Introduction to Sociology: Concepts, Theories and Models

Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 1 / 54

Introduction to Sociology: Concepts, Theories and Models.

Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation

April 15, 2008

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 1 / 54

Chapter 7: Stratification and Social Structure

Sergi Lozano and Dirk Helbing www.soms.ethz.ch [email protected]

Overview

1 Introduction

2 Theories of Social Stratification 3 Social Mobility: When Things Can Change 4 Stratification and Social Structure 5 Mathematical and Computational Models

6 Main ideas and references

Social stratification: A system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. It’s a trait of society, not just a result of individual differences. It’s transmitted from generation to generation. It’s present in all kind of societies, but with variable characteristics. It’s supported by cultural beliefs

(Macionis, 2007)

(a) Wealth (b) Power

Status: Position occupied within the social hierarchy. Ascribed Status: Assigned at birth (who you are). Achieved Status: Reached by personal merit (what you can do).

Social Mobility: Shift in social status.

(Macionis, 2007)

Theories on Social Stratification

In the following we will review some theories around questions like:

Why social stratification? What defines our social position? Is inequality fair?

Social stratification is natural and desirable (positive vision).

Why? Because 1 society is a system of roles and positions (we need judges, doctors, teachers, policemen, bakers, fishermen...), 2 some of these roles are more important for society and harder to fill (special skills and/or more preparation) than others, 3 consequently, a reward system is needed to motivate the most qualified individuals to fill these important positions in society.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 11 / 54 Theories on Social stratification Functional approach Emile´ Durkheim (1858 - 1917) (Division of Labor in Society, 1893)

Foundations of functionalist approach Which is the role of specialization and division of labour in keeping individuals together forming a society? Individualism as a threat to social solidarity (Comte) ⇒ Mutual dependence (Durkheim).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 12 / 54 Theories on Social stratification Functional approach Kingsley Davis (1908-1997) and Wilbert E. Moore (1914-1987) (Some principles of stratification, 1944)

2 topics to be treated separately: ’System of social positions’ and ’how individuals get there’. Focus on first topic: I Determinants of positional rank (functional importance and scarcity of personnel)

I Major societal functions (religion, government..)

I Factors conditioning the stratification system (from stratum solidarity to society’s size). General conclusion: Social stratification is universal because it is beneficial for the operation of society.

There are cases where rewarding level are not justified in terms of utility to society (speculators, famous sport players and artists).

Evolution of stratification: Functionalists assume an equilibrium (situation is fair), but other approaches claim that inequality increases due to a self-reinforcing process ⇒ conflict theories

Social stratification implies a division of resources that benefits some and harm others (negative vision). How does it lead to social conflict?: 1 Given a certain stratification of society, individuals and groups tend to exploit their social positions to get a larger amount of rewards. 2 This tendency is a self-reinforced process: The more reward they get, the larger the capability to use their position for their own profit. 3 The result? Society is much more stratified than necessary (from a functional viewpoint). This scenario leads to conflicts and compromises among social groups.

(Das Kapital, 1867-1894) Materialist View: It’s all about the property. Society divided into classes in function of the ownership. 2 classes in industrial societies: Bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers). Bourgeois take advantage of their position and exploit proletarians. When they realize about this situation (class consciousness), proletarians will join against bourgeois. Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 16 / 54 Theories on Social stratification Conflict approach Inconsistencies / Problems with Marx Approach

Why revolutions predicted by Marx had finally took place in agrarian scenarios (like Russia, China, Latin America) and industrial ones?

Neither socialist countries presented class-less societies (different degrees of responsibility and power within the system). So, wealth is not the only factor to take into account ⇒ Max Weber’s approach.

Class (Marx) ⇒ Socioeconomic status (Weber)

3 dimensions of socioeconomic status 1 Economic class 2 Prestige 3 Power

These three dimensions are not always strongly correlated: Rulers (high power but not always high wealth), speculators (high wealth but low reputation).

Revolution of Proletariat (Marx) ⇒ Organized social change (structures of authority).

Anarchist approach: Stratification and inequalities are inescapable results of social organization ⇒ Dismantle the State as the unique solution. Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) answer to anarchists: 1 All human groups need political organizations to manage resources. 2 Political organizations always imply inequality in power (a minority rules over a majority). 3 Consequently, there is no way at all to escape from inequality. 4 Nevertheless, the dominant minority is not always the same group.

(Warner et al., 1949)

Social status is defined in terms of others opinion (microscopic approach) based on:

I Which factors do they consider important?

I Which of these factors do you present?

Consequently, people behave in certain ways and consume certain products just because of the ’statement’ these products make about social position.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ we are what the others make us to be Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 20 / 54 Social Mobility: When things can change.

Social Mobility

It can be individual or collective

Some interesting questions about social mobility:

I What kind of scenarios are more common for individual or collective mobility?

I Which factors influence social mobility?

Involving whole groups or social classes.

Commonly related with ascribed status (feudal and caste systems, for instance). Example: Split of Khatiks subcaste (Smelser, 1994).

Induction by status inconsistency (low correlation among different dimensions of status definition):

Status inconsistency ⇒ Revolution ⇒ Change of collective status.

Involving individuals in general.

Commonly related with achieved status.

Can be vertical or horizontal.

Structural social changes in society can facilitate individual mobility by increasing the offer of higher-status positions.

Peter M. Blau (1918-2002) and Otis D. Duncan (1921-2004)

How does each individual reach a certain status?

Examples of factors conditioning each one’s upward or downward mobility:

I Gender, race..

I Personal aspirations

I Socioeconomic background (parents’ education and occupation)

I Peer influence

Peter M. Blau (1918-2002) and Otis D. Duncan (1921-2004)

Mechanisms/theories of status attainment:

I Allocation: place an individual in a certain position in the stratification system with defined paths of upward or downward mobility.

I Socialization: process of learning one’s culture and how to live within it.

Stratification and Social Structure

Stratification is closely related with structure of social organization. This relation has been manifested explicitly in some previous points, for example:

Division of society into mutual dependent roles (Functionalists).

Structures of authority (Weber and Mosca).

Symbolic interaction approach.

Social mobility and status attainment.

Max Weber: Bureaucracy as the most rational means of exercising authority over humans beings. Ideal-typical bureaucracy organized into a hierarchical system.

Gaetano Mosca: There is always a minority ruling over the majority Even in democracy, because the dominant minority controls how the different structures of power are organized (economy, law, military..).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 30 / 54 Stratification and Social Structure Structural consequences of the symbolic interaction approach From Stratification to Homophily

1 Social stratification conditions the way people behave (what we do, what we buy, what we use..).

2 This conditioned behaviour includes interactions with people within and between different classes.

3 More concretely, people in the same class ⇒ similar people ⇒ preferred interactions.

4 The preference to interact with people we feel similar to is called homophily.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 31 / 54 Stratification and Social Structure Structural consequences of the symbolic interaction approach From Homophily to Modular Structure

1 Different levels of homophily (discrimination norms)lead to different social structures.

2 High levels of homophily ⇒ Modular structure (formation of homogeneous cliques or communities strongly internally connected).

3 Low levels of homophily ⇒ Social structure without clear group-separation.

4 This characteristics at a topological level can condition different social processes (diffusion of information, cooperation, etc.).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 32 / 54 Stratification and Social Structure Structural consequences of the symbolic interaction approach When homophily is too high..

In some extreme cases, high levels of homophily lead to complete splitted social organizations.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ . Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 33 / 54 Mathematical and computational models

Models related to social stratification It’s particularly interesting how macrophenomena emerge from (rational) interactions among individuals

We want to address questions like:

I How does stratification emerge?

I How can segregation emerge?

I How does homophily influence social structure?

I How does wealth’s distribution emerge?

Axtell et al. in Epstein (2007)

Social stratification (in the form of discrimination norms based on tags differentiating individuals) can emerge from decentralized interactions of self-interested agents.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 35 / 54 Mathematical and computational models Emergence of social stratification The model Iterative model with memory Bargaining process to divide a certain item among two players. Each player demands some portion of the item (high, medium or low demand). If both demands are compatible, the item is divided consequently. Otherwise, they both get nothing.

HML H 0/0 0/0 70/30 M 0/0 50/50 50/30 L 30/70 30/50 30/30

There is a population of N agents.

Each agent has a memory of length m, where she can store the demands of her previous opponents. Each period of time consist of N/2 matches. In each match:

1 two agents are selected at random among the population that have not played yet. 2 each agent formulates a demand in function of the game definition and her expectations about the demand of the other player (based on her experience in previous matches).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 37 / 54 Mathematical and computational models Emergence of social stratification One Agent Type Model All agents belong to the same group ⇒ Decision is taken as a function of all previous experience.

Result: Convergence to equity norm

All agents play the same rules and present the same capabilities, but they are distributed into two groups distinguishable by means of a tag (blues and reds, for instance).

Agents can differentiate their opponents ⇒ decision as a function of previous experience against this particular type of individual

Result: For different random initial conditions, we can find the emergence of discriminatory norms among groups.

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 39 / 54 Mathematical and computational models Emergence of social stratification Two agent types model with tagging Some examples of inequality due to discrimination norms:

(e) Equity between, but not within (f) Equity within, but not between

(g) Equity above, division below Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 40 / 54 Mathematical and computational models Emergence of social segregation Thomas Schelling: Emergence of Social Segregation (1978)

Segregation (neighbourhoods in a city, for example) can emerge as a macroscopic effect of (even small) individual preferences to relate with other people they are similar to (homophily).

Initial conditions: 1 Square board of game composed by LxL positions.

2 Two populations of agents A and B, such as nA = nB and nA + nB < LxL. 3 Agents are distributed over the board randomly (leaving LxL − nA − nB empty spaces).

In each time step, each agent 1 checks the composition of her neighbourhood (adjacent positions on the game board). 2 if the proportion of neighbours similar to her is equal or higher than the ’homophily level’ ⇒ don’t move. 3 otherwise ⇒ move to an empty space.

Segregation model

(Implemented by Uri Wilensky using NetLogo)

Boguna et al. (2004)

Probability of interaction between two individuals (represented as a link) depends on their social distance and the homphily. This probability at a microscopical level forges some characteristics at a macroscopic one.

Initial conditions: 1 Social characteristics are randomly (uniform) distributed among all agents in the population. 2 A certain value of homophily α is defined.

For each couple of agents, the probability of a link among them (r(hi, hj)) is defined as

1 α r(hi, hj) = −1 1+[b d(hi,hj)]

where b is a scaling variable and d(hi, hj) is the social distance separating both individuals.

(h) High homohily (i) Low homophily

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)

Most wealth in few hands: 80-20 Pareto’s principle (Pareto, 1897).

Later empirical studies found:

I High-wealth range: Pareto distribution

I Low-wealth: Log-normal distribution

(Klass et al., 2006)

Angle (1986).

Agent’s interactions as collisions from which one of both opponents emerges with an increase of his wealth at the expense of the other.

Principle also used in some models by econophysicists.

In each time step: 1 Two agents are selected at random.

2 One of them is appointed at random (with same probabilities) as the winner of the encounter. 3 The winner takes away a fixed portion ω of the loser wealth. 4 Agents’ wealth evolution can be expressed as follows:

wi,t = wi,t−1 + Dtωwj,t−1 − (1 − Dt)ωwi,t−1 wj,t = wj,t−1 + (1 − Dt)ωwi,t−1 − (1 − Dt)ωwj,t−1 where t is measured in encounters and D ∈ 0, 1 takes the value 1 if i is the winner and 0 otherwise.

1 Basic concepts (Stratification, Inequality, Status, Social Mobility)

2 Theories of stratification (functionalist, conflict, symbolic interaction)

3 Models (emergence of stratification, segregation, modular structure, unequal wealth distribution)

1 Emergence of stratification (effect of tagging in repeated interaction)

2 Emergence of segregation (effect of homophily and physical mobility)

3 Emergence of modular structure (effect of homophily and social distance)

4 Emergence of unequal wealth distribution

Angle, J. ’The Surplus Theory of Social Stratification and the Size Distribution of Personal Wealth’ Social Forces 65(2), 293-326 (1986).

Boguna, M., Pastor-Satorras, R., Diaz-Guilera, A. and Arenas, A. ’Models of social networks based on social distance attachment’. Phys. Rev. E 70 , 056122 (2004).

Davis, K. and Moore, W. ’Some principles of stratification’. American Sociological Review 10(2) (1944).

Epstein, J.M. Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press (2007).

Klass, O.S., Biham, O., Levy, M., Malcai, O. and Solomon, S. ’The Forbes 400 and the Pareto wealth distribution’ Economics Letters 90 (2006) 290-295.

Macionis, J.J. Sociology. Prentice Hall (2007).

Smelser, N.J. Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers (1994).

Schelling, T.C. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. W. W. Norton and Co. (1978). Stark, R. Sociology. Wadsworth (2006).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/ Chapter 6: Stratification and Social Structure Prof. Dr. Dirk Helbing and Team Zurich April 15, 2008 54 / 54 Main ideas and references Recommended bibliography Bibliography: Referred Key books and papers Durkheim, E. Division of Labour in Society (1893). Marx, K. Das Kapital (1867, 1885, 1894) (three books). Pareto, V. Cours d’Economique Politique (1897). Warner, W.L., Meeker, M. and Eells, K. Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status. (1949).

Davis, K. and Moore, W. ’Some Principles of Stratification’. American Sociological Review 10(2) (1944).

Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation http://www.soms.ethz.ch/