What did Karl Marx believe with social classes?
The ideas of both class consciousness and revolution are also central to Marx's theory of social change. Under the continued exploitation of a capitalist regime, Marx believed that eventually the working classes would become aware of their plight (class consciousness). Once aware of their situation, Marx theorized that the oppressed working classes would then organize and gain the motivation to rebel, thus taking steps to truly control their own lives by overriding capitalism as the dominant ...
How many social classes did Karl Marx identify?
Karl Marx believed that in any system there were two types of people: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat consists of the working, or labor, class. The bourgeoisie can be through of as the idle, or management, class. In Karl Marx's theory of class conflict, he provided very clear definitions for these two classes.
What was the working class according to Karl Marx?
What did Karl Marx call the working class? Karl Marx defined the working class or proletariat as individuals who sell their labour power for wages and who do not own the means of production. He argued that they were responsible for creating the wealth of a society.
How does Karl Marx define social class?
How does Karl Marx define social class? According to Karl Marx, social classes are linked to the economic system, who proposed “that the owners or the means of production exploit those who produce goods and services.”. The working class becomes alienated; these feelings of alienation were linked to a person’s ‘working” class.
What is social stratification according to Max Weber?
Social stratification has been viewed by Weber in three. dimensions (Weber, 1947): economic class, social status, and. political power (party). Each of these dimensions has its own. stratification: the economic, represented by income and the.
Did Marx believe social stratification?
According to Marx, social stratification is an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness. Therefore, Marx prefers to analyze the social stratification resulting from social inequality from a macro perspective and builds the 'two-level social model' on this basis.
What is the base of stratification according to Karl Marx and Weber?
KARL MARX ON STRATIFICATION 'Base' is economic structure, and 'superstructure' includes polity, religion, culture etc.
What is social stratification theory?
"Social stratification means the differentiation of a given population into hierarchically superposed classes. It is manifested in the existence of upper and lower social layers.
What is Karl Marx's theory?
Key Takeaways. Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory originated by Karl Marx that focuses on the struggle between capitalists and the working class. Marx wrote that the power relationships between capitalists and workers were inherently exploitative and would inevitably create class conflict.
How did Marx link faith and social stratification?
Religion and the Masses According to Marx, society was seen as two classes: the rich and the poor. It was his belief that the social class structure of the time was set up to allow the wealthy to control all elements of production and to become wealthier off the labor of the working class.
How did Marx explain the stratification of society quizlet?
Marx views on Social Stratification was that it was rooted in peoples relationship to the means of production; people either owned productive property such as factories or businesses or sell their labor to others. Webers point of view was that he saw Social Stratification as 3 distinctive dimensions of inequality.
Who explained class stratification better Karl Marx or Max Weber explain?
Weber emerges as the better theorist, because he can explain more of the complexities of modern stratification, while Marx is seen to reduce everything down to one fundamental model based on his own analysis of capitalism as exploitation.
What is social stratification and example?
In modern times, particularly in the Western world, social stratification is generally seen in the form of socioeconomic inequality. A prime example is the ongoing wage gap between white men and women of all races or ethnicities.
What is social stratification and its characteristics?
Social stratification refers to a society's categorization of its people into groups based on socioeconomic factors like wealth, income, race, education, ethnicity, gender, occupation, social status, or derived power (social and political).
What is social stratification in sociology essay?
Social stratification, also referred to as stratification, is the way in which a society organizes itself so that individuals know their place or rank, also called their social position, in society” (Larkin). Slavery, Caste, and Social Class are three systems of social stratification.
What is social stratification according to Weber?
Social Stratification refers to divisions among people based on differences in status and things like wealth, power, or prestige. Alongside Karl Ma...
What is Karl Marx’s view of social stratification?
Marx’ view of social stratification stemmed from his observations of early industrialization in Europe during the late part of the 19th century. He...
What did Karl Marx and Max Weber have in common?
Karl Marx and Max Weber were two important personalities whose theories led to our understanding of social stratification, class and status groups....
How did Karl Marx define class?
Karl Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which a person or social group has the capacity to control the means of production. Those of the...
How is social stratification created?
According to Marxist theory, social stratification is created by the differing economic capacities among people and their relationships to the means or the factors of production. In a society, two distinct classes can be created which feature those who own the factors or means of production and those who sell their labor in the production chain to those who own the means. This basically creates the employer-employee relation in most societies. Apart from these two distinct groups Marx also recognized two other groups that don’t belong to either but are somehow related to the two large groups:
What is social stratification?
Social stratification is a form of inequality that occurs due to the inherent differences between human beings and can be determined by race, gender, age, and economic capacity among other distinguishing features.
What is petite bourgeoisie?
The petite bourgeoisie - those who own some of the means of productions but their profit earning power is not enough to earn them a position among the bourgeoisie.
Why is social stratification not going anywhere?
Our system of social stratification isn’t going anywhere any time soon, because it’s the means whereby the powerful maintain power. Interestingly, it’s the majority, those of us who work hard to eke out a living that keep the system in placer. Think of that!
What is Weber's approach to social stratification?
Weber focused on how social stratification is dictated by Protestant influences; that the ideated morality of Christianity allows for the system of capitalism to work. This is outlined in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This approach makes religious cultural phenomena take precedence for political-economic systems, which differs from Marxist theory greatly.
What did Marx think of class?
Marx didn't think in terms of “stratification”. He thought in terms of class. And far from gradations on a continuum such as income or arbitrary categories such as educational attainment, Marx's class categories are based on specific, real differences that arise from the prevailing form of social production.
How can we get rid of social stratification?
We’ll probably never get rid of social stratification. However, different political and economic systems foster different kinds of social stratification. Take, for example, the San people of southern Africa who practice a social philosophy called ubuntu. Ubuntu values generosity and kindness above all other traits. Thus, the most respected person (and you might say on the highest social strata) is the one who is generous and kind. However, this system doesn’t rely on stratification in order to persist. Early native american cultures operated largely on this system, where the chief was expected to be the most generous and thus the least rich.
What is Marx's view of capitalism?
For Marx within Capitalist society there are the owners of the means of production ( fuel, machinery, technology, factories, transportation, land )the Capitalist class who don’t produce anything in society and a wage, salary or starve working class who produce everything in society and when the overwhelming majority of the worlds workers unite to establish a global moneyless, stateless, wageless, classless society where production is for use not profit and there is free access to all goods and services, where all work will be entered into voluntarily, there will only be humans working together
How were Eastern political-economic systems different from Western ones?
Weber understood this difference as due to the differing brass tacks of the overriding religions in each nation (e.g. Indian and Chinese thought compared to Christianity), while Marx understood this as due to unique evolutions that produce syntheses differently (through both rate of evolution and qualitative (material) factors).
What is class in capitalist society?
In capitalist society, classes correspond to the way large groups of people are located with respect to the process of cspitalist production ie the process by which workers labour to produce surplus value (unpaid labour ) that capitalists appropriate. Workers, having no other property by wh
What was Karl Marx's view of social stratification?
Marx’ view of social stratification stemmed from his observations of early industrialization in Europe during the late part of the 19th century. He saw the existence of two major classes –the ruling class (capitalists) and the working class, or otherwise known as the bourgeois and proletariat.
What social class did Marx create?
The social classes that originated from the capitalist system that Marx knew during his time still holds true today, only, the bourgeois class has become fragmented over the last century due to the emergence of the so-called stockholders. Likewise, the proletariat has been changed significantly by the “white-collar revolution.” Decades ago, work involved mostly manual labor, or otherwise known as “blue-collar” occupations. “White-collar” occupations involve mostly mental or non-manual skills. However, the shared social structure of earning wages makes both proletariats during Marx’ time, and today’s educated but average office workers, a “working class.”
What did Marx and Weber say about modern society?
In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels remarked that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Bottomore, 1983, p. 75). In any historical era, social classes were real and today, pressing economic conditions make social stratification and other structures all the more complex.
What did Marx believe about inequality?
Marx believed that the base of inequality among individuals in modern societies is economy (Sanghara). Marx believed that classes are constituted by the relationship of groupings of individuals to property ownership in the means of production.
What are Karl Marx and Max Weber's theories?
Conclusion. Karl Marx and Max Weber were two important personalities whose theories led to our understanding of social stratification, class and status groups. Marx provided an elaborate and very systematic concept of capitalism and capitalist development, and its effect in society. While Weber held other factors were also relevant in determining ...
What did Weber believe about status groups?
If Marx focused on one’s position in the production assembly, Weber believed that status groups are actually communities held together by common lifestyles and social esteem.
What does "rewarded" mean in sociology?
When we speak of reward, it does not only mean economic reward. Remember that people are also rewarded with (social) honor and this is known as social status. Karl Max and Max Weber were distinguished theorists whose works have become the basic but significant frameworks of sociology.
What is social stratification according to Marx?
From the root word stratum, it can be recognised that social stratification refers to a ranking of people or groups of people within a society (Anurin, 1995: 50 - 65). Social stratification has been an object of analysis of a considerable number of theorists. However, the way of organisation of people in socioeconomic strata is not yet determined from the single point of view (Bourdieu, 1987: 1 - 17). Numerous theories exist that divide society into different classes, however, Marx’s and Weber’s are the ones that are considered fundamental (Wallimann et al, 1977: 231 - 235). This essay will critically examine Karl Marx’s and Max Weber’s theories of class inequality and prove that Weber’s theory is the most convincing in terms of explanation of social stratification in modern societies. The concept of social class was first introduced by Plato in his magnum opus The Republic (Parsons, 1970: 13 - 72). According to Coby (2001: 377 - 399), Plato divided society into three classes: philosophers, warriors and producers (merchants, craftsmen). Then, this theory has been supported by Aristotle (Gadamer and Smith, 1988: 10). These theories are similar in a number of aspects, however, Aristotle is considered to be more concentrated on the importance of the middle class (Adamovsky, 2005: 303 - 333). In the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu also dedicated their attention to the social stratification (see e.g. Zeitlin, 1968; Strässer, 1976). From their direction, it was concluded, that the main features of differentiation of society are the size and shape of income (Bromley, 1997: 43 - 54). Consequently, three classes can be defined: land owners, that receive rent; owners of capital, that make a profit; workers, that receive wages (ibid). Stratification theories were also continued to be developed by various French sociologists in the 17-19th centuries, as Foucault (2002, cited in McCarthy and Logue, 2009: 145 - 160) states. They considered such antagonistic social groups as rich and poor, working class and elites, owners and non-owners (Nisbet, 1993: 44). For example, French historians Guizot and Thierry showed the antagonism of class interests and their inevitable collision (McCarthy and Logue, 2009: 145 - 160). The influence of the Industrial Revolution on the stratification also served as an important object of the studies (Nisbet, 1993: 44). Marx’s and Weber’s theories of stratification have been introduced with publications of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels in 1848 (Lenski, 1966: 11) and Economy and "1 fSociety by Weber in 1922 (Pandey, 1983: 171 - 203). Marx also developed his theory in Capital, that has been published in 1867 (Levitsky, 2009: 12). These theories currently serve as significantly influential and fundamental to a majority of further developments of the views on stratification (Wallimann et al, 1977: 231 - 235). Although the theories are frequently contradicted to each other, they may be described as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. In this paper, Marx’s and Weber’s theories of class inequality will be critically examined in order to find similarities and differences between them. Firstly, both theorists highlighted property as a criterion of class differentiation. According to Marx and Weber, society is primarily divided on those who possess the property, and those who do not (Wright, 2002: 832 - 853). However, Marx and Weber had different views on the determination of social classes and the complexity of stratification. Marx and Engels (1848: 24) defined social classes as economically determined and genetically conflicting groups, where the presence or absence of property serve as the basis of the separation into these groups. The concept of private property was closely connected to the exploitation of labour: a class that possesses the private property controls and determines social relations (Marx, 1867: 928). It also owns the means of production (capital, factories, raw materials) and controls them (ibid: 168). Due to the economic power of the ruling class, it carries the fate of those who are working for it, and the members of this class occupy the highest social status (ibid: 169). Thus, the feudal lord and serf in feudalism, bourgeois and proletarian in capitalism may serve as representatives of antagonistic classes that inevitably emerge in any society with a hierarchical structure that is based on inequality. Marx’s structure of society is highly polarised and unidimensional (Burris, 1987: 83), as it analyses only proletariat and bourgeoisie, briefly mentioning other social groups in society, that could affect the class conflicts (idem). There are also objective and subjective indicators of the class definition (Jackman and Jackman, 1973: 569 - 582). Possession of property is an example of objective indicators (ibid). A subjective indicator is, for instance, the awareness of the individual’s belonging to a particular class, their role in the production process and the relationship to other classes (Rosenberg, 1953: 22 - 27). Hence, the fully formed social class can exist only when the members of society are aware of their social class and work together in the interests of the class. "2 fIn contrast, Weber focused on the more sophisticated inequalities that appear on the market and did not consider the organisation of the economy as the basis of stratification (Wright, 1979: 10). His theory is multidimensional: class relations intersect with other bases of association, notably status and party (Weber, 1978: 302 - 307). The concept of party refers to political power - the ability of a particular strata to influence the society (Hurst, 1998: 184); whereas status is understood as an affiliation of an individual to the particular strata (ibid: 182). Weber (1978: 302 - 307) considered these components of inequality interrelated yet independent in essential respects. Weber did not consider classes in terms of tough categorisation. He applied the principle of continuum that is located within the boundaries of the highest to lowest in order to regulate classes (Macionis and Plummer, 2012: 270). Whereas Marx saw social prestige and power only as reflections of the economic condition (idem), Weber (1978: 305) argued that these concepts are of the same importance as wealth and may be totally independent of it. Moreover, Weber did not associate power with wealth. Weber (1947: 152) defined power as the ability of a person or group to implement plans, take action or to conduct certain policies disregarding the objections of other people and groups. Consequently, in modern society, for example, high-paid managers are on the relative bottom of the bureaucracy hierarchy. Thus, they do not possess considerable power or prestige. However, they may be paid higher salaries than university lecturers, that serve as representatives of prestigious profession. Thus, Weber described social stratification in societies as a multidimensional distribution of people by rank rather than a simple hierarchy of specific classes. Liberatos et al (1988: 87 - 121, cited in Yost et al, 2001: 703 - 711) state, that in accordance with Weber’s ideas, sociologists use the term “socioeconomic status” to designate a complex classification based on the various dimensions of social inequality. Secondly, Marx and Weber dedicated a considerable attention to the historical aspects of inequality. Marx (1867: 274) divided the history of human society into the periods depending on the manner in which goods are being carried out, and called it “modes of production”: the slavery period, when the mode of production was the slave labour; feudal or agricultural period; the period of capitalism, when the mode of production was hired labour. According to Marx (1867: 445), the mode of production determines the economic organisation of each "3 fformation, which is the fundamental aspect of social life. It includes technology, division of labour and the relations between people in the process of production (ibid: 274, 445, 557). Marx also attempted to explain the transition from one mode of production to another (see Marx and Engels, 1848; Marx, 1867). In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels (1848: 15) concluded that the process of modes of production changing played a key role in the formation of capitalist bourgeoisie. Weber, in his turn, noted that different indicators of social inequality may be clearly observed at different points of history and development of society. For instance, in agrarian society particular importance is attached to the status or social prestige which is subordinated to a code of honour (Macionis and Plummer, 2012: 270). Members of these communities acquire the status by following cultural norms that are peculiar to the category that they belong (idem). Industrialisation and the development of capitalism level rankings based on birth, however, lead to a significant financial inequality (idem). Weber (1978: 927 - 928) argued, that people of the same class have roughly the same life chances, thus the opportunity to get public benefits. These chances are higher for those who owns property (ibid). Thus, prominent businessmen and high-ranking officials become the new elite (Wright, 1974: 69 - 108). However, highly skilful individual who does not possess the property may be in demand in the labour market and, therefore, has a considerable income. Sharma and Chandra (2004: 105) state that according to Weber, it is typical for the industrial societies to develop bureaucratic state. An increased number of officials and the spread of various types of organisations also increase the role of power in the stratification system (Macionis and Plummer, 2012: 270). Thirdly, theories are different in terms of focusing on the origins of income. Marx’s theory has a dynamic character: the processes of primitive accumulation and reproduction of capital are in the centre of the theory. Marx (1867: 924) connected primitive accumulation primarily to the deprivation of the peasants’ property and colonial robbery; the reproduction of capital was connected to the exploitation (ibid: 714 - 724). Weber seems to be uninterested in the origins of wealth of the higher classes and the poverty of the lower classes. Finally, there is a a conflict in terms of the ideological purpose of theories. Marx saw his theory as the basis of the revolutionary ideology, that had to change the world (Hobsbawm, "4 f2011: 5), whereas Weber’s theory did not serve as an attempt to restructure the existing society. According to the research conducted on Marx’s and Weber’s theories of class inequality, it may be observed that they have a number of fundamental differences in their bases. One of the differences is that Marx's theory captures the class antagonism that is typical for the capitalist economy in mid-nineteenth century, as the theory has been introduced during this period of time. On the contrary, Weber’s theory describes a highly developed capitalism of 20-21th centuries. However, in this sense theories also serve as complementary. The point is that they reveal the features of capitalist system on the different stages of its development, providing a consistent description of capitalism history. Thus, the stratification model of Weber is more appropriate to describe modern societies than Marx’s model. Firstly, Marx considered only two classes in one dimension. Weber, in his turn, structured society in the multiple dimensions. He also considered such factors as status and power in addition to class, as the main principles of stratification. Secondly, the theories of Marx and Weber offer convincing explanations of social stratification in the time periods that they describe. Consequently, Marx's theory is relevant to societies of the mid-nineteenth century, whereas the theory of Weber is relevant to the modern societies. Moreover, Weber’s theory allows to observe an example of an individual who may possess wealth, however, not power and prestige. This is a common case to be observed in modern society. Hence, the theory of Max Weber offers the most convincing explanation of social stratification in modern societies due to its high polarisation and modernity. "5 fREFERENCES Adamovsky, E. (2005). Aristotle, Diderot, liberalism and the idea of ‘middle class’: A comparison of two contexts of emergence of a metaphorical formation. History of Political Thought, 26 (2), 303 - 333. Anurin, V. F. (1995). Economic Stratification. Sociological Research, 34 (6), 50 - 65. Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32 (1), 1 - 17. Bromley, D. W. (1997). Constitutional political economy: property claims in a dynamic world. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15 (4), 43 - 54. Burris, V. (1987). The neo-Marxist synthesis of Marx and Weber on class. In Wiley, N. (Ed.), The Marx-Weber Debate. (67 - 90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Coby, P. (2001). Why are there Warriors in Plato's Republic? History of Political Thought, 22 (3), 377 - 399. Gadamer, H. G. and Smith, P. C. (1988). The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy. Yale University Press. Hobsbawm, E. (2011). How to Change the World: Reflections on Marx and Marxism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hurst, C. E. (1998). Social inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jackman, M. R. and Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38 (5), 569 - 582. Lenski, G. E. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press. Levitsky, S. L. (2009). Introduction. In Marx, K. (Ed.), Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy. (11 - 20). Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. Macionis, J. and Plummer, K. (2012). Sociology: A Global Introduction. Fifth Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Marx, K. (1867). Capital. Volume 1. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Marxists Internet Archive. McCarthy, C. and Logue, J. (2009). Reading against the Grain: examining the status of the categories of class and tradition in the scholarship of British cultural studies in light of contemporary popular culture and literature. Policy Futures in Education, 7 (2), 145 - 160. "6 fNisbet, R. A. (1993). The Sociological Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Pandey, R. (1983). Max Weber's theory of social stratification: controversies, contexts and correctives. Sociological Bulletin, 32 (2), 171 - 203. Parsons, T. (1970). Equality and inequality in modern society, or social stratification revisited. Sociological Inquiry, 40 (2), 13 - 72. Rosenberg, M. (1953). Perceptual obstacles to class consciousness. Social Forces, 32 (1), 22 - 27. Sharma, R. N. and Chandra, S. S. (2004). Advanced Industrial Psychology (Vol. 2). New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. Strässer, H. (1976). The Normative Structure of Sociology: Conservative and Emancipatory Themes in Social Thought. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wallimann, I., Tatsis, N. C. and Zito, G. V. (1977). On Max Weber's definition of power. Journal of Sociology, 13 (3), 231 - 235. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Economic and Social Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkley: University of California Press. Wright, E. O. (1974). To control or to smash bureaucracy: Weber and Lenin on politics, the state, and bureaucracy. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 19 (1), 69 - 108. Wright, E. O. (1979). Class Structure and Income Determination. New York, NY: Academic Press. Wright, E. O. (2002). The shadow of exploitation in Weber's class analysis. American Sociological Review, 67 (6), 832 - 853. Yost, K., Perkins, C., Cohen, R., Morris, C. and Wright, W. (2001). Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes & Control, 12 (8), 703 - 711. Zeitlin, I. M. (1968). Ideology and the development of sociological theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. "7 f
What is social stratification?
From the root word stratum, it can be recognised that social stratification refers to a ranking of people or groups of people within a society (Anurin, 1995: 50 - 65). Social stratification has been an object of analysis of a considerable number of theorists.
What did Marx and Engels argue about the transition from one mode of production to another?
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels (1848: 15) concluded that the process of modes of production changing played a key role in the formation of capitalist bourgeoisie.
Which two philosophers had different views on the determination of social classes and the complexity of stratification?
However, Marx and Weber had different views on the determination of social classes and the complexity of stratification. . . Marx and Engels (1848: 24) defined social classes as economically determined and genetically conflicting groups, where the presence or absence of property serve as the basis of the separation into these groups.
Which theorists highlighted property as a criterion of class differentiation?
Firstly, both theorists highlighted property as a criterion of class differentiation. According to Marx and Weber, society is primarily divided on those who possess the property, and those who do not (Wright, 2002: 832 - 853). However, Marx and Weber had different views on the determination of social classes and the complexity of stratification. .
What is the difference between Marx's theory and Weber's theory?
One of the differences is that Marx's theory captures the class antagonism that is typical for the capitalist economy in mid-nineteenth century, as the theory has been introduced during this period of time . On the contrary, Weber’s theory describes a highly developed capitalism of 20-21th centuries.
What is Marx's structure of society?
Marx’s structure of society is highly polarised and unidimensional (Burris, 1987: 83), as it analyses only proletariat and bourgeoisie, briefly mentioning other social groups in society, that could affect the class conflicts (idem). There are also objective and subjective indicators of the class definition (Jackman and Jackman, 1973: 569 - 582).
What is social stratification?
Social stratification is an overarching trait of a society, beyond individual cases of inequality. The lines between upper and lower classes will be clear and distinct, and the inequality between the two will be consistent. Social stratification persists generationally. Children born into a higher class will likely pass on the wealth, power, ...
How does a stratified society affect the upper class?
In a stratified society, the upper classes will have more access to and control over resources and positions of power, while the lower classes will have far less access and fewer advantages in life.
How does wealth stratify?
Stratification by wealth is often one of the most pervasive types of social stratification, since it becomes much easier for a person to gain and amass more wealth once they are already wealthy , and wealth is easy to pass down from generation to generation. In America in 2019, the 3 richest men in the nation hold as much wealth between them as the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined, which is an extreme example of how much inequality wealth stratification can foster when it is left to grow over years and years.
What is the majority of society stratified by race?
In a society stratified by race, typically the majority group will make up a large portion of the upper classes and enjoy privileges that people of other ethnicities in the lower classes do not have.
What is a society where men are inherently afforded higher privileges and access to power on the basis of?
Gender. A society where men are inherently afforded higher privileges and access to power on the basis of their gender is called a patriarchy. A society where this is true for women instead is called a matriarchy.
Does social stratification persist?
Social stratification persists generationally. Children born into a higher class will likely pass on the wealth, power, and influence of their parents to their own children, and children born into a lower class will likely face overwhelming obstacles to achieve a higher class than their parents.
