explains how

stratification systems develop.

Definition of PRESTIGE

: standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion

: commanding position in people's minds

Karl Marx's View On Wealth

Imagine a place where there are no homeless people, and no people who are barely struggling to live off of minimum wage jobs. There would
be no unemployment rate and everyone would have a decent place to live in. No one would die of hunger and starvation and everyone would
share all of the money they make with the rest of the population. One may think that this would be the perfect world, or his/her ideal world
because the idea of equality and getting rid of poverty does sound very pleasing to the ear. This is the kind of world that  Karl Marx thought the
people of society should and could live in. He believed that distribution systems are different according to the different situations, which exist in
any society. He wanted a fair amount of wealth distributed to everyone in the society, leaving no one out.

Karl Marx believed that society was divided into two classes, the proletariat class, and the bourgeoisie. He viewed the proletariat class as the
working class who did not have any means of production of their own. The bourgeois was referred to the class that was made up of the owners
of the means of social production. Marx thought that the proletariat class should rebel against the bourgeoisie. He wanted to take away wea