FACULTY OF ARTS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, NAIROBI, KENYA

ENDURING THEMES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY SINCE AUGUSTE COMTE

1

ENDURING THEMES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY SINCE AUGUSTE COMTE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Concepts/Definitions:Enduring refers to a norm which has been sustained over a longperiod of time. A Theme singles out a specific topic or ideasclustered together. A Theory is a statement which systematicallyexplains how and why specific facts are related. Sociology as asubject or a science discipline focuses on the study of humansociety, relationships, social patterns and processes as well asseeking explanations and meanings of these interactions within anindividual human as well as societal content.

1.2 Auguste Comte’s View of Sociological TheoryAs a descendant of the French Enlightenment, Comte was knows andthe father of sociology. He was impressed, as were many of thephilosophies, with the Newtonian revolution. Thus, he argued fora particular view of sociological theory: All phenomena aresubject to invariable natural laws, and sociologists must usetheir observations to uncover the laws governing the socialuniverse, in much the same way as Newton had formulated the lawof gravity. Comte thus held a vision of sociological theory asbased on the model of the natural sciences, particularly thephysics of his time. For this reason, he preferred the term ‘socialphysics’ to ‘sociology’.

Born in 1798, he rejected religion and royalty, focusing insteadon the study of society, which he named "sociology." He broke thesubject into two categories: the forces holding society together("social statics") and those driving social change ("social

2

dynamics"). Comte's ideas and use of scientific methods greatlyadvanced the field.

1.3 Social StaticsComte defined social statics as the study of social structure,its elements, and their relations. He first analyzed“individuals” as the elements of social structure. Generally, heviewed the individual as a series of capacities and needs, someinnate and others acquired through participation in society. Hedid not view the individual as a “true social unit”; indeed, herelegated the study of the individual to biology—an unfortunateoversight because it denied the legitimacy of psychology as adistinct social science. The most basic social unit, he argued,is “the family.” It is the most elementary unit, from which allother social units ultimately evolved.

1.4 Social DynamicsSocial dynamics is the study of the “laws of succession" or thepatterns of change in social systems over time. In this context,Comte felt that one of the most basic laws of human organizationwas the “law of the three stages,” a notion clearly borrowed fromother early scholars like Turgot, Condorcet, and Saint-Simon. Hetermed these stages the theological–military (fictitious), metaphysical–judicial(Abstract), and scientific–industrial or “positivistic.” Thus, the theological–military stage is dominated by ideas that refer to thesupernatural while being structured around slavery and themilitary. The metaphysical–judicial stage, which follows from thetheological and represents a transition to the scientific, istypified by ideas that refer to the fundamental essences ofphenomena and by elaborate political and legal forms. Thescientific–industrial stage is dominated by the “positivephilosophy of science” and industrial patterns of socialorganization.

3

Positivism consists in observing phenomena, in analyzing them, indiscovering laws governing the relations among them. Thesociology which Comte offers is the study of the laws ofhistorical development. Observation and comparison will somehowbe controlled by the dominant theories of Comte's thought, by hisconception of statics to comprehend the structure of society anddynamics to comprehend the broad outlines of society.

In essence, Comte’s career had two phases:

(1) The early scientific stage where he argued persuasively for ascience of society and was the toast of continental Europe for abrief time and

(2) A later phase when he tried to make science a new religionfor the reconstruction of society.

The first phase culminated in his famous, ‘Course of PositivePhilosophy’, a monumental five-volume work that was publishedserially between 1830 and 1842. The second phase was marked byComte’s personal frustrations and tragedy that found expressionin ‘System of Positive Polity’ published between 1851 and 1854. Even asComte went over the deep end, he retained a firm belief thatdiscovery of the laws governing the operation of human societiesshould be used to reconstruct society.

1.5 Comte’s Organization of SociologyComte saw sociology as an extension of biology, which studies the“organs” in “organisms.” Hence, sociology was to be the study ofsocial organization. This emphasis forces the recognition thatsociety is an “organic whole” whose component “organs” stand inrelation to one another. To study these parts in isolation is toviolate the essence of social organization and tocompartmentalize inquiry artificially. As Comte emphasized,“there can be no scientific study of society, either in itsconditions or its movements, if it is separated into portions and

4

its divisions are studied apart.” Implicit in this mode ofanalysis is a theoretical approach that later became known asfunctionalism.

If sociology could be viewed as the culmination of a longevolutionary process and as the culmination of the positivesciences, its legitimacy could not be questioned. Such wasComte’s goal, and although he was only marginally successful inhis efforts, he was the first to see clearly that sociology couldbe like the other sciences and that it would be only a matter oftime until the old theological and metaphysical residues ofearlier social thought were cast aside in favor of a true scienceof society. This advocacy, which takes up the majority of pagesin Positive Philosophy, rightly ensures Comte’s claim to being thefounder of sociological theory.

When talking about ‘Enduring Themes in Sociological Theory since AugusteComte’ we address topics, key ideas, concepts or core subjectsthat have dominated discussions within the context of sociologyby the classical and contemporary theorists e.g. Comte as well asmodernity and post modernity scholars in the course ofsystematically analyzing and explaining sociology. Those themesinclude exploitations and stability; optimism and pessimism;consensus for continuity and consensus for discontinuity; as wellas class struggle.

These themes major of various core aspects that entail the wholefocus of sociological concepts. They are;

1. Exploitation and Oppression2. Alienation3. Evolution4. Stratification Vs Mobility5. Social change

5

6. Reality of Social Hierarchy

2.0 EXPLOITATION AND OPPRESSION (CONFLICT THEORY)

2.1 Background TheoriesVarious scientists have given definitive perspectives ofexploitation. Charles Tilly (2000) defines exploitation as "Aninequality-generating mechanism we may call exploitation occurswhen persons who control a resource a) enlist the effort ofothers in production of value by means of that resource, but b)exclude the others from the full value added by their effort."

Exploitation is the act of using people’s labors to produce profitwhile not compensating them fairly. People who work in sweatshops are exploited. Although they are paid for their efforts andtoils, they are not paid a fair wage considering how much moneythey make for the company. Miners in Africa are also exploitedwhen they have to rent their mining tools everyday. If theseminers find nothing of value on any given day, then they owe forthe supply rental and are not paid for their efforts.

Exploitation uses capitalism to oppress. The economic theory ofcapitalism states that people are free to exchange goods freely.Yet, whenever this has happens throughout history, it has createddifferent classes of people: wealthy and poor. Karl Marx, thefather of socialism, said that capitalism creates “haves” (thosethat have wealth) and “have-nots” (those that do not havewealth). Typically in a capitalistic society, the “haves” end upexploiting the “have-nots” for their hard work. Therefore,exploitation creates a system that perpetuates class differences,keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer.

We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid ofthe rulers or by making some new laws, because oppressions are

6

systematically reproduced in the major economic, political, andcultural institutions. While specific privileged groups are thebeneficiaries of the oppression of other groups, and thus have aninterest in the continuation of the status quo, they do nottypically understand themselves to be agents of oppression.”(Deutsch, 2006)

Harvey (1999) has used the term “civilized oppression” tocharacterize the everyday processes of oppression in normal life.Civilized oppression “is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits,and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions andrules, and the collective consequences of following those rules.”

Charlton (1998) states, “oppression occurs when individuals aresystematically subjected to political, economic, cultural, orsocial degradation because they belong to a social group…resultsfrom structures of domination and subordination and,correspondingly, ideologies of superiority and inferiority.” Assuch it should be recognizes that “for every social category thatis privileged, one or more other categories are oppressed inrelation to it. The concept of oppression points to social forcesthat tend to press upon people and hold them down, to hem them inand block their pursuits of a good life. Just as privilege tendsto open doors of opportunity, oppression tends to slam themshut.” (Johnson, 2000a)

It refers to the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as aconsequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions ofwell-meaning people in ordinary interactions that are supportedby the media and cultural stereotypes as well as by thestructural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and marketmechanisms” (Young, 1990, p. 41).

7

2.2 Contextual Applications of Exploitation and Oppression

2.2.1 Class Context or ClassismClassism is differential treatment based on social class orperceived social class. Classism is the systematic oppression ofsubordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen thedominant class groups. It’s the systematic assignment ofcharacteristics of worth and ability based on social class.“Classism,” is a system of social oppression that operates onmultiple social levels and that embraces both structures andhuman agency.

Oppression, whether based on gender, race, or class, takes placeon multiple levels including the institutional (macro),intergroup (meso), and personal (micro) levels of socialinteraction. At all three levels structures and human agency areinteractive, that is structures constrain the choices and actionsof individuals while individual choice and action are at the sametime determinant of structures (Kandal, 1996).

Class relations within Marxist class analysis define the rightsand powers people have with respect to the various resources thatare used in production. When we say that a capitalist “owns” afactory we are specifying a set of rights and powers of thecapitalist over this complex set of resources. When we sayworkers “own their labor power” we mean that they have the rightsand powers over this resource and can therefore sell it on alabor market.

“Rights and powers” define relations among people, not simply arelation between a person and a thing: if I own land I have thepower to exclude you from access to it.

As a short hand Marxists often say that class relations aredefined by the “social relations of production”, but this really

8

means, “by the social relations that define the rights and powerspeople have with respect to the system of production”

There are a number of reasons why elaborating the concept ofclass in terms of exploitation has theoretical pay-offs beyondthe specific normative agenda of Marxist class analysis itself:Linking exchange and production, Conflict, Power, Coercion and consent andHistorical/comparative analysis.

2.2.2 Sexual ContextAcross the world, sexuality is a common example of culturalimperialism. The dominant group in society is heterosexual, soall other types of sexuality are grouped as "Others" and viewedas inferior or abnormal. Culture and education systems reinforcethe notion that heterosexuality is normal and better (a socialphenomenon called “heteronormity”). Those who have differenttypes of sexuality are told to become heterosexual. Those who areoppressed by cultural imperialism are both marked by stereotypesand made to feel invisible.

The contrast between non-exploitative oppression and exploitationapplies not simply in the context of class relations. Consider,for example the problem of sexual exploitation vs. non-exploitative sexual oppression. In some societies today one mightsay that women are sexually exploited by men whereas homosexualsare sexually oppressed:

Sexual exploitation of women means that men control femalesexuality but still depend upon female sexuality activity fortheir own sexual interests. One might say that men appropriatefemale sexual effort. Sexual oppression of homosexuals means than heterosexuals wish torepress homosexual practices, which to exclude homosexuals fromaccess to the means of sexual expression. If heterosexists inthis relation could snap their fingers and make homosexuality

9

disappear, then their sexual interests -- as they experiencethose interests -- would be advanced.

2.2.3 Cultural context:Cultural Imperialism involves taking the culture of the ruling classand establishing it as the norm. The groups that have power insociety control how the people in that society interpret andcommunicate. Therefore, the beliefs of that society are the mostwidely disseminated and express the experience, values, goals andachievements of these groups.

American culture is built upon the Judeo-Christian belief systemscoupled with an Anglo culture derived from Britain. As a result,America’s fundamental beliefs and values are the same asChristian beliefs and values and Anglicized/White beliefs andvalues. While In the US and many other settler societies, therewas a period in which the relationship to indigenous cultures wasone of strict cultural oppression (matching the economicoppression). The goal was to eliminate the cultures - Indianboarding schools language policies.

Now, more commonly, there is a process of cultural exploitation –the appropriation of native American cultural forms for purposesof serving the cultural interests of the dominant culture. NewAge appropriation of Native American culture would be an example.

America does not have an official language, it is no surprisethat English is the dominant language and other languages arelooked down upon. Cultural imperialism has persisted over time.Modern India is a good example. India was colonized by theBritish Empire. Their language and some of their belief systemwas taken over by the language and belief system of the British.

10

Therefore, modern Indians speak English and have many mannerismsof the British generations after their enslavement by Britain hasended.

The stereotypes define what they can and cannot be. At the sametime, these same stereotypes turn these people into a mass of"Others" that lack separate identities. The White male can have adistinct identity and be an individual because he holds the mostpower. All other groups are just groups of "Others".

2.2.4.0 Global context:2.2.4.1 Theories of Inequality: Dependency TheoriesDependency theories propose that colonialism and neocolonialism—continuing economic dependence on and exploitation of formercolonial countries—are the main causes of globalpoverty. Countries have developed at an uneven rate becausewealthy countries have exploited poor countries in the past andcontinue to do so today through foreign debt and foreign trade.

i. Historical Dependency

Historically, wealthy nations have taken a great quantity ofmaterials from poor countries, such as minerals and metalsnecessary to make automobiles, weapons, and jewelry. Largeamounts of agricultural products that can only be grown in thehot climates of the poor countries, such as coffee, tea, sugar,and cocoa, have been exported to and manufactured in the wealthycountries. Wealthy countries would not be as rich as they aretoday if they did not have these materials. Wealthy countriesincreased their own profits by organizing cheap labor throughslavery.

For example, King Leopold II of Belgium, who ruled from 1865-1909, forced hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children towork as slaves in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The inventionof the bicycle tire in the 1890s and later the automobile tiremeant that rubber was in high demand; wild rubber vines were

11

widespread in the Congo, earning Leopold millions. The DemocraticRepublic of Congo is still suffering from the plunder of naturalresources, torture, and killing that was endured during Leopold'sreign.

ii. Modern Dependency

Today, poor countries are trapped by large debts which preventthem from developing. For example, between 1970 and 2002, thecontinent of Africa received $540 billion in loans from wealthynations—through the World Bank and IMF. African countries havepaid back $550 billion of their debt but they still owe $295billion. The difference is the result of compoundinterest. Countries cannot focus on economic or human developmentwhen they are constantly paying off debt; these countries willcontinue to remain undeveloped. Dependency theorists believelarge economic aid is not necessarily the key to reducing povertyand developing, but rather debt relief may be a more effectivestep.

In addition, foreign trade and business often mitigate localgovernments' ability to improve the living conditions of theirpeople. This trade often comes in the form of transnationalcorporations (TNCs).The governments of poor countries invitethese TNCs to invest in their country with the hope of developingthe country and bringing material benefit to the people. However,workers' time and energy are often poured into producing goodsthat they themselves will not consume. For example, some of theland in Cape Verde could be planted and harvested to feed localpeople, but it is planted instead with cash crops for foreignexchange. Fresh produce is regularly sold or changed to anonperishable type such as tuna canned for export rather thanconsumed by the population.

iii. Malnutrition and Dependency

12

Widespread malnutrition is one of the effects of this foreigndependency. This is common around the globe. Brazil is the secondlargest exporter of agricultural products, but 50 percent of itspopulation is mal-nourished. Although Ethiopia has one of thelargest populations of cattle in Africa, much of the populationsuffers from malnutrition and the government continues to exportlarge numbers of cattle to the Middle East. Even during the peakof the infamous 1985 famine, the government was sending driedmeat to Egypt.

Through unequal economic relations with wealthy countries in theform of continued debts and foreign trade, poor countriescontinue to be dependent and unable to tap into their fullpotential for development.

2.2.4.2. World-Systems TheoryWorld Systems Theory posits that there is a world economic systemin which some countries benefit while others are exploited. Likedependency theory, World Systems Theory suggests that wealthy countries benefitfrom other countries and exploit those countries' citizens. In contrast todependency theory, however, this model recognizes the minimalbenefits that are enjoyed by low status countries in the worldsystem. The theory originated with sociologist ImmanuelWallerstein, who suggests that the way a country is integratedinto the capitalist world system determines how economicdevelopment takes place in that country.

According to Wallerstein, the world economic system is dividedinto a hierarchy of three types of countries: core, semi peripheral, andperipheral. Core countries e.g. U.S., Japan, and Germany aredominant capitalist countries characterized by high levels ofindustrialization and urbanization. Core countries are capitalintensive, have high wages and high technology productionpatterns and lower amounts of labor exploitation andcoercion. Peripheral countries e.g. most African countries and

13

low income countries in South America are dependent oncore countries for capital and are less industrialized andurbanized. Peripheral countries are usually agrarian, have lowliteracy rates and lack consistent Internet access. Semi-peripheral countries e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil,India, Nigeria, and South Africa are less developedthan core nations but more developed than peripheralnations. They are the weaker members of “advanced” regions or theleading members of former colonial ones.

Core countries own most of the world’s capital and technology andhave great control over world trade and economic agreements. Theyare also the cultural centers which attract artists andintellectuals. Peripheral countries generally provide labor andmaterials to core countries. Semi-peripheral countriesexploit peripheral countries, just as core countries exploit bothsemi-peripheral and peripheral countries. Core countries extractraw materials with little cost. They can also set the prices forthe agricultural products that peripheral countries exportregardless of market prices, forcing small farmers to abandontheir fields because they can’t afford to pay for labor andfertilizer. The wealthy in peripheral countries benefit from thelabor of poor workers and from their own economic relationswith core country capitalists.

2.2.4.3. Theoretical perspectivesSocial theorists think differently about global inequality basedon their sociological perspective. There is significant debateamong sociologists, other social scientists, and policy makersover the best approach to global inequality. Some theorists whoembrace a functionalist approach assert that global inequality is nota problem at all, but rather benefits society as it produces anincentive structure to motivate highly capable individuals topursue positions of power. Functionalists are likely toembrace market-oriented approaches to inequality, on the basis

14

that a free market will result in prices that benefit the smooth-functioning and growth of economies. Marxists, by contrast, seeglobal inequality as indicative of exploitation and consider it adetriment to society. 

These thinkers are likely to support state-oriented approaches toregulating inequality, with governments instating policies toequally distribute opportunities and resources. Interactionistsrecognize global inequality, but consider it only in the contextof individual relations and, therefore, see no role for stateintervention.

Whatever sociological theory one adopts to explain the existenceof inequality, not all theorists consider inequality to be aproblem that needs correction. The idea that all members of asociety should be equal is often associated with modernliberalism. In modern liberal societies, individuals tend tovalue human rights according to the idea that all people are bornwith equal value. The logic of human rights does not necessarilyimply that all people should achieve equal status, but it doesassume that all should have equal opportunities to advance, orWeberian life chances. Those who evaluate global inequality andconsider it to violate human rights may advocate for solutions toinequality using the language of social justice. Social justiceadvocates generally argue that inequality is unfair, as it leavessome individuals with greater life chances and higher standardsof living than others, regardless of individual worth or merit.

3.0 ALIENATION

3.1 Definition(s):Alienation, a sociological concept developed by several classicaland contemporary theorists, is "a condition in socialrelationships reflected by a low degree of integration or commonvalues and a high degree of distance or isolation between

15

individuals, or between an individual and a group of people in acommunity or work environment."

Social change defines it as the state of feeling estranged orseparated from one milieu or work or production of work, or self.In other words, alienation refers to individual estrangement fromthe traditional community and others.

However Karl Marx defines it also as the distortion of humannature caused by the structure of capitalist society (i.e. as acondition in which men are dominated by forces of their owncreation, which confront them as alien powers).

3.2 Background Theories:The idea of alienation was brought into sociological analysis byKarl Marx is early 19th century. It was used in the sense of theworker being alienated from capitalist society, in particular, asbeing alienated from product of his or her own labour. Marx sawcreative, productive labour as the essence of human activity. Inother words, Marx believed that alienation is a systematic resultof capitalism. Karl Marx says that in the capitalist system, thecapitalist own the product of the worker’s labour.

Reese (1997) compares and contrasts Mead's concept of "naturallyproductive humans" and Marx's concept of "alienated labor". Reesemakes the connection between Marx and Mead; that they aresimilar, yet exact opposites in the sense that capitalism haschanged the way Americans live today. Reese states, "Humans wereno longer free to pursue their natural needs (Mead's impulses).Reese joins Marx, in the idea that through capitalism "humanswere confronted with unnatural constraints". Reese uses the term"a commodity fetish" to explain how capitalism has manipulatedAmericans into thinking they must work because capitalism has"made labor unfree first by creating artificial, consumer needs

16

and... mandated involuntary participation in wage-labor". Reeseis doing what Ritzer suggests that a contemporary theorist issupposed to do, when he compares and contrast's two mastertheorists and gives his own insight.

Reese then uses Mead and Marx to compare with Couch's idea ofsocialization. Reese states that "Couch ...demonstrates that inorder for humans to engage in conjoint activities, they mustfirst cooperatively establish interdependence. Reese notesthrough Couch's analysis of modern capitalism that individualstend to work in an assembly line and only contribute a piece tothe final product, it may create a sense of identity but it isnot by any means a full self-identity. Thus Reese states that thekey to a processional analysis of alienation is a focus on theestablishment and maintenance of incongruent, dysfunctionalidentities.

This conclusion brings us to Couch's three types of alienatedidentities which are; "tyrannical, authoritarian, and charismaticrelationships". Reese examines each type of the alienatedidentities. Miller's analysis concludes; "All threeauthority relationships are alien to the subordinate. However,they are not equally likely to produce an awareness of alienationwhich can predispose the subordinate to disobedience andautonomy".

Reese then notes C. Wright Mills conclusion by stating that; "Insharp contrast, the future centered hope of charismaticrelationships that projects an ostensibly better tomorrow thanthat of yesterday or today produces deeply alienatedsubjects, ... 'cheerful robots,' who only rarely recognize theiralienation". For example leaders who organized protests withinterior motives.

He concluded in summary, alienation- the loss of homossymbolicus-isthe diminished capacity of humans to cooperatively sense and

17

construct autonomous futures". And that ... An obdurate realityof social life is the changing face of alienating relationshipsthrough premodern tyranny, modern authoritarianism, and now intopostmodern charismatic relationships.

3.3.0 Theoretical Perspectives and Applications:3.3.1 Marx as explained by Coser (1977)To Marx, all major institutional spheres in capitalist society,such as religion, the state, and political economy, were markedby a condition of alienation. Moreover, these various aspects ofalienation were interdependent. "Objectification is the practiceof alienation. Just as man, so long as he is engrossed inreligion, can only objectify his essence by an alien andfantastic being; so under the sway of egoistic need, he can onlyaffirm himself and produce objects in practice by subordinatinghis products and his own activity to the domination of an alienentity, and by attributing to them the significance of an alienentity, namely money." "Money is the alienated essence of man'swork and existence; the essence dominates him and he worshipsit." "The state is the intermediary between men and humanliberty. Just as Christ is the intermediary to whom manattributes al his own divinity and all his religious bonds, sothe state is the intermediary to which man confides all his non-divinity and all his human freedom." Alienation hence confrontsman in the whole world of institutions in which he is enmeshed.But alienation in the workplace assumes for Marx an overridingimportance, because to him man was above all Homo Faber, Man theMaker. "The outstanding achievement of Hegel's

18

Phenomenology . . . is that Hegel grasps the self-creation of manas a process . . . and that he, therefore, grasps the nature oflabor and conceives objective man . . . as the result of his ownlabor."

Economic alienation under capitalism is involved in men's dailyactivities and not only in their minds, as other forms ofalienation might be. "Religious alienation as such occurs only inthe sphere of consciousness, in the inner life of man, buteconomic alienation is that of real life. . . . It thereforeaffects both aspects."

Alienation in the domain of work has a fourfold aspect: Man isalienated from the object he produces, from the process ofproduction, from himself, and from the community of his fellows.

Explicitly stated or tacitly assumed, the notion of alienationremained central to Marx's social and economic analysis. In analienated society, the whole mind-set of men, theirconsciousness, is to a large extent only the reflection of theconditions in which they find themselves and of the position inthe process of production in which they are variously placed.This is the subject matter of Marx's sociology of knowledge, towhich we now turn.

3.3.2 Durkheim, person and Merton and ClowardThe new encyclopedia Britannica has also expressed some othercomponents of alienation, the following variants being the mostcommon ones by Durkheim, person and Merton and Cloward.

i. Powerlessness: the feeling of being unable to control one’s destinyis determined by external agents, fate luck or institutionalarrangement.ii. Meaninglessness: refers to the lack of consistent meaning on anydomain of action such as world affairs or international reaction.

19

iii. Normlessness: is the rejection of social behavioral norms e.g.distrust, or disrespect.iv. Cultural estrangement: is the sense of removal from establishedvalues in society as for example, in intellectual or studentrebellion against conventional institutions and the best exampleis when you backslidden from the church believers. v. Social isolation: is the feeling of loneliness or exclusion is socialrelation for example the alienation of patients who are sufferingfrom HIV and AIDS. Other examples include parental alienation andfeminist alienation.

In summary, alienation refers to the personal demoralization andpsychic disorganization of the individual, the feeling ofpowerlessness, meaninglessness, loneliness, isolation, andpsychological disorder such as extreme anxiety states, despair,perception of lost self-values and beliefs and estrangement fromvaluable things.

4.0 EVOLUTIONARY THEORYSocial evolution can be defined as the gradual development ofsociety and social forms, institutions, etc., usually through aseries of peaceful stages. Society changes slowly and the processof change includes self-correction to problems and strains in thesocial world. Most 19th century sociologist developed some form ofevolutionary approach to society. That is, societies change,there are stages to social development (tribal, primitive ortraditional, modern, post-modern) change are relatively gradual,where there are conflicts or disagreements among groups insociety; these tend to be corrected through evolutionary forces.Below is identification of world social development:

20

4.1 Background TheoriesJohann Jacob Bachofen (1815-1887). He postulated that primitivepromiscuity was first characterized by matriarchy and later bypatrilineality.

Sir James George Frazer (1854 - 1873). He summed up this study ofmagic and religion by stating that "magic came first in men'sminds, then religion, then science, each giving way slowly andincompletely to the other." Frazer went on to study the value ofsuperstition in the evolution of culture saying that itstrengthened the respect for private property, strengthened therespect for marriage, and contributed to the stricter observanceof the rules of sexual morality.

Sir John Lubbock (1834-1914; Lubbock made contributions toexplanations of gradual evolution of religion, seen in fivestages: atheism, nature worship (totemism), shamanism, idolatry,and monotheism.

Sir Henry James Sumner Maine (1822-1888). He focused on thedevelopment of legal systems as the key to social evolution.Maine argued that the most primitive societies were patriarchal.This view contrasted with the believers in the primacy ofprimitive promiscuity and matriarchy.

21

John F. McLellan   (1827-1881). He postulated an original periodof primitive promiscuity followed by matriarchy. His argumentbegan with primitive peoples practicing female infanticidebecause women did not hunt to support the group. The shortage ofwomen that followed was resolved by the practice of bride captureand fraternal polyandry. These then gave rise to patrilinealdescent. He coined the terms ‘exogamy’ and ‘endogamy’.

Lewis Henry Morgan   (1818 - 1881). His “Ancient Society” in his1871work, “Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity” is the most influentialstatement of the nineteenth-century cultural evolutionaryposition, to be developed by many later evolutionists andemployed by Marx and Engels in their theory of social evolution.Employing Montesquieu's categories of savagery, barbarism, andcivilization, Morgan subdivided the first two categories intothree stages (lower, middle, and upper) and gave contemporaryethnographic examples of each stage. Each stage was characterizedby a technological advance and was correlated with advances insubsistence patterns, family and marriage and politicalorganization (Seymour-Smith 1986:201).

Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832 - 1917). His major contributionswere in the field of religion and mythology, and he cited magic,astrology, and witchcraft as clues to primitive religion. InTylor's best known work, Primitive Culture, he attempts to illuminatethe complicated aspects of religious and magical phenomena. Itwas an impressive and well-reasoned analysis of primitivepsychology and far more general in application than anythingwhich had been earlier suggested. Tylor correlates the threelevels of social evolution to types of religion: savagespracticing animatism, barbarians practicing polytheism, andcivilized man practicing monotheism. The primary importance ofTylor in relation to his contemporaries results from his use ofstatistics in his research.

4.2 Theoretical PerspectivesEvolutionary theories are based on the assumption that societiesgradually change from simple beginnings into even more complex

22

forms. Early sociologists beginning with Auguste Comte believedthat human societies evolve in a unilinear way- that is in oneline of development. According to them social change meantprogress toward something better. They saw change as positive andbeneficial. To them the evolutionary process implied thatsocieties would necessarily reach new and higher levels ofcivilization. L.H Morgan believed that there were three basicstages in the process: savagery, barbarism and civilization.Auguste Comte's ideas relating to the three stages in thedevelopment of human thought and also of society namely-thetheological, the metaphysical and the positive in a way representthe three basic stages of social change. This evolutionary viewof social change was highly influenced by Charles Darwin's theoryof Organic Evolution.

Those who were fascinated by this theory applied it to the humansociety and argued that societies must have evolved from thesimple and primitive to that of too complex and advanced such asthe western society. Herbert Spencer a British sociologistcarried this analogy to its extremity. He argued that societyitself is an organism. He even applied Darwin's principle of thesurvival of the fittest to human societies. He said that societyhas been gradually progressing towards a better state. He arguedthat it has evolved from military society to the industrialsociety. He claimed that western races, classes or societies hadsurvived and evolved because they were better adapted to face theconditions of life. This view known as social Darwinism gotwidespread popularity in the late 19th century. It survived evenduring the first phase of the 20th century. Emile Durkheimidentified the cause of societal evolution as a society'sincreasing moral density. Durkheim viewed societies as changingin the direction of greater differentiation, interdependence andformal control under the pressure of increasing moral density. Headvocated that societies have evolved from a relatively

23

undifferentiated social structure with minimum of division oflabor and with a kind of solidarity called mechanical solidarityto a more differentiated social structure with maximum divisionof labor giving rise to a kind of solidarity called organicsolidarity.

5.0 SOCIAL STRATIFICATION VERSUS MOBILITY

5.1. Social stratification: The division and hierarchical ranking of people into layersassociated with different degrees of command over materialresources, power, and prestige. Divisions upon whichstratification may be based include: income and wealth, race,ethnicity, gender, and age.

5.2. Social Mobility:This is the movement of individuals or groups up and down in thestratification hierarchies. Mobility depends on type ofstratification: It is quite rare under slavery and more commonunder class systems. Social mobility could be:

Vertical mobility: this is movement up or down the socio economicscale (gain in property and income etc. are upwardly mobile whilethose moving opposite direction downwardly mobile).

Lateral mobility: this is geographical movement betweenneighborhoods, towns or regions transfer from one city toanother.

Inter-generational mobility: this is how far children enter thesame type of occupation as their parents or grandparents(mobility across generations).

24

Intra-generational mobility: this is the individual’s own career,how far they move up or down the social scale in the course oftheir working lives.

5.3. Background TheoriesKarl Marx (1818-1883): Marx was concerned with stratificationbased on social classes. For Karl Marx, a class is a group ofpeople who stand in common relationship (- this is the means bywhich they gain livelihood). The two classes in the pre-industrial societies are those who own the land (aristocrats andthe gentry) and those actively engaged in producing from it(slaves, serfs, peasants etc.)In modern industrialized societies, the two classes are theowners of factories, offices, machinery and the wealthy owners ofmeans of production, and those who earn their living by sellingtheir labour to them. The relationship between the two classes isan expensive one.

Max Weber (1864-1920): Weber’s approach on stratification wasbuilt on the analysis developed by Marx. According to Weber,class division derives not only from control or lack of controlof the means of production, but the economic difference which hasnothing directly to do with prosperity. Such resources includeespecially the skills and credentials or qualifications whichaffect the types of jobs people are able to obtain. E.g. those inmanagerial or professional occupations earn more and have morefavorable conditions of work. E.g. people in blue collar jobs,the qualifications they possess. At lower level the blue collarskilled workers are able to secure higher wages than the semi-skilled workers.

Richards J. Gellies and Ann Levine (1995): He refers tostratification as the division of the society into layers(strata) whose occupants have unequal access to social

25

opportunities and rewards. People in the top strata enjoyprivileges that are not available to other members in thesociety. Kerbo (1990) explained this in relation to aninstitutionalized society while Gerth and Mills (1946)relatessuch privileges as education attainment, occupation, politicalinfluence, prestige and celebrity as well as economic position.According to Richards, the open system and the closed system aretwo types of social stratification. In an open system, status isachieved in open system stratification i.e. a person’s positionin the society is awarded on the basis of individuals efforts,abilities and merits, age skin colour usually do not count. Whilestatus is ascribed in a closed system i.e. people are assigned amore or less arbitrary and permanent social status on basis oftraits over which they have no control such blood relationships(skin, color, sex, age), such individual’s ability and effortsusually do not count.

Anthony Giddens: According to Giddens (1993), four variables canbe used to characterize differences across societies in theunderlying structure of stratification are: slavery, caste,estate, and class system.

5.4. Theoretical Perspectives5.4.1 The Functionalist Perspective: Motivating Qualified PeopleFrom a functionalist point of view, inequality plays a role in holding society together andencouraging efficiency. The functionalist theory of social inequality holds thatstratification exists because it is beneficial for society. Society must concern itself withhuman motivation because the duties associated with the various statuses are not allequally pleasant to the human organism, important to social survival, and in need of thesame abilities and talents.

According to structural-functionalists, stratification andinequality are inevitable and beneficial to society. The layers

26

of society, conceptualized as a pyramid, are the inevitablesorting of unequal people. The layering is useful because itensures that the best people are at the top and those who is lessworthy are further down the pyramid, and therefore have lesspower and are given fewer rewards than the high quality people atthe top. Inequality ensures that the most functionally importantjobs are filled by the best qualified people. For example, itmakes sense for the CEO of a company, whose position is moreimportant functionally, to make more money than a janitor workingfor the same company; garbage collectors are important to publicsanitation, but do not need to be rewarded highly because littletraining or talent is required to perform their job; also doctorsshould be rewarded highly, because extensive training is requiredto do their job. And thus logical, that society must offergreater rewards (e.g., income, vacations, promotion) to motivatethe most qualified people to fill the most important positions.

Critiques of Functionalist Perspective

There are several problems with this approach tostratification. First, it is difficult to determinethe functional importance of any job, as the accompanyingspecialization and inter-dependence make every position necessaryto the overall operation. According to this critique, theengineers in a factory, for example, are just as important as theother workers in the factory to the success of a project. Inanother example, a primary school teacher in the U.S. earns$29,000 per year, whereas a National Basketball Associationplayer can earn as much as $21 million per year. Are basketballplayers more essential to society than teachers? Are basketballplayers more functionally important than teachers? In 2009,comedian Jerry Seinfeld earned $85 million. Do his earningsdemonstrate his contribution to society? If NBA players or famouscomedians went on strike and decided not to work, most peoplewould not notice. However, if teachers, bus drivers, nurses,

27

cleaners, garbage collectors, or waitresses stopped working,society would close down. Thus, functionalism can be critiqued onthe basis that there is little connection between incomeand functional importance.

Second, functionalism assumes that the system of socialstratification is fair and rational, and that the "best" peopleend up on top because of their superiority. But in real life, thesystem does not work so easily or perfectly. For example, somewould argue that former U.S. president George W. Bush was not thesmartest or most politically talented individual, but he was wellconnected and born at the top of the stratification system(white, male, wealthy, American), and therefore was elected to aposition with great power—the U.S. presidency.

5.4.2 The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce ResourcesConflict theory of stratification holds that inequality isharmful to society because it creates a fixed system of winnersand losers. The conflict theory of social inequality holds thatstratification exists because it benefits individuals and groupswho have the power to dominate and exploit others. Marx contendedthat the capitalist drive to realize surplus value is thefoundation of modern class struggle.

Conflict theorists argue that stratification is dysfunctional andharmful in society. According to conflict theory, socialstratification benefits the rich and powerful at the expense ofthe poor. Thus, it creates a system of winners and losers that ismaintained by those who are on the top. The people who are losersdo not get a fair chance to compete, and thus are stuck on thebottom. For example, many wealthy families pay low wages tonannies to care for their children, to gardeners to attend totheir rose gardens, and to maids to pick up their dirtysocks. These low wage workers do not make enough to move beyond a

28

paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle, and have no means to moveahead. Therefore, conflict theorists believe that thiscompetitive system, together with the way the game is "fixed",ends up creating and perpetuating stratification systems.

Functionalists criticize this approach by arguing that conflicttheorists underestimate people’s ability to move upward insociety. They argue that if people really want to succeed, theycan do so through hard work.

5.6.0 Applications of Stratification5.6.1 Gender stratification and inequality5.6.1.1 The Functionalist PerspectiveThe functionalist perspective of gender roles suggests thatgender roles exist to maximize social efficiency. This theorysuggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way tocreate a division of labor, or as a social system in whichparticular segments are clearly responsible for certain,respective acts of labor. A structural functionalist view ofgender inequality applies the division of labor to viewpredefined gender roles as complementary; women take care of thehome while men provide for the family. Thus gender, like othersocial institutions, contributes to the stability of society as awhole.

The feminist theory criticized the functionalist theory forreifying, rather than reflecting, gender roles and also arguingthat many argue that gender roles are discriminatory and shouldnot be upheld. 

5.6.1.2 The Conflict PerspectiveConflict theory suggests that men, as the dominant gender,subordinate women in order to maintain power and privilege insociety. According to conflict theory, society is defined by astruggle for dominance among social groups that compete for

29

scarce resources. In the context of gender, conflict theoryargues that gender is best understood as men attempting tomaintain power and privilege to the detriment ofwomen. Therefore, men can be seen as the dominant group and womenas the subordinate group.

Also in the same way, owner-worker relationship seen in the laborforce could also be seen in the household, with women assumingthe role of the proletariat due to women’s dependence on men forthe attainment of wages. Contemporary conflict theorists suggestthat when women become wage earners, they gain power in thefamily structure and create more democratic arrangements in thehome, although they may still carry the majority of the domesticburden.

5.6.1.3 The Feminist PerspectiveFeminist theory analyzes gender stratification through theintersection of gender, race, and class. In patriarchalsocieties, the male’s perspective and contributions areconsidered more valuable, resulting in the silencing andmarginalization of the woman. Feminism focuses on the theoryof patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into acomplex of relationships based on the assertion of malesupremacy.

The feminist perspective of gender stratification more recentlytakes into account intersectionality, a feminist sociologicaltheory first highlighted by feminist-sociologist KimberléCrenshaw. Intersectionality suggests that various biological,social and cultural categories, including gender, race, class andethnicity, interact and contribute towards systematic socialinequality. Therefore, various forms of oppression, such asracism or sexism, do not act independently of one another;instead these forms of oppression are interrelated, forming asystem of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple

30

forms of discrimination. In light of this theory, the oppressionand marginalization of women is thus shaped not only by gender,but by other factors such as race and class.

5.6.2 Global Stratification and InequalityStratification results in inequality when resources,opportunities, and privileges are distributed based on positionin social hierarchy. Society is stratified into social classesbased on an individual's socioeconomic status, gender, and race.Stratification and inequality can be analyzed as micro-, meso-,and macro-level phenomena, as they are produced in small groupinteractions, through organizations and institutions, and throughglobal economic structures. Sociologists use three primarytheories to analyze macro-level stratification and inequality:development and modernization theory (Argues that poor nationsremain poor because they hold onto traditional attitudes,beliefs, technologies, and institutions.), dependency theory (Therole of international economic systems in shaping individuals’resources and opportunities by privileging certain socialstrata.), and world systems theory.

An example to analyze the three primary theories is: Poor, ruralareas of India have seen increased local wealth and income withthe introduction of mobile ATMs, suggesting that access to moderncapitalism and technology can reduce economic inequality. Asignificant percentage of Indian jobs, however, are tied toAmerican and Japanese technology firms, indicating that India’seconomy suffers from being dependent on foreign, dominantnations. While India provides cheap labor to foreigncorporations, however, it also uses cheaper labor from poorernearby nations as it develops its own industry, showing that itbenefits from its semiperipheral position in the globalhierarchy.

31

i. Industrialized Countries

Industrialized countries have greater levels of wealth andeconomic development than less-industrialized countries.Industrialized countries are at the top of the global hierarchy,and their populations generally enjoy a high standard of living.Most commonly have high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita,high human development index (HDI), high degree of socialamenities and infrastructures and finally, a sovereign state witha highly developed economy relative to other nations.

ii. Industrializing Countries

Industrializing countries otherwise called "less-developedcountry "have low standards of living, undeveloped industry, andlow Human Development Indices (HDIs). But in the globalhierarchy, the industrializing countries are at the middle of theglobal economic order as measured by GDP, basic infrastructure,literacy rates, and HDI.

Brazil is an example of a large industrializing country—itseconomy has grown substantially in the past few decades, but muchof the population still does not have access to reliabletransportation or healthcare, and many are illiterate. Brazil’seconomy must continue to grow if the nation’s standards of livingare to rise and if the nation is to become a more prominentfigure in the world economy. While Brazil has not fully developedits industrial base and its economy has much room for expansion,it is a more powerful player in the global market than lessdeveloped nations, such as Haiti.

ii. Least Industrialized Countries

The world's least industrialized countries have low income, fewhuman resources, and are economically vulnerable. Leastindustrialized countries otherwise called third world countriesare more likely than more developed countries to have

32

authoritarian governments, uncontrolled epidemics, and low accessto services such as healthcare and education. According to the UNand least industrialized countries meet three standardsidentified as low income, human resource weakness and economicvulnerability. They represent the countries at the bottom of astratified global economic order, which play only a peripheralrole in the international economy. Examples are the developingcountries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

6.0 SOCIAL CHANGE

6.1 IntroductionThe factors identified as reshaping society during theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries includes: the new industrialeconomy, growth of cities, political change and a new awareness of society (birth ofsociology).

Ogburn's theory of social change (1922), suggested thattechnology is the primary engine of progress, but it is alsotempered by social responses to it. His theory is oftenassociated with technological determinism (hard-technology asdeveloping independent from social concerns or soft determinism-technology as developing dependent from social concerns). Herefers to a period of maladjustment, which occurs when the non-material culture is struggling to adapt to new materialconditions as Cultural lag. His stages of technical developmentinvolves: invention, accumulation, diffusion, and adjustment.

Ferdinand (1887) identified social change from Gemeinschaft (oftentranslated as community) to Gesellschaft (often translated associety, civil society or association). Both are the sociologicalcategories for the two normal types of human association.

6.2.0 Theoretical perspectiveSociologists have continued to focus on social change, mostlyanchored in sociological theory from classical to contemporary

33

times (modern and post modernity). Rapid change in the societyprompted sociologist to conceive the development scheme toaccount the transformation of society. Social change is thereforethe center piece of sociology. Sociological theory is usuallygrouped into four broad categories: cyclical theory (view changefrom historical perspective), evolutionary theory (as a processin one direction), and equilibrium theory/ functionalist theory(change resulting from societal attempt to gain stability), andconflict theory (conflicts between social group with competinginterest).

6.2.1 Cyclical theories:Cyclical theories of social change focus on the rise and fall ofcivilizations attempting to discover and account for thesepatterns of growth and decay. Spengler, Toynbee and Sorokin canbe regarded as the champions of this theory. Spengler pointed outthat the fate of civilizations was a matter of destiny. Eachcivilization is like a biological organism and has a similarlife-cycle, birth, maturity, old-age and death. After making astudy of eight major civilizations including the west he saidthat the modern western society is in the last stage i.e. oldage. He concluded that the western societies were entering aperiod of decay as evidenced by wars, conflicts and socialbreakdown that heralded their doom.

6.2.2 Functionalist or Dynamic theories:In the middle decades of the 20th century a number of Americansociologists shifted their attention from social dynamics tosocial static or from social change to social stability. TalcottParsons stressed the importance of cultural patterns incontrolling the stability of a society. According to him societyhas the ability to absorb disruptive forces while maintainingoverall stability. Change is not as something that disturbs thesocial equilibrium but as something that alters the state ofequilibrium so that a qualitatively new equilibrium results. He

34

has stated that changes may arise from two sources. They may comefrom outside the society through contact with other societies.They may also come from inside the society through adjustmentthat must be made to resolve strains within the system. Parsonsspeaks of two processes that are at work in social change. Insimple societies institutions are undifferentiated that is asingle institution serves many functions. The family performsreproductive, educational, socializing, economic, recreationaland other functions. A process of differentiation takes placewhen the society becomes more and more complex. Differentinstitutions such as school, factory may take over some of thefunctions of a family. The new institutions must be linkedtogether in a proper way by the process of integration. New normsmust be established in order to govern the relationship betweenthe school and the home. Further bridging institutions such aslaw courts must resolve conflicts between other components in thesystem.

The concept of division of labour was central to Durkheim’sanalysis of modernity or social change. Durkheim sawmodernization as a change on the basis of community frommechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. In terms ofinstitutional reference, Durkheim focuses of economic change onehand and the separation of religion from political and legalfunctions on the other hand.

Comte explained that social statics holds the society togetherwhile social dynamics give quest to social change. Through hisapplication of scientific methods to social life, explained thesequential transformation or social change in the ‘law of threestages’ stated as follows: theological or primitive stage: where religionor supernatural powers were used predominantly to explain theworld and human destinies; metaphysical stage: where essence, finalcauses and abstract speculative thinking were mostly dominant;and Positivist stage: empirical based scientific theories prevailed.

35

Spencer described the outcome of competition between socialgroups as “survival of the fittest”. He argued that throughcompetition, social evolution would automatically produceprosperity and personal liberty unparalleled in human history.

6.2.3 Conflict theories:While the equilibrium theories emphasize the stabilizingprocesses at work in social systems the so-called conflicttheories highlight the forces producing instability, struggle andsocial disorganization. According to Ralf Dahrendorf the conflicttheories assume that - every society is subjected at every momentto change, hence social change is ubiquitous.

Every society experiences at every moment social conflict, hencesocial conflict is ubiquitous. Every element in societycontributes to change. Every society rests on constraint of someof its members by others. The most famous and influential of theconflict theories is the one put forward by Karl Marx who alongwith Engel wrote in Communist Manifesto 'all history is thehistory of class conflict.' Individuals and groups with opposinginterests are bound to be at conflict. Since the two major socialclasses the rich and poor or capitalists and the proletariat havemutually hostile interests they are at conflict.

History is the story of conflict between the exploiter and theexploited. This conflict repeats itself off and on untilcapitalism is overthrown by the workers and a socialist state iscreated. What is to be stressed here is that Marx and otherconflict theorists deem society as basically dynamic and notstatic. They consider conflict as a normal process. They alsobelieve that the existing conditions in any society contain theseeds of future social changes. Like Karl Marx George Simmel toostressed the importance of conflict in social change. Accordingto him conflict is a permanent feature of society and not just atemporary event. It is a process that binds people together in

36

interaction. Further conflict encourages people of similarinterests to unite together to achieve their objectives.Continuous conflict in this way keeps society dynamic and everchanging.

6.3 Theoretical Relationships:The conditions under which social movements occur have been thesubject a long and vigorous debate. Marx believed that socialmovements/revolution occurs as a result of the contradictions orirresolvable tension in societies, in particular related toeconomic changes. But contrary to Marx’s expectations revolutionsdid not occur in all advanced industrial societies. This ledDavies (1962) to theorize that social protest movements are morelikely to occur not when people are in dire poverty but whenthere is some improvement in their living conditions and theirexpectations start to raise i.e. relative deprivation. But Tilly(1978) pointed out that Davies’ theory does not explain how andwhy different groups mobilize to achieve change. Tillydistinguishes 4 components of collective action: theorganization, mobilization of resources, common interests, andopportunity. Collective action is a means of mobilizing groupresources when people have no institutionalized means of makingtheir voices heard, or when their voices are repressed bygovernment.

Smelser (1963) identified six conditions for the development ofsocial movements: structural conduciveness; structural strain;spread of generalized beliefs and suggested ways of remedyingthem; precipitating factors – trigger factors. These fourconditions do not lead to development of social movements unlessthere is leadership, a means of regular communication, fundingand material resources. The way in which a social movementdevelops is strongly influenced by the operation of socialcontrol.

37

Touraine’s (1977, 1981) analysis differs from Smelser’sprincipally in allowing that social movements may developspontaneously to achieve desired social changes rather than beingresponses to situations. His ideas include: historicity – thereare more social movements today because people know that socialactivism can be used to achieve change; rational objectives andstrategies regarding how injustices can be overcome; interactionin the shaping of social movements i.e. movements develop indeliberate antagonism with established organizations and withrival social movements. He emphasizes the way in social movementsoccur in the context of fields of action i.e. the connectionsbetween a social movement and the forces or influences againstit.

Foundations adopting a social movement approach to achievingsocietal change would obviously work to foster the development of(selected) social movements. How exactly a foundation might dothis depends in large part on the particular theory of socialmovements it favors. For example, Smelser’s theory would suggesta focus on promoting leadership, means of communication, fundingand material resources. Touraine’s theory might suggest a focuson promoting the idea of social activism and interactions betweensocial movements.

7.0 REALITY OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY

7.1 IntroductionHierarchy is defined as a rank ordering of individuals along oneor more socially important dimensions. Yet hierarchies come inmany different forms. For example, group members can be rankordered in terms of their power, or their ability to influenceothers (French & Raven, 1959); their status, or the respect andadmiration they enjoy in the eyes of the group (Goldhamer &

38

Shils, 1939); and their leadership, or the degree to which theyuse influence to attain shared goals (Bass, 2008; Van Vugt,2006). Hierarchies can be formally delineated, as when power andauthority are vested in some official positions more than others(Mills, 1956; Mintzberg, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1962), or they canemerge informally, as when differences in status and influencenaturally develop among peers working together (Bales et al.,1951; Blau, 1964).

7.2. Sociological and Theoretical Perspective7.2.1 Conflict theoriesSociety is seen as “strata” in a hierarchy with more favoured atthe top and less privileged near the bottom. It argues thatsocial class .i.e. social hierarchy depends on the economicdifference between groups of individuals; inequality ofpossessions and control of material resources; and non-economicfactors like religion, education and skills etc.

The reality of social hierarchy or in a simpler word,Inequalities: exists in all types of human society. Even in thesimplest cultures where variations in wealth or property arevirtually non-existent of it. There is always in equalitiesbetween individual’s that is, men and women, the young and theold.

7.2.2 Functionalist theories of hierarchyFunctionalist theories of hierarchy offer highly claims about thebenefits of hierarchy across its specific forms. Working ingroups presents at least three major problems:

i. Group members often disagree over the group’s goals, thestrategies to pursue those goals and possible solutions toproblems, groups must make collective decisions in apeaceful and efficient manner.

39

ii. Groups must motivate members to behave selflessly andcontribute to the group’s success, even when such behaviourrequires personal investment and sacrifice.

iii. Groups must coordinate individual behaviour so that memberswork in concert toward collective success.

According to the functionalist perspective, hierarchies helpgroups solve each of these problems as follows respectively:

i. Collective decision-making: group leaders are given control overdecisions and allowed to direct others’ actions, whereaslower ranked individuals are expected to defer to others andkeep their opinions to themselves.

ii. Motivating members: groups allocate higher rank to membersbelieved to contribute to the group’s goals. Individualsperceived as making important contributions are grantedhigher rank, whereas those believed to be making fewercontributions, or even to be undermining a group’s success,are assigned lower rank.

iii. Intra-group coordination: some members are allotted the right tocontrol other member’s access to resources and the rights toperform certain behaviours thus reducing conflict ofresponsibility, managing resources and facilitating andintegrating communication.

40

REFERENCESAmmita, Etzion. 1966. The active Society, A theory of societaland politics. New York: The free

Press

Anthony Giddens, 1993. "New Rules of Sociological Method". PolityPress; 2nd Edition.

Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, 2000. An Introduction toSociology. W. W. Norton & Company Incorporated, 7th edition.

Arens, W, Karp Ivan. 1989. Creativity of power. Bellah:Smithsonian press

Battomore 1991 Dictionary of Marxist Thought

Charles Tilly in his article Tilly, Charles. (2000). RelationalStudies of Inequality. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6, November),782-785,

Charles Tilly, 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution: University ofMichigan.

Comte, A. 1868. The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. W. Gowans.

Coser Lewis .A, 1977. Masters of sociological thought: Ideas inhistorical and social context. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (NewYork)

Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in IndustrialSociety. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Durkheim, Emile 1933.The division of labour in society George Simpson 1933.New York: Free press

Edward, O. Laumann (Ed). 1970. The logic of social hierarchies.Chicago: Markham publishing company

Erikson R, Goldthorpe J H 1994. The Constant Flux: A Study ofClass Mobility in Industrial Societies. Clarendon Press, Oxford

41

Esping-Andersen G 1999 Social Foundations of PostindustrialEconomies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Etzwini, A. & Etzioni E-Halevy edition 1964 social change:sources, patterns and consequences New York: Basics books

Gerth H, Mills 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.Routledge, London.

Grusky D B, Sørensen J B 1998 Can class analysis be salvaged?American Journal of Sociology 103: 1187-234

Haferkamp H, Smelser N J 1992 Introduction. In: Haferkamp H,Smelser N J (eds.) Social Change and Modernity. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley

Harold Kerbo 1990. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict inHistory, Comparative and Global Perspective

Hauser R M, Featherman D L 1977. The Process of Stratification:Trends and Analyses. Academic Press, New York

Hauser R M, Warren J R 1997 Socioeconomic indexes of occupationalstatus: A review, update, and critique. In: Raftery, A (ed.)Sociological Methodology, 1997. Blackwell, Cambridge

www.wikipedia free encyclopedia

James C Davies, 1962. Theory of A Revolution: American SociologicalReview Vol 27 No 1

James M. Henslin 1995. Social Problems. Prentice Hall CollegeDiv; 4 editions.

Jencks C, Perman L, Rainwater L 1988 What is a good job? A newmeasure of labor-market success. American Journal of Sociology 93:1322-57

Johann Jacob Bachofen. theory of the evolution of kinship systems

John F. McLellan. From this he built a theory of the evolution ofmarriage

42

John, F. Glass. 1972. Humanistic Society, today’s challenge tosociology. California. Good year publishing company, Inc.

Kandal, Terry R. 1996. “Gender, Race, & Ethnicity: Let’s NotForget Class.” Race, Gender, & Class 4(1) pp 143-165

Lee Harvey and Morag Mac Donald 1993 doing sociology: A practiceintroduction

Lenski, G E 2001 New light on old issues: The relevance of ‘Reallyexisting socialist societies’ for stratification theory. In:Grusky D B (ed.) Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender inSociological Perspective, 2d ed. Westview, Boulder, CO

Leonard Irring 1987 Power and class in Africa, Oxford UniversityPress

Lewis Henry Morgan, 1871. “Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity”

Lipset S, M. 1968. Social class. In: Sills D L (ed.) InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan, New York

Lipset S M & Bendix R. 1959 Social Mobility in Industrial Society.University of California Press, Berkeley

Marx K [1894] 1972 Capital. 3 vols. Lawrence and Wishart, London

Neil Smelser, 1963. The Sociology Of Economic Life. Modern SociologySeries

Parkin F 1971 Class Inequality and Political Order: SocialStratification in Capitalist and Communist Societies. Praeger, NewYork

Parsous, Talcott. 1971. Societies evolutionary and comparative perspectives.Englewood cliffs, N.J Prentice Hall.

Peil, Margaret & Olatunji Oyeneye 1998. Consensus, conflict and change inAfrican societies: An introduction to sociology. London: Longman GroupLimited

Reese, 1997. Alienation: Extending an Interactionist Conceptualization, (1997)

43

Saunders P R 1989 Left write in sociology. Network 44: 3-4

Sir John Lubbock. Prehistoric Times: As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and theCustoms of Modern Savages 

Weber Marx, 1973.Economy and Society. Berkeley. University ofCalifornia Press.

Wright E O 1997 Class Counts: Comparative Studies in ClassAnalysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Zeitlin M 1982 Corporate ownership and control: The largecorporation and the capitalist class. In: Giddens A, Held D (eds.) Classes, Power, and Conflict.University of California Press, Berkeley