Estates stratification system. Social stratification
The main features of stratification systems
|
System type |
The basis of differentiation |
A way to reinforce social differences |
Transmission mechanism |
|
Physico-genetic |
Gender, age, physical data |
Physical coercion, custom |
Biological inheritance |
|
Slave |
Citizenship and property rights |
Military coercion, enslaving law, sale into slavery |
Social inheritance |
|
Caste |
Religious and ethnic division of labor |
Religious ritual, ethnic isolation |
Social inheritance |
|
Estate |
Obligations to the State to Perform Important Functions |
Legal registration |
Social inheritance |
|
Etakratic |
Ranks in the power hierarchy (political, military, economic) |
Military-political domination |
Not inherited. Possible protectionism |
|
Socio-professional |
Occupation, qualifications |
Educational certifications, corporate morals |
Not inherited |
|
Class |
Amount of income and property |
Market exchange |
Not inherited. It is possible to use the institution of primacy |
|
Cultural and symbolic |
Sacred knowledge, access to information |
Religious, scientific, ideological manipulation |
Not inherited |
|
Cultural normative |
Code of conduct, style and way of life |
Moral regulation, imitation, ideological control |
Not inherited |
These systems have a broad basis in historical development, although they do not always coincide with the corresponding types of social structure. They persist in any society, and the set of factors representing them in each case is different.
Society, according to V. Radaev, can be described as a certain configuration, constellation ("constellation") of systems. The high or low status of groups in one system can be supported by the same status in another. The status of the wealthy (class) is supported by a special lifestyle (cultural and normative status), the possession of information (symbolic capital), professional success (qualification status) or simply good physical data (status of “cool”, “sports star”), etc. To a greater or lesser extent, similar systems are also represented in the stratification picture of post-Soviet Russia, where the priority of status in the etacratic system was historically inherited, followed only by economic, cultural, and other statuses. The problem of sociology is how to adequately describe them. P. Štomka offers his own version of multivariate analysis, highlighting 4 dimensions social networks:
Regulatory(according to E. Durkheim) - depending on the laws, norms, values, institutional interactions characteristic of the community and acting compulsorily.
Ideal(according to M. Scheler, A. Schutz) - according to the totality of ideas, beliefs, views, images that operate in a given community, team, team as a persuasive, establishing force.
Organizational(interactional, according to G. Simmel) - associated with forms of mutually corrected actions typical for a particular community, layer.
Measuring interests(according to K. Marx, R. Dahrendorf, M. Weber) - from the point of view of differences in life resources, opportunities for access to power, wealth, prestige, knowledge and other benefits.
It is not difficult to understand that these measurements only in aggregate make it possible to characterize the community, for each one influences the others and is under their influence. Together, they characterize the stratification method as multidimensional, multifactorial.
But this does not exhaust the peculiarity of stratification analysis and the difficulties of its application in social research.
Another essential feature is the use of objective and subjective criteria in their indissoluble unity... Along with objective socio-economic characteristics, qualities (plus prestige, plus status in the power system, etc.), it is important to take into account such moments as self-identification a person with the status of a particular group, as system his values, including ethical, social well-being, social behavior(mobility or inertia). M. Weber generally believed that the primary factors of labor activity are spiritual: motivation, stimulation, goal-setting, orientation, rationality, religious morality, secular individual morality.
In Russian sociology, they are used as subjective indicators of status social identification and social well-being.
Social identification - identification of an individual with a particular community, a person's understanding of his community with others, awareness of being included in a social group (professional, ethnic, political, social). This awareness and "reckoning" of oneself in any community ("I am a doctor, young, city dweller, entrepreneur, educated, wealthy") helps to successfully master different kinds activities, accept standards of behavior, social norms and values. Identification as a social comparison of one's level and quality of life with other people and groups can also be viewed as a mechanism of development, mobility, operating in any society. The result of the identification process is this or that social well-being.
Social well-being - a person's subjective perception of his own life, the level of implementation of his life strategy. This state arises as a result of a person's comparative assessment of his place in the group and the position of the group in society. Sociologists note that this is such an element of self-awareness of a person, which reflects the relationship between the level of claims and the degree of satisfaction of her needs. It cannot be said about it whether it is good or bad (as opposed to the state of health or psychological well-being), since it is typologized on other grounds - for example, according to the degree and method of implementation in different spheres of life - work, family, cultural, etc.
When a person overcomes an identity crisis, acquires the desired status in a group and society, realizes his potential, moving from a lower status group to a higher one, feeling himself a carrier of the characteristics of the “middle class”, he develops a positive type of social well-being based on stability and security.
In addition, as shown in the studies of many Western sociologists, in particular P. Bourdieu, the method of stratification is aimed at studying the social speakers, mobility, constant transitions of people (agents of capital - economic, political, social, cultural, symbolic) from one field of forces (relations) to others. The groups, understood by him as logical classes, act as an ensemble of agents occupying similar positions, and do not always coincide with real groups in terms of number, composition of members, boundaries, etc. Hence the importance of the nomination problem: on whose behalf the agent speaks, on behalf of what qualities, what status (I am the people, I am the teacher, I am the "new Russian", I am rich, I am a Christian, etc.). Once again, the dynamics can be grasped on the basis of the unity of the objective and the subjective. According to Bourdieu, speaking "on behalf of the group," the human agent thereby at the same time seems to replace it with himself as a representative to whom its properties are delegated, asserts that it exists.
Our domestic sociology, as noted, using new approaches, is trying to obtain a more complete social and stratification model of Russian society with an emphasis on new forms of social stratification, differentiation and integration (see 15). This is done taking into account two most important factors affecting changes in the social structure of society:
All social institutions are being transformed(economic, political, cultural, educational) and primarily the institutions of property and power.
Social nature itself is changing the main components of the structure - groups, layers, individuals: they are restored as subjects of property, power, and various capitals. As experts point out, the resubjectivation of civil society is taking place in different economic conditions, against the background of sectoral, regional and other differences, stagnation and then a drop in production, polarization of the statuses and interests of groups.
Several transformational processes, trends in the development of society have already been identified. Among them:
Formation of an oligarchic power structure by merging property and political power.
Fusion of the economic and political elite with the help of rotation (the economy was replenished by 70% of party functionaries, the leaders of large economic structures were introduced into the political power).
Deepening social differentiation.
Changes in the social status and functions of the intelligentsia (the departure of both romantics and rationalists to economic creativity, i.e., to entrepreneurship, the transformation of intellectuals into nomenklatura workers, etc.)
Formation of classes in the proper sense of the word - business class or neo-bourgeoisie, persons of hired labor in non-state structures.
In the processes of social stratification, in various forms of group and intergroup interaction, certain patterns... These patterns are also studied by the sociology of social structure. In conclusion, let us highlight some of them:
1. The social structure of society as a system of interacting groups and strata develops through contradictions. Modern sociology distinguishes in Russian society such contradictions (differences of interests), such as, for example, between groups with and without power functions, between workers in various spheres and industries, between the employed and unemployed population, groups of free and unfree labor, "light" and “Shadow economists”, between the owners of various “consumer baskets”, between ethnic and confessional groups, etc.
2. In the contradictory unity of the processes of social differentiation and integration, the predominance of any of them is determined by the concrete historical conditions of life, the level and nature of the development of society.
3. The more developed a society, the more differentiated and structured it is, the more complex and dynamic the social space.
4. The more differentiated the society, the more closely the groups rally, the more sharply corporate interests are recognized and defended.
5. In societies with a dynamic, deformed, "blurred" stratification structure, determination social roles and people's behavior turns out to be more diverse, but weak and difficult to predict (who and how soon will want to become an owner, to which strata will new generations of young people rush, who will be “on the edge”?).
6. In transitional types of societies (from one structure to another), new forms of differentiation and new manifestations of polarization of interests of groups at the intersection of the “grids” are inevitable. types of structures, stratification systems.
To study and analyze these trends and patterns, Russian sociology seeks to use various methods and methodologies, gradually getting rid of ideological dogmatism and relying on the achievements of world science.
100 RUR first order bonus
Select the type of work Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essays Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text PhD thesis Laboratory work Online help
Find out the price
In modern sociology, nine types of stratification systems are distinguished : physical and genetic, slave, caste, estate, etacratic, social and professional, class, cultural and symbolic, normative.
At the heart of physico-genetic stratification system is the differentiation of social groups according to "natural" characteristics: gender, age and the presence of physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Inequality is affirmed through the threat of physical violence, and is reinforced in customs and rituals. This system prevailed in the primitive community, but it still exists in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of living space. This system is a product of the militarism of various societies. Today it is supported by military, sports and erotic propaganda.
Slave the system is based on military-physical coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil and property rights. Slaves have been turned into private property. Examples of slave systems are varied: ancient slavery, plantation slavery in the United States, the work of prisoners of war. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly through conquests. In India, preserved caste system: each caste is a closed, endogamous group. She is assigned a certain place in the social hierarchy in accordance with the system of the division of labor. There is a clear list of their occupations: priestly, military, agricultural, etc.
IN estate In the stratification system, groups differ in legal rights, duties are clearly spelled out and enshrined in legislation. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes and labor duties. Feudal societies are an example of developed estate systems. Estates are legal, not ethnic, religious, or economic divisions. Belonging to the estate is also inherited. This contributes to the relative closeness of this system.
IN etacratic system (French and Greek - state power) differentiation between groups occurs according to their position in the power-state spheres. The distribution of resources and prestige are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in the corresponding power hierarchies: political, military, and economic. Hierarchies can be legally fixed: bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations. The formal freedom of members of society, the lack of inheritance of positions of power distinguishes the etacratic system from the estates (in ancient times, these are China, India, Egypt, etc.).
Socio-professional the system divides the groups according to the content and working conditions. Classification requirements play a special role: possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. The maintenance of order in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, ranks, licenses, patents, etc.). Social and professional division is one of the basic stratification systems. It exists in any society with a developed division of labor. In today's industry, there is a grading grid, a system of certificates and diplomas of education, scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.
Classes are social groups of politically and legally free citizens. The differences between them lie in the nature and size of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Belonging to classes (bourgeois, proletarians, etc.) is not regulated by the authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited, has no formal barriers. In the XXI century. the highest heights of the class system reached in the USA, Germany, England, and other countries.
IN culturally symbolic type of differentiation arises from differences in access to socially significant information, the ability to receive and interpret this information, the ability to be a carrier of scientific or religious knowledge. In ancient times, this role was assigned to the priests, in the Middle Ages - to the ministers of the church, in our time - to scientists, technocrats, journalists, ideologists. Claims for communication with divine forces, for possession of scientific truth, for the expression of state interests existed always and everywhere. A higher position is occupied by those who have the best ability to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society.
Regulatory system based on inequality between statuses and includes criteria such as income, wealth, prestige. Income- the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time in the form of salaries, pensions, benefits, alimony, royalties, deductions from profits. Income can accumulate and become wealth. Wealth- accumulated income in the form of cash or materialized money: movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Different population groups have unequal life chances. The well-off strata have clear and hidden advantages: better education, medicine, they live longer, have access to power and privileges. Prestige has a socio-psychological connotation and may have different content in specific socio-historical conditions (profession, place in the social hierarchy) and is most often associated with material incentives and social privileges.
There are many stratification criteria by which any society can be divided. Each of them is associated with special ways of determining and reproducing social inequality. The nature of social stratification and the way it is affirmed in their unity form what we call a stratification system.
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description is usually given of caste, slave, estate and class differentiation. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in the modern world or have already irrevocably gone into the past.
The following are nine types of stratification systems that, in my opinion, can be used to describe any social organism, namely:
Physico-genetic;
Slave-owning;
Caste;
Estates;
Ectaratic;
Social - professional;
Class;
Culturally - symbolic;
Culturally - normative;
The first type of physical-genetic stratification system is based on the differentiation of social groups according to “natural” socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or a group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, with physical disabilities are considered flawed and occupy a degraded social position.
Inequality in this case is affirmed by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then fixed in customs and rituals.
This "natural" stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to reproduce to this day. It manifests itself especially strongly in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The greatest prestige here is possessed by the one who is able to carry out violence against nature and people or to resist such violence: a healthy young man is a breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of primitive manual labor; courageous warrior of the Spartan state; a true Aryan of the National Socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring.
The system that ranks people according to their capacity for physical violence is in many ways a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. Currently, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sexually - erotic propaganda.
The second stratification system - slaveholding - is also based on direct violence. But the inequality of people here is determined not by physical, but by military-physical coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover,, along with things, are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slave systems are very diverse. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and slavery in Russia during the "Russian Truth", this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American United States before the Civil War of 1861-1865, this is, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deported persons on German private farms during the Second World War.
The methods of reproduction of the slave system are also characterized by significant diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly through conquests. For early feudal Russia, there was more debt, enslaving slavery. The practice of selling one's own children in the absence of an opportunity to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. All sorts of criminals (including political ones) were also turned into slaves. This practice was practically reproduced much later in the Soviet GULAG (although private slavery was carried out here in forms hidden outside the legal framework).
The third type of stratification system is caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the special functions of each caste in the system of the division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities for social mobility here are extremely limited.
And the more pronounced caste, the more closed this society turns out to be. India is rightfully considered a classic example of a society dominated by a caste system (this system was legally abolished only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. In the middle of the twentieth century, clear features of caste were affirmed by the policy of the fascist states (the Aryans were assigned the position of the highest ethnic caste, called upon to rule over the Slavs, Jews, etc.). The role of cementing theological doctrines in this case is assumed by the nationalist ideology.
The fourth type is represented by the estate stratification system. In this system, groups differ in legal rights, which, in turn, are rigidly linked to their responsibilities and are directly dependent on these responsibilities. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in legislation. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.
Examples of developed estate systems are feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia... The estate is, first of all, a legal, and not, say, an ethnic-religious or economic division. It is also important that belonging to the class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.
Some similarity with the estate system is observed in the ectaratic system representing the fifth type (from French and Greek - "state power"). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in their respective power hierarchies.
All other differences - demographic and religious - ethnic, economic and cultural - play a derivative role. The scale and nature of differentiation (the scope of power) in the ectaratic system are under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be formalized - legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military charters, assignment of categories to state institutions, or they can remain outside the sphere of state legislation (a clear example is the system of the Soviet party nomenclature, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws). The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.
The etakratic system is revealed with the greater force, the more authoritarian the state rule takes. In ancient times, societies of Asian despotism (China, India, Cambodia), located, however, not only in Asia (but for example, in Peru, Egypt), were a striking example of the etacratic system. In the twentieth century, it is actively establishing itself in the so-called socialist societies and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special ectaratic system is not yet traditional for work on stratification typologies.
This is followed by the sixth, social - professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. A special role is played by qualification requirements presented to a particular professional role - possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. The approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, ranks, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualifications and the ability to perform certain types of activities. The effectiveness of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history. Social - professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with any developed division of labor. This is the construction of craft workshops medieval town and the discharge grid in modern state industry, the system of certificates and diplomas on obtaining education, the system scientific degrees and titles that open the door to more prestigious jobs.
The seventh type is represented by the popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification one. But for us, class division is only a special case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of "class", in this case, we will focus on the more traditional - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes represent social groups of politically and legally free citizens. Differences between groups primarily in the nature and size of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated by the highest authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited. In its pure form, the class system does not contain any internal formal barriers at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).
Economically egalitarian communities, where class differentiation is completely absent, is a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But throughout most of human history, class divisions are still subordinate in nature. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies. And the class system reaches its greatest heights in the United States of America imbued with the spirit of liberalism.
The eighth type is culturally symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, the ability to be a carrier of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to the ministers of the church, who constitute the bulk of the literate population, interpreters of sacred texts, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. expression of public interest has existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this respect is occupied by those who have the best opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who are better than others who can prove their rights to true understanding and own the best symbolic capital.
Simplifying the picture somewhat, we can say that theocratic manipulation is more characteristic of pre-industrial societies; for industrialists - partocratic; and for post - industrial - technocratic.
The ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural - normative. Here the differentiation is built on the differences of respect and prestige arising from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior that should be followed. this person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental work, consumer tastes and habits, communication manners and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this form the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “foes”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble-not-noble”, “decent-not-decent”, “elite ordinary people- bottom ”). The concept of elites is surrounded by a kind of mysterious flavor. They talk a lot about him, but often, they do not outline any clear denoting boundaries.
Elite is not just a category of politics. In modern society, there are many elites - political, military, economic, professional. Somewhere these elites intertwine, somewhere they compete with each other. It can be said that there are as many elites as there are areas of social life. But no matter what sphere we take, the elite is essentially a minority that opposes the rest of society, its middle and lower strata as a kind of “mass”. At the same time, the position of the elite as the upper class or caste can be fixed by a formal law or religious code, or it can be achieved in a completely informal way.
Elitist theories arose and took shape to a large extent as a reaction to radical and socialist teachings and were directed against various currents of socialism: Marxist, anarcho-syndicalist. Therefore, the Marxists, in fact, were very skeptical about these theories, did not want to recognize them and apply them on the material of Western societies. For this would mean, firstly, the recognition that the lower strata are a weak or not at all organized mass, which must be controlled, a mass incapable of self-organization and revolutionary action, and secondly, the recognition, to some extent, of inevitability and The “naturalness” of such a sharp inequality. As a result, it would be necessary to radically revise the views on the role and nature of the class struggle.
But the elitist approach is directed against democratic parliamentarism. It is generally anti-democratic by nature. Democracy and accessories presuppose majority rule and universal equality of people as independent citizens, sufficiently organized to realize their own goals and interests. And because of this, the champions of democracy treat any attempts at elite rule rather coldly.
Numerous approaches to the concept can be conditionally divided into two main groups - power and meritocratic. According to the first, the elite are those who have decisive power in a given society, and according to the second, those who have certain special virtues and personal qualities, regardless of whether they have power or not.
IN the latter case the elite stands out for talent and merit. Sometimes authoritative and meritocratic approaches are conventionally referred to as "Lassuela line" and "Pareto line". (Although the first approach may just as well be called the "Mosca Line" or "Mills Line".)
One group of researchers understands the elite as the layers with the highest positions of power or the highest formal power in organizations and institutions. Another group refers to the elite of charismatic personalities, divinely inspired, capable of leadership, representatives of the creative minority.
In turn, power approaches are subdivided into structural and functional. Those who choose a structural approach that is simpler from an empirical point of view consider the circle of persons holding senior positions in the institutions in question (ministers, directors, military leaders) as elite
Those who stop at the functional approach set themselves a more difficult task: to single out the groups that have real power in making socially important decisions (many representatives of these groups, of course, may not occupy any prominent public posts, remain in the "shadow") ...
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description is usually given of caste, slave, estate and class differentiation. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in the modern world or have already irrevocably gone into the past. Another approach assumes that any particular society consists of combinations of different stratification systems and many of their transitional forms. Can be distinguished nine types of stratification systems, which can be used to describe any social organism, namely:
Physico-genetic;
Social and professional;
Slave-owning;
Class;
Caste;
Cultural and symbolic;
Estates;
Cultural and normative;
Etakratic.
At the heart of the first type - physical and genetic stratification systems - the differentiation of social groups is based on "natural" socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or a group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, with physical disabilities are considered flawed and occupy a degraded social position. Inequality is affirmed in this case by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then it is enshrined in customs and rituals.
This "natural" stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to reproduce to this day. It manifests itself especially strongly in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The most prestigious here is the one who is able to carry out violence against nature and people, or to resist such violence: a healthy young male breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of primitive manual labor; courageous warrior of the Spartan state; a true Aryan of the National Socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring. The system that ranks people according to their capacity for physical violence is in many ways a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. Currently, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sex-erotic propaganda.
The second stratification system is slave- also based on direct violence. But inequality here is determined not by physical, but by military-legal coercion.
Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, on a par with things, are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slave systems are very diverse. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servitude in Russia during the "Russian Truth", this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American states before the Civil War of 1861-1865, this is, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deported persons on German private farms during the Second World War.
The methods of reproduction of the slave system are also characterized by significant diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly through conquests. Debt, enslaving slavery was more characteristic of early feudal Russia. The practice of selling their own children into slavery in the absence of the opportunity to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. In the same place, they turned into slaves and all sorts of criminals (including political ones). This practice was reproduced much later in the Soviet Gulag (although slavery was carried out here only in latent extra-legal forms).
The third type of stratification system is caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the functions of each caste in the system of division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities for social mobility here are extremely limited. And the more pronounced caste, the more closed this society turns out to be.
A classic example of society with India is rightfully considered the dominance of the caste system (legally, this system was abolished here only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. Obvious features of caste were affirmed in the middle of the twentieth century by the policy of the fascist states (the Aryans were assigned the position of the highest ethnic caste, called to rule over the Slavs, Jews and etc.). In this case, nationalist ideology took on the role of cementing theological doctrines.
The fourth type is presented estate stratification system. In this system, groups differ in legal rights, which, in turn, are rigidly connected with their responsibilities and are in direct proportion to these responsibilities. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in legislation. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.
Examples of developed estate systems were feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. This is how V.O. Klyuchevsky in his "History of Estates in Russia": "We call an estate classes (" classes "for him are simply synonymous with the concept of" groups "- author), into which societies are divided according to the rights and duties established by the supreme power." - "The estate division is essentially legal, it is established by the Law, in contrast to other social divisions." So, this is, first of all, a legal, and not, say, ethnic-religious or economic division. It is also important that belonging to the class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.
Some similarity with the estate system is observed in the fifth type. etacratic system (from French and Greek - "state power"). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities for mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as according to the privileges that these groups are able to extract from their positions of power.
The degree of material well-being, the lifestyle of social groups, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in the corresponding power hierarchies. All other differences - demographic and religious-ethnic, economic and cultural - play a derivative role.
The scale and nature of differentiation (the scope of power) in the etacratic system are under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be fixed formally and legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military charters, assignment of categories to state institutions - or they can remain outside the sphere of state legislation (a clear example is the system of the Soviet party nomenclature, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws) ... The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.
The etakratic system is revealed with the greater force, the more authoritarian the state rule takes. In ancient times bright examples of the ethocratic system were observed in societies of Asian despotism (China, India, Cambodia), located, however, not only in Asia (but for example, in Peru, Egypt). In the twentieth century, it is actively establishing itself in the so-called "socialist societies" and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special etacratic system is not yet traditional for work on stratification typologies.
This is followed by the sixth - social and professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. A special role is played by the qualification requirements for to that or other professional role - possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. The approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, assignment of categories, licenses, patents), which fix the level of qualifications and the ability to perform certain types of activities. The effectiveness of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history.
Social and professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with a more or less developed division of labor. This is the construction of craft workshops of the medieval city and the category grid in modern state industry, the system of certificates and diplomas O education, a system of scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.
The seventh type is represented by the most popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification one. But class division is only a special case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of "class", in this case, we will focus on the most traditional - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes are social groups of citizens free in political and legal relations. The differences between these groups lie in the nature and size of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated by the highest authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited (property and capital are transferred, but not the status itself). In its pure form, the class system does not contain any internal formal barriers at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).
Economically egalitarian communities, where there is absolutely no class differentiation, is a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But throughout most of human history, class divisions are still subordinate in nature. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies.
It remains to consider two more stratification systems. One of them can be roughly called cultural and symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, the ability to be a carrier of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to ministers of the church, interpreters of sacred texts, who make up the bulk of the literate population, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims to communicate with divine forces, to possess the truth, to express the state's interest existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this respect is occupied by those who have the best opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can prove their rights to true understanding better than others, and who own the best symbolic capital.
To simplify the picture somewhat, we can say that theocratic manipulation is more typical for pre-industrial societies, partocratic manipulation for industrial ones, and technocratic manipulation for post-industrial ones.
Finally, the last, ninth type of stratification system should be called culturally normative. Here, differentiation is built on differences of respect and prestige arising from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior followed by a given person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental work, consumer tastes and habits, communication manners and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between "us" and "others", but also the ranking of groups ("noble - ignoble", "decent - dishonest", "elite - ordinary people - bottom").
The noble manners of a gentleman, the idle pastime of an aristocrat, the selfless asceticism of a religious ascetic, oratory an ideological leader - not only signs of a high social status. They often turn into normative guidelines, models of social action and begin to perform the functions of moral regulation, which determines this type of stratification relations.
And this applies not only to the isolation of the elite, but also to the differentiation of all middle and lower strata. In the peasant community, where formally everyone is equal to each other, there are “serviceable owners” who live “according to custom”, “according to their conscience”, and idlers, renegades, “tumbleweeds”. Its own normative culture, its own patterns of behavior and its own "aristocracy" exist at the very "bottom", within the underworld. The emergence of countercultures and the so-called "antisocial behavior", by the way, is also largely a product of moral regulation and ideological control carried out in a given society.
The list of stratification systems is not completely exhausted by the indicated nine types. For example, one can raise the question of a special socio-territorial type, where groups are differentiated by their place of residence and the type of settlement, and the differences are determined by the citizenship system, passport regime, housing policy, etc. Our approach provides sufficient scope for creativity.
One of the main watersheds between stratification systems is the inheritance or non-inheritance of the corresponding positions in the hierarchy. Slave, estate and caste systems include elements of lifelong and formal legal inheritance. Other systems, at least, neither formally life-long status, nor their inheritance do not provide.
However, this watershed is mobile. On the one hand, there are limits to the rigidity of formal legal stratification boundaries. So, slaves can be released or ransomed to freedom. Representatives of the merchant class, going bankrupt, descend into the lower bourgeois class (for Russia XIX in. is the usual case). Conversely, under certain conditions, you can earn (and sometimes buy), an honorary hereditary title. And even with the most rigid caste system, opportunities for vertical social mobility remain.
On the other hand, the highest groups in all stratification systems strive to consolidate their position, to make it not only monopoly, but also inherited. In the class system, such inheritance is ensured by the principle of entitlement (transfer of the main property to the eldest heir), characteristic, say, of ancient India, western Europe of the 11th-13th centuries. or Russia up to 1917 (The rest of the relatives in this case actually go down the class ladder.) In the etacratic system, the official does not formally have the right to transfer his chair and powers to his own children, but he is able to provide them with an equally enviable place in institution of similar rank. The situation in the socio-professional, cultural-symbolic and cultural-normative strata is often transmitted in reality through education and upbringing, the transfer of experience and secrets of skill, the authorization of certain codes of conduct (professional dynasties are not the only, but a striking example). As for the physico-genetic system, it stands somewhat apart, because inheritance occurs here often, but not as a result of any social mechanisms, but purely biologically.
We emphasize once again that all nine types of stratification systems are nothing more than "ideal types". Any real society is a complex mixture of them, a combination. In reality, stratification types are intertwined, complement each other.
Social stratification- the central theme of sociology. She describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata according to income level and lifestyle, according to the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so there was almost no stratification. In complex societies, inequality is very strong, it divided people by income, education level, power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, the transition from one social stratum (stratum) to another is prohibited; there are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.
1. Stratification terms
The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the earth's strata. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social strata (strata) also vertically. The basis is income ladder: the poor are at the bottom, the wealthy are at the middle, and the rich are at the top.
The wealthy hold the most privileged positions and the most prestigious professions. As a rule, they are better paid and are associated with mental work and the performance of managerial functions. Leaders, kings, kings, presidents, political leaders, business leaders, academics and artists make up the elite of society. The middle class in modern society includes doctors, lawyers, teachers, qualified employees, the middle and petty bourgeoisie. To the lower strata - unskilled workers, unemployed, beggars. The working class, according to modern views, is an independent group that occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes.
The wealthy from the upper class have a higher level of education and more power. The lower-class poor have little power, income, or education. Thus, the prestige of the profession (occupation), the amount of power and the level of education are added to income as the main criterion of stratification.
Income- the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of salaries, pensions, benefits, alimony, royalties, deductions from profits. Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, then it accumulates and turns into wealth.
Wealth- accumulated income, that is, the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable(car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable(home, artwork, treasure) property. Usually wealth is transferred by inheritance. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, and only working people can receive income. In addition to them, the pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not have it. The rich may or may not work. In either case, they are owners, because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The share of the salary is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of subsistence is income, since the former, if there is any wealth, is insignificant, while the latter does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, and its absence forces you to work for a salary.
The essence of power- in the ability to impose their will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power institutionalized, those. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows making decisions that are vital for society, including laws that are usually beneficial to the upper class. In all societies, people with some form of power - political, economic, or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It defines the internal and foreign policy the state, directing it in a direction favorable to itself, which other classes are deprived of.
Prestige- the respect that is enjoyed in public opinion by this or that profession, position, occupation. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or a plumber. The position of the president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of a cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be arranged from top to bottom on ladder of professional prestige. We define professional prestige intuitively, approximately. But in some countries, primarily the United States, sociologists measure it using special methods. They study public opinion, compare different professions, analyze statistics and, as a result, get an accurate scale of prestige. The first such study was conducted by American sociologists in 1947.Since then, they regularly measure this phenomenon and monitor how the prestige of the main professions in society changes over time. In other words, they build a dynamic picture.
Income, power, prestige, and education determine cumulative socio-economic status, that is, the position and place of a person in society. In this case, status is a generalized indicator of stratification. Previously, it was noted for its key role in the social structure. Now it turns out that he plays a vital role in sociology in general. The assigned status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. These systems include slavery and caste. The achieved status characterizes the mobile system of stratification, or open society, where free transitions of people down and up the social ladder are allowed. This system includes classes (capitalist society). Finally, feudal society with its inherent estate structure should be reckoned among intermediate type, that is, to a relatively closed system. Here crossings are legally prohibited, but in practice they are not excluded. These are the historical types of stratification.
2. Historical types of stratification
Stratification, that is, inequality in income, power, prestige and education, arose with the birth of human society. In its embryonic form, it is found already in a simple (primitive) society. With the emergence of an early state - Eastern despotism - stratification becomes tougher, and with the development of European society, the liberalization of morals, the stratification softens. The estate system is freer than caste and slavery, and the class system that has replaced the estate has become even more liberal.
Slavery- historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery originated in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and has survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It existed in the United States back in the 19th century.
Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ significantly. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of the younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free, inherited the owner's property. It was forbidden to kill him. At the mature stage, the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and did not have a family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").
So slavery turns into slavery. When one speaks of slavery as a historical type of stratification, one means its highest stage.
Castes. Like slavery, the caste system characterizes a closed society and rigid stratification. It is not as ancient as the slave system, and less widespread. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes are found only in India and partly in Africa. India - classic example caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slave system in the first centuries of the new era.
Castoy called a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes exclusively to birth. He cannot pass from one caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position of a person is fixed by the Hindu religion (it is now understandable why castes are not widespread). According to her canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.
In total, there are 4 main castes in India: brahmanas (priests), kshatriyas (warriors), vaisyas (merchants), sudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand non-main castes and a podcast. The untouchables (outcasts) are especially worthy - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, and the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains a caste one.
Estates. Estates are the form of stratification that precedes classes. In feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries, people were divided into estates.
Estate - a social group that has established custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations. The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. The classic example of the estate organization was Europe, where at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. society was divided into the upper classes (nobility and clergy) and the unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants). And in the X-XIII centuries. there were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century. the class division into the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.
The rights and obligations of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined by inheritance. Social barriers between estates were quite tough, so social mobility existed not so much between, as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, only nobles could be engaged in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (chivalry).
The higher the class was in the social hierarchy, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated, and individual mobility was also allowed. An ordinary person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. Merchants bought titles of nobility for money. As a relic, this practice has been partially preserved in modern England.
Russian nobility.
A characteristic feature of the estates is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, adornments, norms and rules of behavior, and a ritual of conversion. In feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. How exactly was this expressed?
Titles are verbal designations established by law for the official and estate-clan status of their owners, which briefly determined the legal status. In Russia in the XIX century. there were such titles as "General", "State Councilor", "Chamberlain", "Count", "Adjutant Wing", "Secretary of State", "Excellency" and "Lordship".
Uniforms are official uniforms that correspond to titles and visually express them.
Orders - material insignia, honorary awards, complementing titles and uniforms. The order (knight of the order) was a special case of the uniform, and the order itself was a common addition to any uniform.
The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). Before Peter I, the concept of "rank" meant any position, honorary title, social status of a person. On January 24, 1722, Peter I introduced a new system of titles in Russia, the legal basis of which was the "Table of Ranks". Since then, "rank" has received a narrower meaning, referring only to public service... The report card provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.
Civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from the bottom up entirely, starting with the length of service of the lowest class rank. In each class it was necessary to serve a certain minimum of years (in the lower 3-4 years). There were fewer higher positions than lower ones. The class denoted the rank of the position, which was called the class rank. The name "official" was assigned to its owner.
Only the nobility - local and servicemen - was allowed to public service. Both were hereditary: the title of nobility was passed on to the wife, children and distant descendants in the male line. Daughters who got married acquired the status of a husband. The noble status was usually formalized in the form of a genealogy, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, tradition, titles and orders. So in the minds gradually formed a sense of the continuity of generations, pride in their family and the desire to preserve its good name. Taken together, they constituted the concept of "noble honor", an important component of which was the respect and trust of others to an unblemished name. The total number of the nobility and class officials (with family members) was equal in the middle of the 19th century. 1 million
The noble origin of a hereditary nobleman was determined by the merits of his family to the Fatherland. The official recognition of such merits was expressed by the common title of all nobles - "your honor". The private title "nobleman" was not used in everyday life. It was replaced by the predicate "master", which eventually began to refer to any other free class. In Europe, other substitutions were used: "background" for German surnames, "don" for Spanish surnames, "de" for French surnames. In Russia, this formula has been transformed into the indication of the name, patronymic and surname. The nominal three-term formula was used only in addressing the noble class: the use of the full name was the prerogative of the nobles, and the half-name was considered a sign of belonging to the noble class.
In the class hierarchy of Russia, achievable and attributed titles were very complexly intertwined. The presence of a pedigree indicated an attributed status, and its absence indicated an achievable one. In the second generation, the achieved (granted) status turned into attributed (inherited).
Adapted from the source: Shepelev L.E. Titles, uniforms, orders.-M., 1991.
3. Class system
Belonging to the social stratum in the slave-owning, caste and estate-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he was in. People, as they say, were attributed to one or another social stratum.
In a class society, the situation is different. The state does not deal with the issues of social consolidation of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of the people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or strata into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are needed that are chosen rather arbitrarily. That is why in a country as developed from a sociological point of view as the United States, different sociologists propose different class typologies. In one there are seven, in the other six, in the third five, etc. social strata. The first typology of classes in the United States was proposed in the 40s. XX century. American sociologist L. Warner.
Upper-upper class included the so-called old families. They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city.
Lower-upper class in terms of material well-being, it was not inferior to the upper - the upper class, but did not include old clan families.
Upper-middle class consisted of owners and professionals who had less material wealth in comparison with people from the upper two classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in rather comfortable districts.
Lower-middle class were lower employees and skilled workers.
Upper-lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity.
Lower-lower class were those who are commonly called the "social bottom". These are inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places of little use for life. They constantly feel an inferiority complex due to extreme poverty and constant humiliation.
In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum, or layer, and the second, the class to which this layer belongs.
Other schemes are proposed, for example: upper-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, worker, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle, middle and lower-middle class, upper working and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:
- there are only three main classes, whatever they are called: the rich, the well-to-do and the poor;
- minor classes arise by adding strata, or layers, lying within one of the major classes.
More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with one more layer and in its final form represents a seven-point scale.
Upper-upper class includes "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and amassed untold wealth over many generations. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.
Lower-upper class consists mainly of the "new rich" who have not yet managed to create powerful tribal clans that have seized the highest posts in industry, business, and politics.
Typical representatives - a professional basketball player or pop star, receiving tens of millions, but in the family who do not have "aristocrats by blood."
Upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - big lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. The lifestyle is approaching the high society, but they cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of art rarities.
Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, middle-paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, middle managers. This is the backbone information society and the service sector.
Half an hour before starting work
Barbara and Colin Williams are an average English family. They live in the suburb of London, Watford Junction, which can be reached from central London in 20 minutes in a comfortable, clean train car. They are over 40, both work in the optical center. Colin grinds glasses and inserts them into frames, and Barbara sells ready-made glasses. A family contract, so to speak, although they are hired workers, not owners of an enterprise numbering about 70 optical workshops.
It is not surprising that the correspondent chose to visit not a family of factory workers, who for many years personified the most numerous class - workers. The situation has changed. Of the total number of British people with work (28.5 million people), most are employed in the service sector, only 19% are industrial workers. Unskilled workers in the UK earn an average of 908 pounds a month, skilled workers - 1308 pounds.
The minimum base salary that Barbara can count on is £ 530 a month. Everything else depends on her diligence. Barbara admits that she also had "black" weeks when she did not receive bonuses at all, but sometimes she managed to receive bonuses and more than 200 pounds a week. So the average comes out about £ 1,200 a month, plus the "thirteenth salary." On average, Colin earns about £ 1,660 a month.
It can be seen that the Williams value their work, although it takes 45-50 minutes to get there by car during rush hour. My question, how often they are late, seemed strange to Barbara: “My husband and I prefer to arrive half an hour before the start of work”. Spouses regularly pay taxes, income and social security, which is about a quarter of their income.
Barbara is not afraid of losing her job. Perhaps this is due to the fact that she was lucky before, she was never unemployed. But Colin had to sit idle for several months, and he recalls how he once applied for a vacant position for which another 80 people applied.
As a lifelong worker, Barbara speaks with undisguised disapproval of people using unemployment benefits without struggling to find a job. “You know how many cases when people receive benefits, do not pay taxes and still secretly earn money somewhere,” she says indignantly. Barbara herself chose to work even after the divorce, when, with two children, she could live on an allowance that was higher than the salary. In addition, she refused alimony, having agreed with her ex-husband that he would leave her home with her children.
The registered unemployed in the UK is about 6%. The unemployment benefit depends on the number of dependents, averaging around £ 60 per week.
The Williams family spends about 200 pounds a month on food, which is slightly below the average cost of an English family for food (9.1%). Barbara buys food for the family at the local supermarket, cooks at home, although she and her husband and I stop by a traditional English “pub” 1-2 times a week, where you can not only drink good beer, but also have an inexpensive dinner, and even play cards ...
What distinguishes the Williams family from others is primarily their home, but not the size (5 rooms plus a kitchen), but low rent (20 pounds a week), while the "average" family spends 10 times more.
Lower-middle class are lower employees and skilled workers who, by the nature and content of their labor, tend not to physical, but to mental labor. The hallmark is a befitting lifestyle.
Russian miner's family budget
The Graudenzerstrasse street in the Ruhr town of Recklinghausen (Germany) is located near the General Blumenthal mine. Here, in a three-story, outwardly nondescript house, at number 12, lives the family of the hereditary German miner Peter Scharf.
Peter Scharf, his wife Ulrika and two children - Katrin and Stefanie - occupy a four-room apartment with a total living area of 92 m 2.
Peter earns 4382 marks a month at the mine. However, on the printout of his earnings, there is a pretty decent deduction line: 291 marks for medical care, 409 marks for the contribution to the pension fund, 95 marks for the unemployment benefit fund.
So, a total of 1253 marks have been withheld. It seems a bit too much. However, according to Peter, these are contributions to the right cause. For example, health insurance provides preferential treatment not only for him, but also for his family members. This means that they will receive many medicines free of charge. He will pay the minimum for the operation, the rest will be covered by the health insurance fund. For example:
the removal of the appendix costs the patient six thousand marks. For a member of the cashier - two hundred marks. Teeth are treated free of charge.
Having received 3 thousand marks in his hands, Peter pays 650 marks monthly for an apartment, plus 80 for electricity. Its costs would have been even greater if the mine had not provided each miner with seven tons of coal free of charge annually in terms of social assistance. Including pensioners. Those who do not need coal are recalculated to pay for heating and hot water. Therefore, for the Scharf family, heating and hot water- free of charge.
In total, 2250 marks remain on hand. The family does not deny themselves food and clothing. Children eat fruits and vegetables all year round, and they are not cheap in winter. They also spend a lot on children's clothes. To this must be added another 50 marks for the telephone, 120 - for life insurance of adult family members, 100 - for insurance of children, 300 - per quarter for car insurance. And they have it, by the way, not new - a 1981 Volkswagen Passat.
We spend 1,500 marks a month on food and clothing. The rest of the expenses, including rent and electricity, are 1,150 marks. If you subtract this from the three thousand that Peter gets in his hands at the mine, then there are a couple of hundred marks left.
The children go to the gymnasium, Katrin goes to the third grade, Stefanie goes to the fifth. Parents pay nothing for their studies. Paid only notebooks and textbooks. There are no school breakfasts in the gymnasium. Children bring sandwiches with them. The only thing they are given is cocoa. It is worth the pleasure of two brands a week for each.
Ulrik's wife works three times a week for four hours as a saleswoman at a grocery store. Receives 480 marks, which, of course, are a good help to the family budget.
- Do you put anything in the bank?
- Not always, and if it were not for my wife's salary, we would have passed "by zero."
The tariff agreement for miners for this year states that each miner will receive so-called Christmas money at the end of the year. And this is neither more nor less than 3898 marks.
Source: Arguments and Facts. - 1991. - No. 8.
Upper-lower class includes medium - and low - skilled workers employed in mass production in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in demeanor significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive drinking and non-literary vocabulary.
Lower-lower class are inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places of little use for life. They either do not have any education, or have only elementary education, most often they are interrupted by odd jobs, begging, constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the "social bottom", or the underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, ex-prisoners, homeless people, etc.
The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two strata: lower-middle and upper-lower. All knowledge workers, no matter how little they receive, are never enrolled in the lower class.
The middle class (with its inherent strata) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, unemployed, homeless, beggars, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle class, but in its lower stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled workers. mental labor - employees.
Another option is possible: skilled workers are not included in the middle class, but they constitute two strata in the general working class. Specialists are included in the 'next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of "specialist" presupposes at least college education.
Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - very rich (fortune - 200 million dollars or more) and very poor (income less than 6.5 thousand dollars per year), making up approximately the same share of the total population, namely 5% , a part of the population is located, which is usually called the middle class. In industrially developed countries, it constitutes the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.
It is customary to refer to the middle class as doctors, teachers and teachers, the engineering and technical intelligentsia (including all employees), the middle and petty bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs), highly qualified workers, leaders (managers).
Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small in number. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet entered the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with high-tech production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the incomes of the Russian population are immeasurably lower than in Western European society, so a representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be a rich man in our country, and our middle class drags out existence at the level of the European poor).
The author is convinced that each culture and each society should have its own model of the middle class, reflecting the national specifics. It's not about the amount of money earned (or rather, not only about them alone), but about the quality of their spending. In the USSR, most workers received more intelligentsia. But what was the money spent on? For cultural leisure, education, expansion and enrichment of spiritual needs? Sociological studies show that money was spent on maintaining physical existence, including the cost of alcohol and tobacco. The intelligentsia earned less, but the composition of expenditure items of the budget did not differ from what the educated part of the population of Western countries spent money on.
The criterion for a country to belong to a post-industrial society is also questionable. Such a society is also called informational. The main feature and the main resource in it is cultural, or intellectual, capital. In a postindustrial society, it is not the working class, but the intelligentsia that runs the show. She can live modestly, even very modestly, but if she is numerous enough to set the standards of living for all segments of the population, if she has done so that the values, ideals and needs she shares become prestigious for other segments, if the majority strives to get into her ranks population, there is reason to say that a strong middle class has formed in such a society.
By the end of the existence of the USSR, there was such a class. Its boundaries still need to be clarified - it was 10-15%, as most sociologists think, or still 30-40%, as can be assumed, based on the above criteria, this still needs to be discussed and this issue still needs to be studied. After the transition of Russia to the extensive construction of capitalism (which one is also a debatable issue), the standard of living of the entire population, and especially the former middle class, sharply decreased. But has the intelligentsia ceased to be such? Hardly. A temporary deterioration in one indicator (income) does not mean a deterioration in another (educational level and cultural capital).
It can be assumed that the Russian intelligentsia, as the basis of the middle class, did not disappear due to economic reforms, but, as it were, is hiding and waiting in the wings. With the improvement of material conditions, its intellectual capital will not only recover, but also increase. It will be in demand by time and society.
4. Stratification of Russian society
Perhaps this is the most controversial and unexplored issue. Domestic sociologists have been studying the problems of the social structure of our society for many years, but all this time ideology influenced their results. Only recently have the conditions appeared for objectively and impartially understanding the essence of the matter. In the late 80s - early 90s. sociologists such as T. Zaslavskaya, V. Radaev, V. Ilyin and others have proposed approaches to the analysis of the social stratification of Russian society. Despite the fact that these approaches do not converge in many ways, they still allow us to describe social structure our society and consider its dynamics.
From estates to classes
Before the revolution in Russia, it was the estate, not the class, division of the population that was official. It was subdivided into two main classes - taxable(peasants, bourgeois) and unaffordable(nobility, clergy). Within each class, there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in legislation. The rights themselves were guaranteed to the estates only insofar as they performed certain duties in favor of the state (they grew bread, were engaged in crafts, served, paid taxes). The state apparatus and officials regulated relations between estates. This was the benefit of bureaucracy. Naturally, the estate system was inseparable from the state one. That is why we can define estates as social and legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.
According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million Russians, was divided into the following estates: nobles - 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0,5%, merchants - 0,3%, bourgeois - 10,6%, peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest of the estates were not privileged. The nobles were hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners, many were in the civil service, which was the main source of livelihood. But those nobles who were landowners constituted a special group - the class of landowners (among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% of landowners).
Gradually, classes appear within other estates as well. The once united peasantry at the turn of the century stratified into the poor (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), well-to-do (12,9%), fists(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, together accounting for one third. The bourgeoisie was a heterogeneous formation - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. From their midst and from the peasantry came Russian industrialists, the petty, middle and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class serving on the border.
By 1917, the process of class formation did not end, he was at the very beginning. The main reason is the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, like the country's domestic market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasants, who, even after the Stolypin reform, did not become free farmers. The working class, numbering about 10 million people, did not consist of hereditary workers, many were half-workers, half-peasants. By the end of the XIX century. the industrial revolution was not fully completed. Manual labor was never replaced by machines, even in the 1980s. Xx in. it accounted for 40%. The bourgeoisie and proletariat did not become the main classes of society. The government created huge privileges for domestic entrepreneurs by restricting free competition. The lack of competition strengthened monopoly and held back the development of capitalism, which never passed from an early to a mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers. Thus, the per capita income in Russia in 1900 was 63 rubles a year, in England - 273, in the USA - 346. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, and in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. There were no objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class acting as a stabilizer of society in Russia.
Classless society
The October Revolution, perpetrated by the extra-class and extra-class strata of the urban and rural poor, led by the battle-worthy Bolshevik party, easily destroyed the old social structure of Russian society. A new one had to be created on its ruins. It was officially named classless. So it was in fact, since the objective and only basis for the emergence of classes - private property - was being destroyed. The process of class formation that had begun was eliminated in the bud. The official ideology of Marxism, which officially equalized everyone in rights and in material status, did not allow the restoration of the estate system.
In history, within the framework of one country, a unique situation arose when all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and were not recognized as eligible. However, as we already know, society cannot exist without social hierarchy and social inequality, even the simplest and most primitive. Russia was not one of those.
The arrangement of the social organization of society was undertaken by the Bolshevik party, which acted as a representative of the interests of the proletariat - the most active, but far from the most numerous group of the population. It is the only class to have survived the devastating revolution and bloody civil war. As a class, he was solidary, united and organized, which could not be said about the class of peasants, whose interests were limited to land ownership and the protection of local traditions. The proletariat is the only class in the old society devoid of any form of ownership. This is exactly what suited the Bolsheviks most of all, who for the first time in history conceived to build a society where there would be no property, inequality, and exploitation.
New class
It is known that not a single social group of any size can organize itself spontaneously, no matter how much it wants to. The administrative functions were taken over by a relatively small group - the political party of the Bolsheviks, which had accumulated the necessary experience over the long years of the underground. Having carried out the nationalization of land and enterprises, the party appropriated all state property, and with it the power in the state. Gradually formed new class party bureaucracy, who appointed ideologically devoted cadres to key posts in the national economy, in the sphere of culture and science - first of all, members of the Communist Party. Since the new class was the owner of the means of production, it was the exploiting class that exercised control over the whole of society.
The basis of the new class was nomenclature - the upper layer of party functionaries. The nomenclature designates a list of leadership positions, the replacement of which occurs by decision of a higher authority. The ruling class includes only those who are on the regular nomenclature of party organizations - from the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the main nomenclature of district party committees. None of the nomenclature could be elected or replaced by the people. In addition, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand people, and with family members the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR reached 3 million people, i.e. 1.5% of the total population.
Stratification of Soviet society
In 1950, the American sociologist A. Inkels, analyzing the social stratification of Soviet society, found 4 large groups in it - the ruling elite, the intelligentsia, the working class and the peasantry. With the exception of the ruling elite, each group, in turn, disintegrated into several layers. So, in a group intelligentsia 3 subgroups were found:
the upper stratum, the mass intelligentsia (professionals, middle officials and managers, junior officers and technicians), "white collars" (ordinary employees - accountants, cashiers, lower managers). Working class included the "aristocracy" (the most skilled workers), rank-and-file workers of average skill and lagging, low-skilled workers. Peasantry consisted of 2 subgroups - successful and average collective farmers. In addition to them, A. Inkels highlighted the so-called residual group, where he enrolled prisoners held in labor camps and correctional colonies. This part of the population, like the outcast in the caste system of India, was outside the formal class structure.
The differences in income of these groups turned out to be larger than in the United States and Western Europe... In addition to high wages, the elite of Soviet society received additional benefits: a personal chauffeur and an official car, a comfortable apartment and a country house, closed shops and clinics, boarding houses, and special rations. The style of life, style of dress and demeanor also differed significantly. True, social inequality was to a certain extent leveled out thanks to free education and health care, pension and social insurance, as well as low prices for public transport and low rent.
Summarizing the 70-year period of the development of Soviet society, the famous Soviet sociologist T.I. Zaslavskaya in 1991 identified 3 groups in its social system: upper class, lower class and separating them interlayer. The basis top class is a nomenclature that unites the upper layers of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She is the owner of the national wealth, most of which she spends on herself, receiving explicit (salary) and implicit (free goods and services) income. Lower class formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. They have no property and no political rights. Characteristic features of the lifestyle: low incomes, limited consumption structure, overcrowding in communal apartments, low level of medical care, poor health.
Social layer social groups serving the nomenclature are formed between the upper and lower classes: middle managers, ideological workers, party journalists, propagandists, social science teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal cars and other categories of servants of the nomenclature elite, as well as successful artists, lawyers, writers, diplomats commanders of the army, navy, the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the serving stratum appears to occupy a place usually belonging to the middle class, such similarities are misleading. The base of the middle class in the West is private property, which ensures political and social independence. However, the service stratum is dependent in everything; it has neither private property nor the right to dispose of public property.
These are the main foreign and domestic theories of the social stratification of Soviet society. We had to turn to them because the issue is still controversial. Perhaps, in the future, new approaches will appear that in some way or in many respects clarify the old ones, because our society is constantly changing, and this sometimes happens in such a way that all the predictions of scientists are refuted.
The peculiarity of Russian stratification
Let us summarize and, from this point of view, define the main contours of the current state and future development of social stratification in Russia. The main conclusion is as follows. Soviet society has never been socially homogeneous, social stratification has always existed in it, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed a kind of pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. The society was not open, but closed, like caste-class. However, estates in the usual sense of the word did not exist in Soviet society, since there was no legal consolidation of social status, as was the case in feudal Europe.
At the same time, in Soviet society, there really were classlike and class-like groups. Let's consider why this was so. For 70 years, Soviet society was the most mobile the world is a society along with America. Available to all layers free education opened up to everyone the same opportunities for advancement that existed only in the United States. Nowhere in the world is the elite of society for short term was not formed literally from all walks of life. According to American sociologists, the most dynamic Soviet society was in terms of not only education and social mobility, but also industrial development. For many years, the USSR held the first place in terms of the rate of industrial progress. All these are signs of a modern industrial society, which put forward the USSR, as written by Western sociologists, among the leading nations of the world.
At the same time, Soviet society must be classified as a class society. Class stratification is based on non-economic coercion, which persisted in the USSR for more than 70 years. After all, only private property, commodity-money relations and a developed market can destroy it, and they just did not exist. The place of legal consolidation of social status was taken by ideological and party ones. Depending on party experience, ideological loyalty, a person moved up the ladder or fell down into the “residual group”. Rights and obligations were determined in relation to the state, all groups of the population were its employees, but depending on the profession, party membership, they occupied different places in the hierarchy. Although the ideals of the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with feudal principles, the Soviet state returned to them in practice - having significantly modified them - in that. which divided the population into "taxable" and "non-taxable" strata.
Thus, Russia should be classified as mixed type stratification, but with a significant caveat. Unlike England and Japan, feudal remnants were not preserved here in the form of a living and highly revered tradition, they did not overlap with the new class structure. There was no historical continuity. On the contrary, in Russia the estate system was first undermined by capitalism, and then finally destroyed by the Bolsheviks. The classes that did not have time to develop under capitalism were also destroyed. Nevertheless, essential, albeit modified, elements of both systems of stratification have been revived in a type of society that, in principle, does not tolerate any stratification, any inequality. It is historically new and a unique type of mixed stratification.
Stratification of post-Soviet Russia
After the well-known events of the mid-80s and early 90s, called a peaceful revolution, Russia turned to market relations, democracy and a class society of the Western type. Over the course of 5 years, the country has almost formed the upper class of property owners, which makes up about 5% of the total population, the social lower classes of society have formed, whose standard of living is below the poverty line. And the middle of the social pyramid is occupied by small entrepreneurs who, with varying degrees of success, try to get into the ruling class. As the standard of living of the population rises, the middle part of the pyramid will be replenished with an increasing number of representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but also of all other strata of society focused on business, professional work and career. From it the middle class of Russia will be born.
The basis, or social base, of the upper class was still the same nomenclature, which to the beginning economic reforms held key positions in economics, politics, culture. The opportunity to privatize enterprises, transfer them to private and group ownership came in handy. In fact, the nomenclature only legalized its position as a real manager and owner of the means of production. Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are the businessmen of the shadow economy and the engineering layer of the intelligentsia. The first were in fact the pioneers of private entrepreneurship at a time when they were prosecuted by law. They have behind them not only practical experience in business management, but also the prison experience of those persecuted by the law (at least in part). The second are rank-and-file civil servants who left the research institutes, design bureaus and SLE on time, the most active and inventive.
Opportunities for vertical mobility for the majority of the population opened up very unexpectedly and closed very quickly. It became almost impossible to get into the upper class of society 5 years after the start of the reforms. Its capacity is objectively limited and amounts to no more than 5% of the population. The ease with which large capitals were made in the first "five years" of capitalism has disappeared. Today, in order to gain access to the elite, capital and opportunities are required that most people do not have. It happens as if top class closure, he passes laws restricting access to his ranks; he creates private schools that make it difficult for others to obtain the necessary education. Elite entertainment is no longer available to all other categories. It includes not only expensive salons, boarding houses, bars, clubs, but also rest in world resorts.
At the same time, access to the rural and urban middle class is open. The layer of farmers is extremely insignificant and does not exceed 1%. The middle urban strata have not yet formed. But their replenishment depends on how soon the “new Russians”, the elite of society and the country's leadership will pay for skilled mental labor not at the subsistence level, but at its market price. As we recall, the backbone of the middle class in the West is made up of teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers, academics and middle managers. The stability and prosperity of Russian society will depend on the success in the formation of the middle class.
5. Poverty and inequality
Inequality and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Inequality characterizes the uneven distribution of scarce resources of society - money, power, education, and prestige - between different strata, or strata of the population. The main measure of inequality is the amount of liquid assets. This function is usually performed by money (in primitive societies, inequality was expressed in the number of small and cattle, shells, etc.).
If inequality is represented in the form of a scale, then at one pole there will be those who own the greatest (rich), and at the other - the least (poor) amount of goods. Thus, poverty is the economic and sociocultural condition of people who have minimal amount liquid values and limited access to social benefits. The most common and easiest way to measure inequality is to compare the lowest and highest incomes in a given country. Pitirim Sorokin thus compared different countries and different historical eras. For example, in medieval Germany the ratio of the highest to the lowest income was 10,000: 1, and in medieval England it was 600: 1. Another way is to analyze the share of household income spent on food. It turns out that the rich spend only 5-7% of their family budget on food, while the poor spend 50-70%. The poorer the individual, the more he spends on food, and vice versa.
The essence social inequality lies in the unequal access of different categories of the population to social goods such as money, power and prestige. The essence economic inequality the fact that a minority of the population always owns most of the national wealth. In other words, the highest incomes are received by the smallest part of society, and the middle and lowest - by the majority of the population. The latter can be distributed in different ways. In the United States in 1992, the smallest incomes, as well as the largest, are received by a minority of the population, and the average - by the majority. In Russia in 1992, when the exchange rate of the ruble fell sharply and the overwhelming majority of the population absorbed all the ruble reserves, the lowest income was received by the majority, the average income was a relatively small group, and the highest was the minority of the population. Accordingly, the income pyramid, their distribution between population groups, in other words, inequality, in the first case can be depicted in the form of a rhombus, and in the second - a cone (Figure 3). As a result, we get a stratification profile, or inequality profile.
In the United States, 14% of the total population lived near the poverty line, in Russia - 81%, the rich were 5% each, and those who can be classified as wealthy, or the middle class, were respectively
81% vs. 14%. (For data on Russia see: Poverty: Scientists' View of the Problem / Edited by M. A. Mozhina. - M., 1994. - P. 6.)
Rich
Money is the universal measure of inequality in modern society. Their number determines the place of an individual or a family in social stratification. The rich include those who own the maximum amount of money. Wealth is expressed in the amount of money that determines the value of everything that a person owns: a house, a car, a yacht, a collection of paintings, stocks, insurance policies, etc. They are liquid - they can always be sold. The rich are so named because they own the most liquid assets, whether it be oil companies, commercial banks, supermarkets, publishing houses, castles, islands, luxury hotels or collections of paintings. A person who possesses all of this is considered rich. Wealth is something that accumulates over many years and is inherited, which allows you to live comfortably without working.
The rich are called differently millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires. In the United States, wealth is distributed as follows: 1) 0.5% of the super-rich own values worth $ 2.5 million. and more; 2) 0.5% of the very wealthy own from 1.4 to 2.5 million dollars;
3) 9% of the wealthy - from 206 thousand dollars. up to 1.4 million dollars; 4) 90% of those belonging to the wealthy class own less than 206 thousand dollars. In total, in the United States, 1 million people own assets worth more than $ 1 million. These include the "old rich" and the "new rich". The former accumulated wealth for decades and even centuries, passing it on from generation to generation. The latter have created their own well-being in a matter of years. These include, in particular, professional athletes. It is known that the average annual income of an NBA basketball player is $ 1.2 million. They have not yet managed to become hereditary nobility, and it is not known whether they will be. They can spread their wealth among many heirs, each of whom will receive a small part and, therefore, will not be classified as rich. They can go broke or lose their wealth in some other way.
Thus, the “new rich” are those who have not had time to test the strength of their fortune over time. On the contrary, the “old rich” have their money invested in corporations, banks, real estate, which bring reliable profits. They are not scattered, but multiplied by the efforts of tens and hundreds of the same rich people. Mutual marriages between them create a clan network that insures everyone separately from possible ruin.
The stratum of the "old rich" consists of 60 thousand families belonging to the aristocracy "by blood", that is, by family origin. It includes only white Anglo-Saxons of the Protestant denomination, whose roots stretch back to the American settlers of the 18th century. and whose wealth was accumulated back in the 19th century. Among the 60 thousand richest families, 400 families of the super-rich stand out, constituting a kind of property elite of the upper class. In order to get into it, the minimum amount of wealth must exceed $ 275 million. The entire class of the wealthy in the United States does not exceed 5-6% of the population, which is more than 15 million people.
400 chosen
Since 1982, Forbes, the business magazine, has published a list of the 400 richest people in America. In 1989, the total value of their property minus liabilities (assets minus debts) was equal to the total value of goods and. services created by Switzerland and Jordan, namely $ 268 billion. The membership “fee” to the elite club is $ 275 million, and the average wealth of its members is $ 670 million. Of these, 64 were men, including D. Trump, T. Turner and H. Perrault, and two women had a fortune of $ 1 billion. and higher. 40% of the elect inherited wealth, 6% built it on a relatively modest family foundation, 54% were self-made people.
Few of the great American wealthy date back to before Civil War... However, this "old" money is the basis of wealthy aristocratic families like the Rockefellers and Dupont. On the contrary, the accumulation of the "new rich" began in the 40s. XX century.
They grow only because they have little time, in comparison with others, for their wealth to have time to "scatter" - thanks to inheritance - over several generations of relatives. The main channel for savings is ownership of the media, movable and immovable property, financial speculation.
87% of the super-rich are men, 13% are women who inherited their wealth as the daughter or widow of multimillionaires. All the rich are white, mostly Protestants of Anglo-Saxon roots. The overwhelming majority lives in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington. Only 1/5 graduated from elite universities, most of them have 4 years of college behind them. Many graduated from university with a bachelor's degree in economics and law. Ten do not have higher education. 21 people are emigrants.
Abbreviated from source y:HessIN.,MarksonE.,Stein P. Sociology... - N.Y., 1991.-P.192.
Poor
If inequality characterizes society as a whole, then poverty affects only part of the population. Depending on how high the level economic development countries, poverty covers a significant or insignificant part of the population. As we have seen, in 1992, 14% of the population was classified as poor in the United States, and 80% in Russia. Sociologists refer to the proportion of a country's population (usually expressed as a percentage) living near the official poverty line, or threshold, by the scale of poverty. The terms “poverty level”, “poverty lines” and “poverty rate” are also used to denote the scale of poverty.
The poverty line is the amount of money (usually expressed, for example, in dollars or rubles), officially set as the minimum income that allows an individual or family to purchase food, clothing and housing. It is also called the “poverty rate”. In Russia, he received an additional name - living wage. The subsistence minimum is a set of goods and services (expressed in prices of real purchases) that allows a person to meet the minimum permissible, with scientific point view, needs. The poor spend 50 to 70% of their income on food; as a result, they do not have enough money for medicines, utilities, apartment renovations, and the purchase of good furniture and clothing. They are often unable to pay for the education of their children in paid school or university.
Poverty lines change in historical time. Previously, humanity lived much worse and the number of the poor was higher. In ancient Greece, 90% of the population by the standards of that time lived in poverty. In Renaissance England, about 60% of the population was considered poor. In the XIX century. the scale of poverty was reduced to 50%. In the 30s. XX century. only a third of the British were poor, and after 50 years - only 15%. According to the apt remark of J. Galbraith, in the past, poverty was the lot of the majority, and today it is the lot of the minority.
Traditionally, sociologists have distinguished between absolute and relative poverty. Under absolute poverty a condition is understood in which an individual, on his own income, is not able to satisfy even the basic needs for food, housing, clothing, warmth, or is able to satisfy only the minimum needs that ensure biological survival. The numerical criterion is the poverty threshold (cost of living).
Under relative poverty it is understood the impossibility of maintaining a level of befitting life, or a certain standard of living accepted in a given society. Relative poverty shows how poor you are compared to other people.
- unemployed;
- low-paid workers;
- recent immigrants;
- people who have moved from village to city;
- national minorities (especially blacks);
- vagabonds and vagabonds;
- people who are unable to work due to old age, injury or illness;
- incomplete families headed by a woman.
The new poor in Russia
Society has split into two unequal parts: outsiders and marginalized (60%) and wealthy (20%). Another 20% fell into the group with an income of $ 100 to $ 1000, i.e. with a 10-fold difference at the poles. Moreover, some of its "inhabitants" clearly gravitate towards the upper pole, while others - to the lower one. Between them is a failure, a "black hole". Thus, we still do not have a middle class - the basis for the stability of society.
Why did almost half of the population fall below the poverty line? We are constantly being told that we live as we work ... So there is nothing, as they say, to blame the mirror ... Yes, our labor productivity is lower than, say, the Americans. But, according to Academician D. Lvov, our salary is hideously low even in relation to our low labor productivity. With us, a person receives only 20% of what he earns (and even then with huge delays). It turns out that, in terms of $ 1 of wages, our average worker produces three times more output than an American. Scientists believe that as long as wages do not depend on labor productivity, people cannot be expected to work better. What incentive can a nurse, for example, have to work if she can buy only a monthly pass with her salary?
It is believed that additional income helps to survive. But, as studies show, those who have money - highly qualified specialists, people in high official positions - have more opportunities to earn extra money.
Thus, additional earnings do not smooth out, but increase the income gap - 25 times or more.
But people do not see even their meager salary for months. And this is another reason for massive impoverishment.
From a letter to the editor: “This year my children - 13 and 19 years old - had nothing to wear to school and college: we have no money for clothes and textbooks. There is no money even for bread. We eat crackers, which were dried 3 years ago. There are potatoes, vegetables from your garden. A mother who is starving to death shares her pension with us. But we are not quitters, my husband does not drink, does not smoke. But he is a miner, and they have not been paid for several months. I was a tutor in kindergarten, but recently it was closed. The husband cannot leave the mine, since there is nowhere else to get a job and until retirement is 2 years. Go to trade, as our leaders urge? But the whole city is already trading with us. And nobody buys anything, because nobody has money - everything to the miner! " (L. Lisyutina, Venev, Tula region). Here is a typical example of a “new poor” family. These are those who, by their education, qualifications, social status, have never been among the needy before.
Moreover, it must be said that the burden of inflation is hitting the poor the hardest. At this time, prices rise for essential goods and services. And all the expenses of the poor come down to them. 1990-1996 for the poor, the cost of living increased 5-6 thousand times, and for the rich - 4.9 thousand times.
Poverty is dangerous because it reproduces itself, as it were. Poor material security leads to poor health, loss of qualifications, and deprofessionalization. And in the end - to degradation. Poverty pulls to the bottom.
The heroes of Gorky's play "At the Bottom" came into our lives. 14 million of our fellow citizens are “bottom dwellers”: 4 million are homeless people, 3 million are beggars, 4 million are street children, 3 million are street and station prostitutes.
In half of the cases, they become outcasts due to a tendency to vice, weakness of character. The rest are victims of social policy.
3/4 of Russians are not sure that they will be able to avoid poverty.
The funnel that pulls to the bottom is sucking in more and more people. The most dangerous zone is the bottom. There are now 4.5 million people.
Increasingly, life pushes desperate people to the last step, which saves them all their problems.
By the number of suicides, Russia for last years came to one of the first places in the world. In 1995, out of 100 thousand people, 41 committed suicide.
Based on materials from the Institute of Socio-Economic Problems of Population of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
