Social Stratification

Introduction Social stratification is one of the important sociological concepts especially in Bangladesh where many of the socio-economic perspectives of social life depend on this. Traditionally Bangladesh is the country which is hugely influenced its traditions, heritage, culture, social norms and values. Social stratification in this is vastly manifested by the traditional social structure. It is argued that the social feature in this regard has been changed due to education, community awareness, women empowerment, and above all globalization. This paper looks first the conceptual analysis and then explains how the existing social stratification impacts on the socioeconomic and cultural life of Bangladeshi people. What is social stratification? The definition of social stratification is varied across the disciplines. In sociology, social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of social classes, castes and strata within a society. While these hierarchies are not universal to all societies, they are the norm among state-level cultures (as distinguished from hunter-gatherers or other social arrangements). Stratification is a hierarchy of positions with regard to economic production which influences the social rewards to those in the positions. It is the hierarchical arrangement and establishment of social categories that may evolve into social groups and statuses and their corresponding roles. It refers to a patterned inequality-the division of society in such a way that some people get more rewards than others. Social stratification is found in all human groups and tends to be transmitted from one generation to another. It makes ranking some individuals and groups as more deserving than others; from this a social hierarchy is formed which is a set of ranked statuses from highest to lowest. It is a form of inequality in which categories of people are systematically ranked in a hierarchy on the basis of their access to scarce but valued resources. This is different from social inequality which is a condition in which people have unequal access to wealth, power and prestige; and social differentiation which is a process in which people are set apart for differential treatment by virtue of their statuses, roles, and other social characteristics. It refers to the ranking of individuals and groups in any given society.

Davis and Moore are interested in the relationship between stratification and the rest of the social order. Stratification is defined as the unequal rights and perquisites of different positions in a society. They are interested in the system of positions in society and not the individuals occupying those positions. Their approach is strictly functionalist in that they argue that is a society is to survive, then a functionally efficient means of fitting talented individuals to occupations must develop. Stratification supplies this mechanism. Stratification can be defined various ways, but most commonly refers to institutionalized inequalities in power, wealth, and status between categories 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? 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. However, the definition of social stratification depends on the particular countrys social-economic, religions, race, caste, and political situation. For example, we can see that on the basis of race Indian society is stratified in different forms; it is also true that there is different stratification on the basis of religions and even on the basis of race. In Bangladesh this picture is bit different as we can see that the properties/ economical condition, heredity, and political influences are much stronger here. 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. These two views give diametrically opposite interpretations of most aspects of social stratification. What are the five basic viewpoints on why stratification exists? Natural inevitability which suggests that inequality exists because of natural differences in people's abilities and is a just system. Structural -functionalist who states that stratification is useful to society because it enhances stability and induces members of the society to work hard. Conflict which suggests that stratification occurs through conflict between different classes, with the upper classes using superior power to take a larger share of the social resources. Evolutionary which states that people will share enough resources to ensure the survival of the group until a surplus exists at which time power determines how the surplus is distributed. Symbolic Interactionist which calls attention to the importance of symbolic displays of wealth and power that influence one's definition of self and the importance of ideas in defining social situations.

The theories of Social Stratification

For centuries, sociologists have analyzed social stratification, its root causes, and its effects on society. Theorists Karl Marx and Max Weber disagreed about the nature of class, in particular. Other sociologists applied traditional frameworks to stratification. Karl Marx based his conflict theory on the idea that modern society has only two classes of people: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production: the factories, businesses, and equipment needed to produce wealth. The proletariat are the workers. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies exploit workers. The owners pay them enough to afford food and a place to live, and the workers, who do not realize they are being exploited, have a false consciousness, or a mistaken sense, that they are well off. They think they can count on their capitalist bosses to do what was best for them. Marx foresaw a workers revolution. As the rich grew richer, Marx hypothesized that workers would develop a true class consciousness, or a sense of shared identity based on their common experience of exploitation by the bourgeoisie. The workers would unite and rise up in a global revolution. Once the dust settled after the revolution, the workers would then own the means of production, and the world would become communist. No one stratum would control the access to wealth. Everything would be owned equally by everyone. Marxs vision did not come true. As societies modernized and grew larger, the working classes became more educated, acquiring specific job skills and achieving the kind of financial well-being that Marx never thought possible. Instead of increased exploitation, they came under the protection of unions and labor laws. Skilled factory workers and tradespeople eventually began to earn salaries that were similar to, or in some instances greater than, their middle-class counterparts. Max Weber took issue with Marxs seemingly simplistic view of stratification. Weber argued that owning property, such as factories or equipment, is only part of what determines a persons social class. Social class for Weber included power and prestige, in addition to property or wealth. People who run corporations without owning them still benefit from increased production and greater profits. Weber argued that property can bring prestige, since people tend to hold rich people in high regard. Prestige can also come from other sources, such as athletic or intellectual ability. In those instances, prestige can lead to property, if people are willing to pay for access to prestige. For Weber, wealth and prestige are intertwined. Weber

believed that social class is also a result of power, which is merely the ability of an individual to get his or her way, despite opposition. Wealthy people tend to be more powerful than poor people, and power can come from an individuals prestige. Sociologists still consider social class to be a grouping of people with similar levels of wealth, prestige, and power. Sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore believed that stratification serves an important function in society. In any society, a number of tasks must be accomplished. Some tasks, such as cleaning streets or serving coffee in a restaurant, are relatively simple. Other tasks, such as performing brain surgery or designing skyscrapers, are complicated and require more intelligence and training than the simple tasks. Those who perform the difficult tasks are therefore entitled to more power, prestige, and money. Davis and Moore believed that an unequal distribution of societys rewards is necessary to encourage people to take on the more complicated and important work that required many years of training. They believed that the rewards attached to a particular job reflect its importance to society. Social Stratification and its impacts on Bangladeshi society The social stratification in Bangladesh is very much influenced by its roots and traditions. Although the dynamics of religion largely shaped the context of its development, the relevance of economic and political factors is no less significant. The Hindu society in Bengal was built along the caste lines although the widely known four-fold classification
BRAHMAN, KSATRIYA , VAISYA

and

SUDRA

did not emerge in

the classical manner. The two middle castes, Ksatriya and Vaisya, were not visible in the way they were in other parts of India. In Bengal the main caste division was between the Brahmans and the non-Brahmans. The latter category was the admixture of different sub-castes that emerged through unregulated interactions of different castes. The Brahmans occupied the highest position of the social ladder. As there were geographical divisions among the Brahmans ( RADHA and Barendra Brahman), there was another category called Kaibarta Brahman. Some proverb says that the local Brahmans were not skilled in Brahman.
VEDAS

and that vacuum was filled in by

the Brahmans who migrated from northern India and became known as Kaibarta

The non-Brahman sub-castes were broadly divided into three hierarchical categories: superior admixture, medium admixture and inferior admixture. The first category included twenty sub-castes, including karan or kayastha (writer), ambastha or baidya (traditional physician),
TANTI

(weavers), ugra (warrior) and others. The

SWARNAKAR

second category included twelve sub-castes like

(goldsmith), dhibor
CHANDAL

(fishermen) etc. And the last category included nine sub-castes like were the untouchables.

(persons

cremating corpses), chamar (cobblers) and others. Members of the last category

Some British colonial administrators first pointed out that the Muslim social stratification in India was patterned after the Hindu Caste System. However, it remained a matter of debate how far the basic principles of caste system (purity/pollution, commensality, endogamy, or hereditary occupation) had determined the Muslim stratification pattern. James Wise identified eighty castes among the Muslims as early as the nineteenth century, while Gait found only three. The latter noticed the clustering of social strata. The three broad clusters included Ashraf or higher class Muslims, Ajlaf or lower class Muslims, and Arzal or the degraded classes. The first cluster consisted of Sayed, Sheikh, Pathan and Mughal, while the next two incorporated as many as fifty occupational castes. It was noted that endogamy or intra-caste was followed among Muslims.

MARRIAGE

The presence of higher caste Muslims in Bengal was much less significant than what it was in the upper part of India. Social hierarchy among Muslims of Bengal was less pronounced. Some believed that the majority of the Bengal Muslims were the converts from the lower caste Hindus; hence steep hierarchy could not emerge among them. One important consequence of the less rigidity of Muslim stratification pattern was the opportunity for mobility among the castes. It was possible for a lower caste Muslim to move into the higher position. Such mobility was largely propelled by the accumulation of wealth. The flexibility of Muslim social stratification derived its dynamics from a different ideological pattern known as sharafati. It alluded to the noble background of a person. It was more to do with one's pedigree than any deep religious ideology like Hindu caste system. According to Hindu religious myth, the four castes originated from the four different parts of Brahman, the supreme lord. It was also predicted

that the Brahman caste emanated from the head, while the Sudra, the lowest caste from the feet. On the contrary,
ISLAM

did not offer any such interpretation on the

origin of caste. As a result, mobility in Muslim stratification could have been possible particularly owing to the fact that one could manouvre the history of pedigree. Agrarian structure played the most important role from an earlier period in the making of social stratification what gradually assumed the present shape. The largest bulk of the population lived in the countryside with a small urban counterpart. Those living in the countryside primarily derived subsistence from
ZAMINDARs AGRICULTURE ,

and

therefore, one cannot ignore the social relationship grown out of agrarian structure. or the revenue collectors were the most powerful class in the agrarian structure since the pre-colonial time in Bengal and the new colonial land policy of 1793 did not disturb the basic equilibrium. There was change of hands in land ownership but the class did not disappear. Below the class of zamindar there was a vast peasant cultivator class. Subsequent land policy in the colonial period, particularly the sub-infeudation (MADHYASVATVAS or pattanidari) created intermediate rent collecting interests resulting in the emergence of numerous agrarian layers, known as Jotedar, Gantidar, Howladar, or Talukdar, or Bhuiyan, etc. The aggregate effect of introducing different land tenure measures was the emergence of a highly stratified society based on land interests. Agrarian society during the colonial time also witnessed the emergence of a rich peasant class who happened to occupy an important position in social stratification. At least one specific development created the pre-condition for the emergence of rich/proto-capitalist peasants: the market integration of Bengal agriculture with the global economy particularly with the onset of
INDIGO

and

JUTE

cultivation. The rich

peasant class enjoyed economic wealth and power in rural society. On the other hand, agrarian society during colonial time also went through the process of proletarianisation/pauperisation with the consequent emergence of landless class. While different land tenure measures influenced the class composition of the agrarian structure and in turn social stratification, the growing capitalisation facilitated the emergence of agricultural wage workers. The social stratification pattern that emerged during the colonial time comprised the superior landed class, landed intermediaries with several layers, rich peasants/proto-capitalists, poor

peasants/sharecroppers, and agricultural working class coming from the landless and marginal peasants. With the introduction of British rule in the urban areas important changes took place at the level of urban social stratification. A pristine
BHADRALOK

or gentlemen class

consisted of educated professionals (lawyers, teachers, doctors, engineers, service holders and others) emerged in urban Bengal reaping the benefits from the new educational and occupational opportunities. On the other hand, the size of the newly emerged business class was small and characteristically not comparable with the bourgeois counterpart of the West. Earlier, the social status enjoyed by the traders or
BANIANs

was lesser than the higher caste like the Brahmans and it changed during

the colonial time. Business class also became educated and the vice versa. Landed aristocracy became the frontrunners among the bhadralok. In terms of lifestyle and values they presented novel characteristics. In the arenas of art, culture and politics their novelties were prominent. One of the significant developments immediately after the partition of the subcontinent was the abolition of zamindari land system in Bangladesh. Since historically most zamindars came from the Hindu community, their migration to India after partition created a sort of vacuum in social structure. The Muslim traditional wealthy class linked to agriculture came to occupy that vacuum, although it was a fact that their size was minuscule. The same period also witnessed the strengthening of the process of emergence of a rich peasant/agraricultural capitalist class owing to the introduction of agricultural modernisation in the early 1950s and they became strong contenders for the upper echelon of social stratification. Another important class that emerged was the educated Muslim middle class who also mastered sufficient status in society and came to be known as Muslim bhadralok just before and following the partition. Traditional institutions like lineage or gushti continued to function during Bangladesh period. One cannot, however, ignore the difference between rural and urban stratification pattern in this regard. Rural social stratification has been fashioned after the status of the economic classes. Wealth is the important determinant of social status. Land ownership is an important variable for wealth. There are other manifestations of social status. For example, service holders, teachers and

professionals in many areas enjoy higher social status as the member of the educated class. Nevertheless, material wealth overrides other elements in determining social status. A person may hold 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. 7. Complex economic division of labor (occupational specialization) The capitalist farmers in Bangladesh are wealthy, own land and technology, hire outside labour and carry out cultivation for the market. Rich peasants are also wealthy and hire outside labour but they are still engaged in cultivation. Middle peasants are primarily subsistence cultivators with occasional market participation and primarily depending on household labour. Marginal peasants combine cultivation and labour sale to ensure subsistence. The landless people are the wage workers primarily engaged in agriculture. About three-fourths of rural households belong to the categories of marginal peasants and landless. The effect of 'pauperisation', the process that results in the emergence of landless households without adequate employment, is found quite significant in rural Bangladesh. In rural stratification there are other traditional groups such as (blacksmiths),
SWARNAKARs KAMARs

(goldsmiths), sweepers,

TANTIs

(weavers),

KALUs

(oil

pressers, and others who enjoy minimum status. The roles of some of these groups are now taken over by the professional producers. For example, edible oil comes from the mill. Economic status of a rural household is found to be subject to mobility when examined over a long span of time. There are different forces what result in the changes of the economic condition of rural households. Many surplus producing rural households gradually turned into subsistence and later deficit households. On the other hand, many deficit households gradually became surplus ones. Market forces, demographic forces, inheritance laws, household splitting are some of the important factors causing such mobility.

The rural social stratification in Bangladesh has not always been reflected in the differences of lifestyles, customs, norms and languages of different classes. Common features in dresses or languages sometimes blur the differences manifested in social status. For example, lungi and shirt are the dresses worn by the rural people irrespective of economic differentiation, though the very poor often do not use shirts simply because they can not buy them. Social festivals and ceremonies like
FITR EID-UL

and

EID-UL AZHA

are marked by the spirit of community. The notion of samaj or

community spirit in the countryside reduces the effect of social division. Patron-client relationship also to some extent establishes the relationship between the rich and the poor. Khandan or lineage status is also taken into account. For example, Chowdhury, Khandakar, Syed, etc. are known as aristocratic or khandani gushti. At the time of establishment of matrimonial relationship, the rich prefer the rich. The differences in social stratification are interpreted by the differences in material prosperity. Lavish living and extravagant expenses indicate one's wealth accompanied by status and power. However, upper strata are gradually becoming educated, and a social difference between the educated and non-educated is emerging. Gradually, a bhadralok class may also appear in the countryside with a distinct lifestyle based on modern education, etiquette and culture. The urban social stratification is beset with important regional variation. While most district towns are still small and backward, a few are relatively advanced. Three cities, Dhaka, Chittagong and Khulna, incorporate large industrial and commercial units along with a vibrant service sector. Cosmopolitanism has come to shape the nature of social stratification of the community living in those large cities. Modern classes like corporate executives, civil bureaucrats, professionals, intellectuals, art workers, industrialists and businessmen emerged in the urban areas. A large labour force engaged in both formal and informal sectors also characterise the urban population. Wealth and education largely determine urban social status. The traditional factor like lineage background has reduced to a level of minimum significance. Urban lifestyles, dresses, etiquette etc vary along class lines as well as the recreational activities. A survey conducted in the late 1980s revealed that the heads of 43.4% households of Dhaka city were salaried professionals working in government offices, corporations, banks and private firms and it also included teachers, doctors, lawyers

10

and others. The class composed of large business, medium business and small business constituted 36.7% while low skill or no skill workers constituted 12.5%. Another 7.4% was found without any formal occupational involvement and they comprised housewives, students, unemployed and others. One can stratify the above four classes into two broad groups and assume that the former two are higher status groups and the latter two lower status groups. Business people command wealth and subsequently social status. There is a very close association between social status and power. The business people significantly control politics. However, all politically powerful people do not enjoy social status in the eyes of the common people. Educated people enjoy a fair social status despite the fact that they are not always rich. The person who can successfully combine wealth and education surpasses others in terms of enjoying social status. Artists in different branches of art also enjoy status. Social status enjoyed by the wealthy and the educated are not always very clearly distinguishable. To some extent the underlying norm of a community comes to play a role in determining to whom they will assign more social status. It should not be ignored that wealth does not always ensure social status. For example, if a person is involved in some kind of activities stigmatised in the eyes of the society, his wealth matters a little in the determination of his social status. Recently, mastans (hooligans) emerged as a social category in both urban and rural areas. They command wealth and power but are looked down upon by the society. There are differences in the lifestyles of the different groups of people living in big cities of Bangladesh. For example, the rich spend pastime in restaurants, clubs and shopping centres, while the middle class people watch television, visit parks and zoos or watch sports in stadiums, and the poor often go to cinema halls, take drugs, or drink country liquor. The rich and the middle wear relatively expensive urban fashionable dresses. They speak refined Bengali and English. Taking part by the middle class people in different performing arts has now become the symbol of status in urban society. Despite the fact that poor industrialization, illiteracy and
POVERTY

mark the socio-economic condition of Bangladesh society, processes have

been taking place rapidly towards a transition from traditional to modern social structure.

11

The present/recent frame of social stratification in Bangladesh has changed and reshaped newly. The main element of this stratification process vastly emerged by the three (as follows) main factors: Politics, properties/land/finance and education. This scarification system is significantly influenced by overall socio-economic conditions in Bangladesh. Figure: Present form of social stratification in Bangladesh:

Modern social Stratification in Bangladesh

Politics

Properties/Land Finance

Education

Source: Prepared by author This form of stratification is currently created some sub-sector stratification. Especially political power comes to the frontier and hold huge power on the Bangladeshi society. The people who are less educated and have more political power are controlling many aspects of our life. On the other hand economical well being/ hold more properties and rich people are still a very big dominant group in Bangladesh. Education recent gets very good influence on the society. The educated people are good regard in the society. The general image of the educated people to the society is going up over time. The educated people are holding god job, getting more power and controlling our social life. Conclusions

Social stratification is a complex concept which is being manifested by different components of social life. The Bangladeshi society is much more dominated by the traditions, heritage, culture and social processes. Through the recent feature has changed the styles and forms of social stratification. Still the finance/property and politics are more dominates in this aspect. But it is also remarkable that education is coming as significant component as they are holding good position and control on the mass people in Bangladesh.

12