“Examine the conceptual distinction between social inequality and social stratification. How do the nature and forms of the social stratification system determine the patterns of social mobility?” (2003)
All societies distribute power, prestige and wealth unequally, but not all inequality is stratification. Social inequality is the existence of socially created disparities. Social stratification is a particular, structured form of it: ranked strata that are institutionalised, carried across generations and backed by a value system. How a stratification system is built largely decides who can move within it and how.
Inequality and stratification
| Criterion | Social inequality | Social stratification |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Unequal distribution of valued resources | Hierarchy of ranked groups (strata) |
| Unit | Individuals or categories | Groups with shared identity and lifestyle |
| Durability | May be temporary | Institutionalised and inherited |
| Legitimation | Not necessarily justified | Backed by norms and ideology |
| Example | Pay gaps between individuals | Caste, estate, class |
André Béteille separates the distributive aspect of inequality (who has how much) from the relational aspect (who defers to whom). Stratification joins both. Inequality can also exist without clear strata: Ulrich Beck argued that late-modern societies individualise inequality, loosening class identities while disparities remain.
How stratification shapes mobility
Pitirim Sorokin (Social Mobility, 1927) held that no society is absolutely open or closed. The basis of ranking still sets the rate, channels and unit of mobility.
- Slavery: status was fixed as property. Mobility came only through manumission or revolt.
- Estate: rank was defined by law. Movement came through royal grace, the Church, military service or marriage.
- Caste: rank is ascribed by birth, justified by karma and fixed by endogamy, so individual mobility is almost blocked. Mobility therefore takes the form of group mobility:
- Sanskritisation (M. N. Srinivas);
- hypergamy;
- caste associations and political mobilisation.
These change a caste’s position but leave the structure intact.
- Class: position rests on achievement, so mobility is individual and occurs through education and occupation.
- Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan (The American Occupational Structure, 1967) showed that education carries much of this movement.
- Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix found broadly similar mobility rates across industrial societies, driven by structural change in occupations.
- John H. Goldthorpe’s Oxford Mobility Study found that relative chances between classes changed little, despite more room at the top.
Three features of a system decide its mobility pattern:
- ascription or achievement decides the rate;
- legitimating values (karma or meritocracy) decide aspiration;
- the unit of ranking (group or individual) decides who moves.
Indian evidence and limits
- Sam Asher, Paul Novosad and Charlie Rafkin (2024) find intergenerational mobility in India low and constant since before liberalisation. It has risen for Scheduled Caste sons, helped by affirmative action, and fallen for Muslims. State policy can open a closed structure, and new barriers can close an open one.
- The influence runs both ways. Mass mobility, such as the rise of OBC farming castes, reshapes stratification. Open class systems also reproduce advantage through Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural capital.
Conclusion
Inequality is a condition; stratification is a system, and the form of that system sets the patterns of mobility. Caste allows slow group mobility, while class allows individual mobility within limits set by inheritance. Mobility, in turn, is the best test of how open a stratification order really is.