Social Stratification In Caribbean Society 6j5842

Social stratification in Caribbean society In fully understanding stratification in the Caribbean one must first understand mainstream

sociological theories and how they can be used to explain stratification in the Caribbean. We will start by looking at Functionalist perspective on stratification, then the Marxist perspective and finally the waberian perspective, we will also examine how each of these theories is applicable to Caribbean stratification and then choose which is more suitable in explaining Caribbean stratification. Stratification can be defined as the way in which different groups of people are placed within society. The status of people is often determined by how society is stratified - the basis of which can include; o o o o o o

Wealth and income - This is the most common basis of stratification Social class Ethnicity Gender Political status Religion (e.g. the caste system in India)

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in of factors such as prestige and wealth. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interest and a common identity. They will share a similar lifestyle which, to some degree, will distinguish them from of other social strata. A person’s position in a stratification system might have important effects on many areas of life. It may enhance or reduce their life chances, that is, their chances of obtaining those things that are defined as desirable and avoiding those things that are defined as undesirable.

Social stratification a functionalist perspective Functionalist theories of stratification set their explanations on the framework of larger theories which seek to explain the operation of society as whole. They assume that society has functional prerequisites that must be met if it is to survive. According to Talcott Parsons these prerequisite are adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argue that stratification is useful because it contributes to the maintenance of society. For Davis and Moore social stratification provides an effective mechanism for role allocation and performance. Every society is faced with the double challenge of selecting the best individuals to fill the social position required for its survival and maintenance and at the same time, motivating them to execute their roles expectations. Davis and Moore argued that in

order for society to attract the right talent to fill the myriad of social positions, a differential system of rewards must be offered and based on meritocracy, must be implemented. Davis and Moore argue that rewards offered must take into three factors: The functional importance of the job: Some social positions are viewed as being more important than others. Natural ability and talent may not be wide spread in society. Hence a system of stratification offering high rewards is necessary to motivate those with the requisite talent to compete, which theoretically would lead to the most skilled and talented filling the important roles in society. 3 A stratification system with differential rewards depending on the functional importance of the job is necessary, to reward people who have to undergo long periods of training and personal sacrifices. In essence therefore, Davis and Moore are of the view that social stratification is an effective mechanism for ensuring that all the social positions of especially the functionally important ones are filled by the most skilled and talented of society. The functionalist view stratification as a rational response to a social problem, they view inequality as a result of a societal agreement on the functional importance of social positions and the need to reward them accordingly. The functionalist perspective would fall short in explaining stratification in Caribbean society, the theory fails to see that no matter how hard individuals work they cannot be among the elites, it does not take into consideration power structures where those who own the means of production manipulate those in the lower strata through alienation and it is those who have power and prestige who will have the most functionally important jobs. Stratification in the Caribbean is rooted in its colonial history therefore functionalism is inadequate in explaining Caribbean society.

The Marxist Perspective on stratification. Karl Marx sees stratification as a means of exploitation in society. Those who own the means of production within society maintain their advantageous position in society by controlling or influencing the institutions in society, such as the political system, educational system, judicial system and the church. The values and ideologies of the ruling class become those of the society. For Marx, in the capitalist society there exists two classes, the ruling class and the working class. The ruling class owns the means of production while the working class owns their labour, which produces wealth. (Relationship). Marxist believed that history has been characterized by different forms of class conflict, with the class conflict in capitalism being the culmination. The exploitive position of capitalism is manifested when the capitalist pay labour a small wage to produce wealth and then expropriate the wealth for their own benefit. Marx believed that as the gap between the rich and poor widens, the poor would become conscious of their true class position and revolt for the overthrow of capitalism and the rise of communism.

Marxist perspective is incapable of explaining the stratification in the Caribbean, given its over emphasis on economics. His theory devalues the importance of colonialism and its social offspring: race, class, ethnicity and gender but it is applicable in that

The Weberian perspective on stratification

Max Weber expanded on Marx’s analysis of class to provide a multi faceted view of social stratification. Weber modified Marx's basic premises of the operation of society. In addition to giving weight to the importance of the economic sphere in the shaping of society, Weber further emphasized the significance of status and power in the analysis of stratification. Weber agreed with Marx that the unequal distribution of resources in society results in economic classes with varying degrees of economic power. Weber’s perspective on stratification is more practical and more applicable to Caribbean society. Unlike Marx, Weber believed that a person’s market situation (this is how marketable an individual makes themselves) could bring about mobility. Weber distinguished the 4 different class groupings in society rather than Marx’s two these are; The propertied upper class The property less white collar workers The petty bourgeoisie The manual working class Weber’s theory is applicable to Caribbean society in that it does not view society as having two classes; the upper and lower class as believed by Marx. Weber looks at systems such as slavery, class and caste and how they stratify society. His ideologies of slavery and class are indeed applicable to our Caribbean society because of our history of slavery and colonialism. Through slavery came a closed stratification system in the Caribbean based on race, class and the relationship to the means of production, there were only two groups, the whites who controlled the means of production and the blacks who were labourers, there was no way of gaining social mobility and because they were treated as chattel their life chances were significantly low. Brathwaite also stresses the “area of sexual relationships” which was one of the most potent facilitators of the process of creolisation: the visible and undeniable result of these liaisons was the large and growing coloured population of the island, we saw where a middle strata emerged

called the mullatoes. Mullatoes because of the lighter colour of their skin were treated better and more options were open to then therefore their life chance were higher than black people. The emergence of the mullato class changed the stratification system in the Caribbean, over time a limited amount of social upward mobility was possible from the base stratum to the middle stratum, many of the enslaved were able to purchase their freedom and enter the middle stratum. The mullato strata marked the bridging of the lower and upper class especially after emancipation instead of polarizing taking place as Marx suggests, the classes were being bridged to an extent. Weber believes that within each class there are sub classes. This means that each class set their own standards and ideologies which are not necessarily those of the upper class for example, not every white person in plantation society was rich, not every white person had access to the means of production, they were also manual labourers but by virtue of being white they were still seen as being superior. It was the same among the blacks they had their own standards among themselves, which maybe judged by strength and warfare skills. George Beckford’s theory of plantation Society coincides with Weber’s classification of the classes, further enriching its application to Caribbean society. Beckford believed that there existed 3 classes on plantations and claimed it was a peculiar institution that totally controlled all of economic, political, and social life within it and throughout the region. The whites enslaved African people for the purpose of gaining wealth, power, and prestige. The "peculiar" social system that was established to achieve these ends was the slave plantation. As a social system, the slave plantation was more than a way of life, a form of culture, or a unit of economic production. The slave plantation was a distinct form of social organization that evolved from a simple, loosely organized system to a more complex institutionalized social system over a period of more than two centuries, dating from the colonial period (1650) to the antebellum period (1860). In essence, the slave plantation was an organized social system that was structured in such a way as to give form, systematization, and continuity to life and work in order to attain specific social and economic goals. In contemporary Caribbean society stratification is based on economic inequality and there is still the strong correlation between race and colour but legislation is being enacted to promote opportunities for social mobility among the lower classes in other words the system is more open. Again making reference to Weber’s classification of the classes and market situation, the property less white collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class can all mobilize themselves but this is dependent on how marketable they make themselves through education by becoming skilled manual traders, Weber argues that the white collar middle class expands rather than contracts as capitalism develops this contrast to what Marx says about the polarization of classes, here we actually see the gap closing rather than expanding. In our Caribbean society there is a large number of skilled and highly trained workers who make up the middle class, persons like teachers, secretaries and bank tellers who are not among the elites of society but because of the functional importance of their profession get some amount of status. This refers to what Weber calls status situation. How marketable a person makes themselves can

also determine their status and status deals with prestige, social honor, life style and beliefs, so in our contemporary Caribbean society status is mostly based on a system of meritocracy and not ascribed as in plantation society. Another major issue as it relates to status according to Weber is that those who share the same class situation will not necessarily belong to the same status group, lets take the example of a entertainer like Beenie Man, he is wealty but is not seen as among the elites of society as a Lee chin or a Azan, according to the weberian perspective this is so because their tastes, manners, and dress are very different and they do not move in the same social circles so no matter how much money beanie man has he may never obtain the status associated with a lee chin, but as stated earlier status can cut across class division so a doctor can enjoy the same status as the elites and not possess the same amount of wealth.