Social Stratification and Social Mobility
Sorokin holds a unique
place in the study of social stratification and mobility. We owe to him the
creation or definition of many of the terms that have become standard in this
field. We also owe him a distinct vision of what the study of social mobility should
be mainly concerned with, namely, the courses and consequences of demographic
exchanges between groups, as distinct from the study of individuals who may
move up or down or sideways in the social hierarchy. Sorokin defined social
mobility in its broadest sense as the shifting of people in social space. He
was not, however, interested in movements of individuals but in social
metabolism, in the consequences of such movements for social groups differently
located in the social structure. "To find the position of a man or a
social phenomenon in social space," Sorokin argued in the first place,
"means to define his or its relations to other men or other social
phenomena chosen as the point of reference.' " Methods appropriate for the
study of mobility are somewhat reminiscent of the system of coordinates used
for the location of an object in geometrical space. But the analytical task is
not completed when one has established a person's relations to specific groups.
What needs further exploration is "the relation of these groups to each
other within a population, and the relation of this population to other
populations." In other words, though the study of social mobility needs to
concern itself with the movements of individuals, it also needs to pay close attention
to the consequences of these movements for the social groups and the total
structures that encompass these individual moves. Before considering social
mobility we must know a good deal about the structure of stratification in
which such movements occur. Social stratification, to Sorokin, means "the
differentiation of a given population into hierarchically superposed
classes." Such stratification, he held, is a permanent characteristic of
any organized social group. Stratification may be based on economic
criteria--for example, when one focuses attention upon the differentials
between the wealthy and the poor. But societies or groups are also politically
stratified when their social ranks are hierarchically structured with respect
to authority and power. If, however, the members of a society are
differentiated into various occupational groups and some of these occupations
are deemed more honorable than others, or if occupations are internally divided
between those who give orders and those who receive orders, then we deal with
occupational stratification. Though there may be other concrete forms of
stratification, of central sociological importance are economic, political, and
occupational stratification. Sociological investigation must proceed to pay attention
to the height and the profile of stratification pyramids. Of how many layers is
it composed? Is its profile steep, or does it slope gradually ? Whether one
studies economic, political, or occupational stratification, Sorokin contended,
one must always be attentive to two distinct phenomena: the rise or decline of
a group as a whole and the increase or decrease of stratification within a
group. In the first case we deal with increases of wealth, power, or
occupational standing of social groups, as when we talk of the de- cline of the
aristocracy or the rise of the bourgeoisie; in the second, we are concerned
with the increase or decrease of the height and steepness of the stratification
pyramid in regard to wealth, power, or occupational prestige within groups--for
example, when we say that the American Black population now has a higher
stratification profile than it had at the turn of the century. In contrast to
evolutionary and "progressive' thought, and in tune with his overall view
of the course of human history, Sorokin argued that no consistent trend toward
either the heightening or the flattening of stratificational pyramids can be
discerned. Instead, all that can be observed is ceaseless fluctuation. At
times, differences between the poor and the rich may be reduced through the
impact of equalitarian forces, but at other times inequalitarian tendencies
will again assert themselves. Or at one point democratic participation will re-
duce differences in political power, while at another aristocratic and
dictatorial politics will successfully increase the height of the political
pyramid. In similar ways, some groups decline and others rise in ceaseless
fluctuation. Exterior features of the architecture of social structures having
been sketched, Sorokin proceeds to summarize their inner construction, to wit
the character and disposition of the floors, the elevators, and the staircases
that lead from one story to another; the ladders and accommodations for
climbing up and going down from story to story. This brings him to the concrete
details of his study of social mobility. Social mobility is understood as the
transition of people from one social position to another. There are two types
of social mobility, horizontal and vertical. The first concerns movements from
one social position to another situated on the same level, as in a movement
from Baptist to Methodist affiliation, or from work as a foreman with Ford to
similar work with Chrysler. The second refers to transitions of people from one
social stratum to one higher or lower in the social scale, as in ascendant
movements from rags to riches or in the downward mobility of inept children of
able parents. Both ascending and descending movements occur in two principal
forms: the penetration of individuals of a lower stratum into an existing
higher one, and the descent of individuals from a higher social position to one
lower on the scale; or the collective ascent or descent of whole groups
relative to other groups in the social pyramid. But--and this is what
distinguished Sorokin's orientation from that of many contemporary students of
stratification and mobility--his main focus was upon collective, not on
individual phenomena. As he puts it, "The case of individual infiltration
into an existing higher stratum or of individuals dropping from a higher social
layer into a lower one are relatively common and comprehensible. They need no
explanation. The second form of social ascending and descending, the rise and
fall of groups, must be considered more carefully. Groups and societies,
according to Sorokin, may be distinguished according to their differences in
the intensiveness and generality of social mobility. There may be stratified
societies in which vertical mobility is virtually nil and others in which it is
very frequent. We must therefore be careful to distinguish between the height
and profile of stratification, and the prevalence or absence of social
mobility. In some highly stratified societies where the membranes between
strata are thin, social mobility is very high. In contrast other societies with
various profiles and heights of stratification have hardly any stairs and
elevators to allow members to pass from one floor to another, so that the
strata are largely closed, rigidly separated, immobile, and virtually
impenetrable. Assuming that there are no societies in which strata are
absolutely closed and none where social mobility is absolutely free from
obstacles, one must recognize that Sorokin's distinctions, even though stated
too metaphorically, are of considerable heuristic value. In regard to degrees
of openness and closure, Sorokin holds to his usual position. No perpetual
trend toward either increase or decrease of vertical mobility can be discerned
in the course of human history; all that can be noticed are variations through
geographical space and fluctuations in historical time. Attempting to identify
the channels of vertical mobility and the mechanisms of social selection and
distribution of individuals within different social strata, Sorokin identifies
the army, the church, the school, as well as political, professional, and
economic organizations, as principal conduits of vertical social circulation. They
are the "sieves" that sift individuals who claim access to dif-
ferent social strata and positions. All these institutions are involved in
social selection and distribution of the members of a society. They decide
which people will climb and fall; they allocate individuals to various strata;
they either open gates for the flow of individuals or create impediments to
their movements. Without minutely detailing the many ways in which Sorokin
illustrates the operation of these institutions or the way in which he shows
why at a given time certain stratification profiles have called for specific
mechanisms of selection, we should take note, however, of what he considers a
"permanent and universal" basis for interoccupational stratification,
namely: "The importance of an occupation for the survival and existence of
a group as a whole." The occupations that are considered most
consequential in a society, he states, are those that "are connected with
the functions of organization and control of a group." In considering the
impact of actual rates of social mobility, as well as the ideology of social mobility,
on modern societies, we find Sorokin offers a fresh approach in the light of
current experience. Far from indulging in unalloyed enthusiasm about high
degrees of social mobility, Sorokin, like Durkheim, was at pains to highlight
its dysfunctional and its functional aspects. He stressed, among other things,
the heavy price in mental strain, mental disease, cynicism, social isolation,
and loneliness of individuals cut adrift from their social moorings. He also
stressed the increase in tolerance and the facilitation of intellectual life
(as a result of discoveries and inventions) that were likely to occur with more
frequency in highly mobile societies The analyst of social stratification,
social mobility, and related matters can ignore Sorokin's work only at his or
her expense. It still remains a veritable storehouse of ideas. Above all we
need to take Sorokin's advice when he urges us to consider social mobility as a
form of social exchange. Just as Levi-Strauss brought about a revolution in the
study of kinship (stressing that marriage is to be seen as an exchange between
elementary families), so Sorokin presents the innovative idea that social
mobility does not primarily concern the placement of individuals but is to be
understood as exchange between social groups. By fostering the circulation of
individuals in social space, such exchange increases or decreases the specific
weight and power of the groups and strata between which they move. This central
idea, if more fully elaborated, could be the impetus for a great deal of
research in social stratification.
From Coser,
