“How would you distinguish between the stratified and the unstratified social positions? What explanation would you prefer for the universal existence of the social stratification in human society?” (1999)
Every society differentiates positions, but not every difference is a rank. Melvin M. Tumin (Social Stratification: The Forms and Functions of Inequality, 1967) described stratification as a sequence of differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding. A position becomes stratified only when it passes through all four stages.
Stratified versus unstratified positions
| Criterion | Unstratified positions | Stratified positions |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Mere differentiation of tasks or attributes | Differentiation plus hierarchical ranking |
| Evaluation | Different but socially equal | Judged superior or inferior |
| Rewards | No systematic gap in power, property or prestige | Unequal access to scarce goods and esteem |
| Durability | Situational or rotating | Enduring, often inherited by families or groups |
| Examples | Players in different positions on a team; cousins; members of an age-set in turn | Caste, estate, class and occupational prestige grades |
- Age and sex show the borderline: they become stratified when a society attaches power and privilege to them, as patriarchy does.
- Walter Buckley (“Social Stratification and the Functional Theory of Social Differentiation”, 1958) warned that Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) explained the unequal rewards of differentiated positions but not stratification proper, meaning strata whose advantages pass down through kinship.
- Pitirim A. Sorokin judged a truly unstratified society with real equality a myth never realised in history. What varies is the degree and form of ranking.
Rival explanations of universality
- Functionalist: Davis and Moore held that unequal rewards are needed to motivate scarce talent into important positions. The account is weak on inheritance and on power.
- Marxist: Karl Marx saw stratification as arising with surplus and private property, so it is not truly universal. Classless societies existed and could return.
- Normative: Ralf Dahrendorf (“On the Origin of Inequality among Men”, 1961) argued that every society has norms enforced by sanctions. People are ranked by how far they conform, and those with power set the norms. Wherever there are norms, there is rank.
- Synthetic: Gerhard Lenski (Power and Privilege, 1966) proposed that goods needed for survival are shared broadly according to need, while surplus is distributed by power. Inequality rises with surplus from hunting to agrarian societies and falls somewhat in industrial democracies.
Preferred explanation
The strongest account combines Dahrendorf’s and Lenski’s arguments:
- It explains universality without calling any particular hierarchy necessary: norms and sanctions exist everywhere.
- It explains variation: the size of the surplus and the distribution of power determine how steep hierarchies become.
- It keeps the functionalist insight that some reward for scarce skills is useful, but subordinates it to power.
Indian evidence fits this synthesis. According to NITI Aayog, multidimensional poverty fell from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23, a broader sharing of basic needs. Meanwhile, estimates by Thomas Piketty and colleagues show the top 1% taking 22.6% of national income in 2022-23: the growing surplus concentrated at the top.
Conclusion
Differentiation is universal and often harmless; stratification is differentiation turned into durable, ranked and rewarded inequality. It appears everywhere because norms, surplus and power appear everywhere, not because society needs any particular hierarchy.