Social stratification is a sociological term for 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).

There are four main principles related to social stratification:

1. Stratification is a trait of the society, not the individual. No one person creates stratification even though it shapes all of us.
2. Social stratification persists through generations. In most stratified societies, children will always belong to the same class, caste or social strata as their parents. However, in western societies this has started to change due to the introduction of more social mobility.
3. Stratification is extremely variable in how it orders people. Most cultures place at least some emphasis on economic standing (wealth), but some consider religious or social standing to be more important.
4. Stratification is instrumental in the belief-forming process. Stratification not only places some people above others, it provides legitimacy for the claim.

Social stratification is regarded quite differently by the principal perspectives of sociology. Proponents of structural-functional analysis suggest that since social stratification exists in all societies, a hierarchy must therefore be beneficial in helping to stabilize their existence. Conflict theorists consider the inaccessibility of resources and lack of social mobility in many stratified societies. They conclude, often working from the theories of Karl Marx, that stratification means that working class people are not likely to advance socioeconomically, while the wealthy can continue to exploit the proletariat generation after generation. "the advancement in technology have change the structure of mobility completely" (francois adley)

Though often considered incredible, Anthropologists have confirmed that social stratification is not universal as once thought. Non-stratified egalitarian societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership. The best examples of egalitarian cultures all have hunter-gatherer economies, although not all hunter-gatherers can be considered egalitarian.

Anthropologists identify egalitarian cultures as "Kinship-oriented," because they value social harmony more than wealth or status. These are contrasted with Economically-oriented cultures (including States) in which status is prized, and stratification, competition, and conflict are common. Kinship-oriented cultures actively work to prevent social hierarchies from developing which could lead to conflict and instability.

A good example is given by Richard B. Lee's[1] account of the !Kung San, who practice "insulting the meat." Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then distributed evenly among the entire social group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is proportional to the size of the kill--Lee found this out the hard way when he purchased an entire cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased for weeks afterward about it (since obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing off).

Another example is the Australian Aborigines of Northwest Arnhem Land (and perhaps elsewhere in Australia), who have arranged their entire society, spirituality, and economy around a kind of mutual charity called renunciation. In this arrangement, every person is expected to give everything of any consumable resource they have to any other person who needs or lacks it at the time. This has the benefit of totally eliminating social problems like theft, poverty, and perhaps war. However, misunderstandings obviously arise when attempting to reconcile Aboriginal renunciative economics with the competition/scarcity-oriented economics introduced to Australia by Anglo-European colonists.

Lewis Henry Morgan's accounts of the egalitarian natives of Hawaii formed part of Marx's inspiration for Communism. But Marx's frame of reference was the highly stratified, economically-oriented society of industrial Europe. So, even though Marx was concerned with equality, his philosophy emphasizes materialism, economics, and politics. These are all non-issues in an egalitarian society, where material and political fairness result naturally from well-maintained, mostly non-competitive social relationships (kinship).

The basic differences in attitude between Kinship-oriented and Economically-oriented societies may, in part, explain the some of the difficulties met when implementing socialist ideals in an already stratified culture.

1. Lee, Richard B. (1976), Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Caste system
• Social inequality
• Elitism
• Theodor Geiger
• Marxism
• Three-component theory of stratification