The article of Grusnky is an interesting one in which he criticizes the social inequality in the modern and the industrialized societies. In his article he mentions and points on the all the three particular times (present, past and the future) space of the social and economic inequality in the so-called modernized societies. The author criticize that it is evident that most of the policies have been against these inequalities in the society the so-called economic inequality but it is evident that the there is a huge gap in the society among the poor and the rich (Google scholar, 2010).
Furthermore he insists on the institutions where the inequalities are generated by and points some of the socially significant key points. For example like who is going to benefit from the specific goods and the persona of measured allocation and distribution of goods. Keeping this significant factor in min intellectuals like sociologists, political scientists, economists, anthropologists and social historians constructed their own contemplations on the stratification process in the society. For example in the world of social sciences this is classified as the social stratification which is also mentioned in the article of Grunsky , which he further divided into three different layers of classes like the middle , lower and the upper class (Wikipedia.org. 2010). The discussion Grunsky puts here is the process of those mentioned benefits and belongings of a specific group in the society who either or not possesses those elements. In the social stratification process the one who possesses the elements are those who are on the top of the list it means the upper class and the one who are not is the lower or the middle class members of the society. As discussed the upper class that possesses great deal of goods and privileges are viewed as the `elite` group of the society. In his article ‘The counters of social stratification’ Grunsky points out in the first table some of the basic components of the stratification and argues that the status crystallization is directly connected with the assets someone posses. So it means that there is a direct contact between the resources someone posses and the status queue of that particular group. The basic components that he describes have been provided in the table 1 below. This brings us to the conclusion that who posses more of the goods and the benefits they achieve more power and will be the top of the stratification structure.
The best example that can be provided for the high degree of the crystallization is that of the Pakistan/India. The English empire ruled on the subcontinent (empire, kingdom, occupied) for hundreds of years but soon after the partition in 1947 these two countries were then ruled by the maharajas (oligarchy and the n the aristocracy) then the dictators, especially in Pakistan. At the moment the country (Pakistan) is ruled by the rich and the corrupt families for several years. Like the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party and the Muslim league). These two parties have monopoly on the political arena where the distribution of goods and resources are divided among those who benefitted the parties in the elections. This proves that the crystallization is high in Pakistan due to the soaring gap between the rich and the poor members. There is the so-called democratic institution but this has located the resources and has given the benefits to the upper class of the society. There are a lot of examples of the status or as the other authors puts the term status incongruence like that of the 1789 revolution of the France and the economic problems of the USA in 30s. It is argued that the problems are created in the era of economic and social turmoil (website matteidoganpersona).
The best example of the status crystallization of the low degree can be provided with the sense that the members of the societies are not notably penetrated or marked very differently from each other. The example can be provided of the members of the Kalash Group in the northern region of Pakistan. Although there is evidence that the members of that kalash group are highly stratified but seen internally they are closely related within the group which shows that internally the process of stratification is not high. One of the justifications in the process is that the kalash members associate themselves with the group rather than the individual or social aspects. Which means that the cohesion is high within the group members and the internal stratification process is very low?
Finally we come to the last question of this paper which is the process of the reductionism. According to this idea a very specific factor or element is responsible in the society that leads to the stratification process. Most of the authors criticized Marx for his theory of the economic in the social stratification process (Lipset 1968, p. 300 in Grunsky, D.D. and Google scholar 2010). But according to Dahrendorf there are other factors that lead to the inequalities in the society like the power and the authority which leads to the formation of the classes in the society (Dahrendorf in Grunsky, D.D. and Google scholar 2010). A hypothesis can be that there is a difference of the crystallization in different societies and by reducing the causes of stratification will lead to the minimum of the factors responsible for the two possible (higher or lower) crystallization in that exacting nation.
Here we come to the point of class in different societies which holds the types of people belong to the particular society. The members or the class distinguish themselves from others in different aspects of the social elements they possess. This differentiation puts the specific group apart from the other members of the social class. One class is considered prestigious or higher than the other one which again brings us back to the notion of the degree of the status crystallization discussed in the above paragraphs. Forexample the upper, lower and the middle class people living in the specific societies. So we can conclude that society can be distinguished according to the classes they have and how these classes differentiate themselves from one another. Accordingly societies with higher class numbers are less likely to be crystallized than the societies with less number of classes.
References:
URL:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=grusky+social+stratification&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart. (September 12th 2010).
Grunsky, D. D., ` The counters of social stratification`
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class. (September 12th, 2010).
URL: www.matteidoganpersonal.com/admin/.../1215439381221644.PDF. (September 12th, 2010).
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten