Social Stratification (SS)

Social mobility (SM)

SM refers to the movement of people up or down the social order. Individuals or groups can move from one level to another level in the stratification system, and this process is SM.

Individuals, who gain property, power, prestige, and thus improve their living conditions are said to display upward mobility. An example is a college professor whose father was an automobile worker.

Individuals who lose property, power and prestige, and do not live as well or stylishly as they/their parents once did are said to display downward mobility. A sales clerk whose father was a judge is an example.

Apart from the above two forms, SM can take other forms. In short, here is the picture:

If an auto mechanic becomes a bank officer = upward mobility.

If an auto mechanic becomes a garbage collector = downward mobility.

If an auto mechanic becomes a restaurant manager = horizontal mobility.

If at the age of 31, Mr Zahir was a clerk but at the age of 31 his son Mr Wasim is a magistrate = intergenerational mobility.

Open and closed systems in SS

Stratified systems are of two kinds — open and close. It is because; the degree of social mobility varies across countries. In a closed system, a person’s position in the hierarchy is ascribed; in an open system, status is achieved.

CLOSED SYSTEM

In a closed system, the chance of upward mobility is extremely limited.

The caste system in India is a classic example of closed system. According to ancient Hindu legends, the sacrifice of man-god Purusha created the universe. Purusha, and all Indian society, was divided into four. His mouth became the Brahmin caste (the priest and the scholars); his arms became the Kshatriya caste (nobles and warriors); his thighs became the Vaisya caste (merchants and traders); and his feet became the Sudra caste (the peasants, laborers and artisans).

Brahmins constitute 3% of the population while Kshatriyas & the Vaisyas 7%. The Sudras are 70%. The rest 20% of the population are the Harijans or the “Untouchables” (sweepers, scavengers, leather workers and swine-herds). They have no statuses at all as per the caste system. They are literally ‘outcastes’.

Caste determines not only the social standing of the Hindus but also their function in life (occupation). “Caste purity” is of great concern among the members of higher castes. Marriage between members of different castes and activities like eating/sitting together are strictly forbidden.

[ I have personally experienced this issue in many ways during my stay in New Delhi. I was friends to a Bangalee couple—the boy from Vaisya caste (he was a Chowdhury) and the girl from Brahmin caste (she was a Chakravarty)—who spend 4 years together as diehard lovers, and when it came to marrying each other, she unhesitatingly ditched the boy to marry a Brahmin boy (a Bhattacharya) of her parent’s choice in Kolkata.

Then in another occasion, a boy named Battilal Baiwara from Rajsthan was the president of SFI—Students’ Federation of India—the student wing of Jyoti Basu’s party CPM. Battilal came from Sudra caste in Rajsthan. I used to see how the different ‘high caste’ student leaders of SFI kept on jeering at Battila behind his back for his Sudra background. What amazed me was, these student leaders of SFI were all highly educated—doing Ph.D. in subjects like Economics, Sociology, Environmental Science etc. … They called themselves Marxists-Leninists … yet, they maintained this type of hateful mentality. Imagine now ordinary peoples’ inter-class attitude! ]

The only way to social mobility between castes in the Hindu system is through reincarnation. Birth into higher caste is believed to be a reward for correct behavior in one’s previous life.

In closed systems, therefore, social status is ascribed: People are assigned a permanent and arbitrary social status on the basis of issues over which they have no control—like blood relationships (i.e. if someone is the son of a Brahmin or a Harijan that is not his fault), skin color (i.e. why someone is born in a black or brown family is beyond his control), gender or age. In this system, individual ability and effort do not count at all.

Due to the existence of such a closed system in Indian Hindu society, several obvious after-effects are happening. What are those? In the job sector, “quota system” is there which is hampering appointments on the basis of merit. Say, in 10 vacant posts 10 competent Indians should have gotten the appointments irrespective of caste or creed or religion. All could be Brahmins or all could be Sudras or Harijans (they are called “Dalits” in modern terminology) given their abilities. But that is not happening. Brahmins and other high caste people are getting 9 posts and a Sudra or a Dalit is getting the rest one post—whereas there could be 4 more competent Sudras or Dalits left out who were better than some Brahmin candidates! Discontent among the various castes keep on perpetuating in all other aspects of Indian society.

Do you remember what happened in India while trying to implement the Mondal Commission Report which proposed the increase of quota for lower caste Indians in jobs? As the Prime Minister, when V. P. Singh decided to implement the Commission’s proposal, all higher caste Hindus came out in the street and launched a severe protest against the government. A bunch of higher caste Hindu youths set fire in their bodies and committed suicide on the streets of Delhi. As a result, government had to withdraw its decision.

This example can be a classic display of the inhumane ‘higher caste attitude’ toward the lower castes—proving the fact that human beings can never be treated equal when it comes to the conflict of interest. Powerful and the “prestigious” people will always maintain their supremacy over the powerless and “prestige-less” ones—no matter what the consequences are.

Dalits were not allowed to walk on their shoes near Brahmins’ houses. They were also not allowed to enter temples where high caste Hindus went. If by chance any Dalit entered a Brahmin’s house or a temple, it would be counted an “act of impurity” and instantly the purification would be done by cleaning the house or the temple by Ganga-jawl (water of the Ganges). Not only that, the ‘criminal’ Dalit would be punished socially.

(Read Sharat Chandra Chattopadhya’s novels/stories to understand these kinds of events. Sharat Chandra, himself being a high class rich Brahmin, took the side of the lower caste people and portrayed a wonderful picture of Brahmin cruelties and oppression. His writings were an eye-opener for the greater society.)

Conversion to Buddhism and later Islam by lower caste Hindus occurred in many areas—especially Bengal—due to these oppressive situations like this.

OPEN SYSTEM

In contrast, open system tries to reduce he obstacles to social mobility by providing equal opportunity to all. In this system, people can change their status with relative ease.

The American society is a good example of this system (Bangladesh too fall in this system in several respects). Most Americans subscribe the belief that all individuals are equal in the eyes of God. American tradition emphasizes individualism, hard work, competition and freedom of choice. Theoretically, people are free to be whatever they want to be. Everyone is given the same political and legal rights in the constitution. Class differences are attributed to differential achievement—especially economic pursuits. Sociologists compared this system with a giant marathon race with a few first prizes, more second prizes, and a lot of third prizes.

(What about Bangladesh? Hamid sir and Borendra sir said: ours is a 100-meter race with many first prizes, no second prizes, and billions of third prizes. Significant, isn’t it?)

‘The American Dream’ portrays a society in which all people can change and improve their conditions easily. Nearly two-thirds of the Americans believe that they have a good chance of getting ahead in the years to come. Today, some 79% think that they are more likely to succeed than their fathers (compared to 69% in 1939). And 66% believes that the next generation’s opportunities will be even better than theirs.

“Abe Lincoln” (Abraham Lincoln) is the American folk hero. He was the “poor guy who made good”, the “rail-splitter” who worked hard and eventually moved “from the log cabin to the White House.”

However, you should keep in mind that the American Dream in reality is not as it sounds. The ideals are not always materialized because American society assigns statuses on the basis of gender. Race and age as well.

But still, in America one’s chances of upward mobility are better than many societies of the world.

Research on American Social Mobility

The most impressive studies of SM in the USA have been done by Peter M. Blau and Otis Duncan (1972), and more recently by David Featherman and Robert Hauser (1978).

The summary of their research revealed the following results:

· About 50% of the American men are immobile, remaining to their fathers’ stratum.

· About 25% are upwardly mobile—moving from farm or blue-collar jobs (jobs of lower status) to white-collar jobs (high/prestigious jobs).

· Another 10% is downwardly mobile—moving from white-collar jobs to blue-collar jobs. And 15% move from farms to blue-collar jobs.

Two primary explanations have been given for the higher rate of upward mobility.

· First, the occupational structure has been changing. With technological advancements, more jobs were created toward the top of the occupational structure than toward the bottom. Thus more people were needed in the top positions.

· Second, fertility plays a role—with white-collar father’s generation fewer sons and blue-collar generating more sons. It means, high-occupation fathers producing fewer sons for the high-ranking jobs—leaving a good number of high-ranking jobs vacant. So there is more room toward the top where the bottom people can proceed.

Social Mobility in industrialized societies

Sociological studies reveal one interesting thing.

No modern society in the world allows all its members to achieve their desired social statuses. In all industrialized societies, a family’s class position plays a big part in determining the status placement of children.

And also, no modern society in the world denies all its male members the chance to be upwardly mobile. In all industrial nations, a large portion of males have moved up or down between generations. In USA, France, Sweden, Hungary, Netherlands, inter-generational mobility chances has systematically increased.

(To avoid any confusions, thanda mathaye bishoyta bujhte cheshta koroon…did you get the point inter-generational mobility? Good.)

Regarding the rates of occupational mobility between the blue-collar and the white-collar classes, there is hardly any difference among the industrialized countries. The speed of economic progress in these countries affect the rates—because once the people leave aside their rural backgrounds and become urban, it is only a matter of “how well I can adjust with the competition and improve my position”.

SM rates between capitalist and socialist nations

However, comparison of mobility-rates between capitalist and socialist nations can be an interesting observation. During the era of communist regimes, a study was done between 6 socialist states (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania) and 7 capitalist states (Australia, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, West Germany and the USA).

It showed that in communist states, 29.2% manual workers were upwardly mobile to non-manual jobs. And in capitalist states, this was 28.2%. Not much difference, but the upward mobility was higher in communist states.