Hong Kong Society and Social Stratification

Hong Kong Society and neighborly StratificationThe Concept of loving StratificationStratification is the geological concept of strata controversy layers in indwelling processes. While in sociology, the concept of stratification turns to refer to the different strata of complaisant groups and their arrangements. Social stratification is a particular form of amicable inequality which involves business office, prestigiousness and wealth.We can find in our lives that one group may own and enjoy more scotch resources than a nonher, or it may be held in gamy esteem, or it may be in a position to order other groups around. The battlefield of friendly stratification is to explore how is the hierarchy formed indoors the society, how are friendly resources unequally distributed and how these different groups relate to one a nonher.Obviously, the arrangement of different tender groups within a society is not really ilk the arrangements of rock in the earths crust as there are f requent and various interactions between the higher and lower neighborly groups. Moreover, contrary to solid rock layers, rises and falls take place both by group and by individuals in friendly system. One group may rise in power and status duration another group may fall. Individuals also move up and down to change their group belongings. So when we study mixer stratification, we should even off attention to its characteristic of interaction and mobility. Any neglect would lead to a false conclusion.Theories of Social StratificationSocial stratification is not a smart born concept. Long ago in ancient China, Li was considered a special subject on institutions and manners which gave a strict division and rules of social classes. In Han Shu-Monograph on Food and Currency , people were stratified in a descending order of scholars, peasants, workers and businessmen.In the west, the earliest discussion on social stratification can be dated back to ancient Greece. Plato illustrated an compositionl state in Republic with three stable classes of freemen-Rulers or Philosopher Kings, Warriors or Guardians, and Workers, while Aristotle argued with an idea of the rich, the poor and the middle.When talking about social stratification, we can al elans find these two names Karl Marx and grievous bodily harm Weber. The classic statements on both social class and stratification provide the foundation from which we can fully appreciate current social dynamics and new directions in the study of social inequality.The bolshy PerspectiveKarl Marx was born in the aftermath of the European Revolution. By witnessing the end of the old era and the emergence of a new age, he found a similarity in all societies-the ever existence of two social classes. He inherited Hegels account of the conflict between master and slave, then took the idea of two opposed forces to analyze the form of the conflict.Marx was the first to develop a systematic guess on social class. A class is a so cial group whose members share the same relationship to the nitty-gritty of production. Individuals in a class not only act in much the same way but also tend to think in much the same way. There are two major social groups in all societies, a ruling one and a subject one. The relationship between the two major classes is conflict-exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. Marx conceived the society as a system of production based on the existence of these two opposite social classes. The ruling class (the bourgeoisie) own the means of production (land, capital, labour power, buildings and machinery) while subject class (the proletariat) has no resource but to work for the capitalists. Wage labourers produce goods and services but get only subsisted rewards. Employers take the products away to sell them at a value greater than their cost of production. By accumulating this surplus value, capitalists get more wealth and means of production to sustain the system.Capital is a social power. Political power comes from frugal power, from the control of means of production. The ruling class build up the super organize of society-the major institutions, values and belief systems, harmonize to the common interests of the group. They seek protection for their ownership of means of production through laws and mechanisms which are favorable to them. In addition, a distorted picture of reality (ideology) was invented to justify and legitimate the domination of the ruling class and to tincture the mass oppressed working class a false consciousness of the nature of relationship between social classes.Marx pointed out that there is a polarization of the classes through which the society would more and more split into the two great hostile camps. Although he did not deny the individual mobility between the social groups, the surmise is little because each group is relatively closed. Individual movement up and down does nothing to change the system. Only by thoroug h revolutions can social orders be reconstructed, can means of production be used by everyone and can social equality be achieved.Despite the great contribution to the study of social stratification, people raised problems in Marxist approach as listed belowNot all societies are class societiesClass may not be the near basic social divisionThe rise of the middle class and the fragmentary class structureWorking class consciousness and clever wishful thinkingTo solve these problems, Neo Marxist scholars have made many efforts. Succeeding Marxs basic view of social stratification, the primary concern of recent Marxian theorists has been to apply this Marxian view of society to industrial societies that have experienced change since Marxs time, while also using new methods of social science query to authorise some of the principal Marxian concepts. For instance, Gramsci accused dehumanizing aspects of modern capitalism and advocated more education on working class to develop intell ectuals among them. Poulantzas thought the fragmentation of class structure was a defining characteristic of late capitalism, so any analysis must tackle the new constellation of interests and power. Structural Marxist, Wright, did some empirical research on social stratification. Inspired by others works, he borrowed the concept of skills and defined class in relation to the productive system Capitalists, managers, workers and the petty bourgeoisie.The Weberian AlternativeMax Weber contributed the most to development of stratification theory since Marx. He was said to have had a dialogue with Marx but got different conclusions. Marx saw classes in economic terms, while man does not strive for power only in order to enrich himself economically. He expanded Marxs standard of class division to a multi placeal view.People forming the same class roughly share common life chances which are reflected into class lieu. In Webers point of view, ownership of property forget directly give an individual more life chances in market, however, the skills and education the individual has had is also playing an important role in defining social classes. Under this assumption, Weber was able to explain the emergence of middle class while Marxism failed to do so. He identified as social class according to the economic rewards in labour market- the working class as a whole, the petty bourgeoisie, technicians, specialists and lower-level management and the classes privileged through property and education.Moreover, social stratification is not only decided by class(economic rewards), status is another significant perspective. Whereas class refers to the unequal distribution of economic rewards, status refers to the unequal distribution of social honor, which refers to how a person or a group is regarded by others. Individuals from a similar status group are likely to share similar status situation including lifestyle, sense of belonging and restriction on interaction with outsid ers etc. This dimension managed to solve the doubt about the role of gender, ethnicity and religion in stratification theory.The snuff it dimension in Webers three-component theory of stratification is party or power. To achieve whatever goals, people form organizations in rational orders to influence and dominate others. The most typical organizations of this kind are political parties and bureaucratic institutions. Where is one stand and how is one placed within the organization decide ones position in this dimension of stratification.Weber concluded that the three dimensions of hierarchies lead to the ranking of individual and group in human society. Nevertheless, the importance of each dimension differs in different societies.Webers theory of social stratification has relativity and mobility, which enlightened his successors like Anthony Giddens, Frank Parkin and John Goldthorpe, etc., to continue promoting the development of multidimensional theory of stratification.The Former Study on Hong Kong s Social StratificationBoggs, C. (1984). The two revolutions Antonio Gramsci and the dilemmas of western Marxism (1st ed.). Boston, MA South End Press.Crompton, R. (1993). Class and stratification an introduction to current debates. Cambridge, UK Cambridge, MA, USA Polity Press.Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology themes and perspectives (7 ed.). London HarperCollins Publishers.Hess, A. (2001). Concepts of social stratification European and American models. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York Palgrave.Kerbo, H. R. (1996). Social stratification and inequality class conflict in historical and comparative perspective (3rd ed.). New York McGraw-Hill.Levine, R. F. (1998). Social class and stratification classic statements and theoretical debates. Lanham Rowman Littlefield Publishers.Li, P. (2004). Social stratification in Chinas today(Zhongguo she hui fen ceng) (1 ed.). Beijing She hui ke xue wen xian chu ban she.Li, X. (2008). Dream and rea lity stratification and social mobility in Hong Kong(Meng Xiang Yu Xian SHI Xiang Gang De She Hui Fen Ceng Yu She Hui Liu Dong) ( 1 ed.). Beijing Publisher of Peking University.Marx, K., Engels, F. (1888). Manifesto of the Communist party (5th ed.). London, W. Reeves.Poulantzas, N. A. (1982). Political power and social classes. London Verso.Saunders, P. (1990). Social class and stratification. London Routledge.Weber, M., Gerth, H. H., Mills, C. W. (2009). From Max Weber essays in sociology. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon New York Routledge.Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge New YorkParis Cambridge University Press Maison des sciences de lhomme.