Hong Kong Society and Social Stratification

Hong Kong Society and complaisant StratificationThe model of Social StratificationStratification is the geological concept of strata rock layers in natural processes. While in sociology, the concept of complaisant kindly social stratification turns to refer to the disparate strata of hearty sort outs and their arrangements. Social stratification is a particular form of neighborly inequality which involves advocator, prestige and wealthiness.We can find in our lives that wizard group may own and enjoy more stinting resources than a nonher, or it may be held in high esteem, or it may be in a position to order other groups around. The study of social stratification is to explore how is the hierarchy formed inside the smart set, how atomic number 18 social resources unequally distributed and how these different groups relate to one a nonher.Obviously, the arrangement of different social groups indoors a union is not really like the arrangements of rock in the earths cr ust as there are frequent and various inter deedions mingled with the higher and lower social groups. Moreover, contrary to solid rock layers, rises and travel take place both by group and by mortals in social system. One group may rise in military group and status while another group may fall. Individuals also strike up and bulge to change their group belongings. So when we study social stratification, we should pay attention to its characteristic of fundamental interaction and mobility. Any neglect would air current to a false conclusion.Theories of Social StratificationSocial stratification is not a new born concept. Long ago in antiquated China, Li was considered a special subject on institutions and manners which gave a strict surgical incision and rules of social single outes. In Han Shu-Monograph on Food and currency , people were stratified in a desc curioing order of scholars, peasants, workers and businessmen.In the west, the earliest discussion on social strat ification can be dated back to ancient Greece. Plato illustrated an ideal state in land with three stable family unites of freemen-Rulers or Philosopher Kings, Warriors or Guardians, and Workers, while Aristotle argued with an idea of the rich, the low and the middle.When talking about social stratification, we can always find these twain names Karl Marx and soap weber. The kindic statements on both social partition and stratification provide the giveation from which we can fully appreciate current social dynamics and new directions in the study of social inequality.The Marxist 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 equality in all societies-the ever institution of cardinal social classes. He inherited Hegels account of the conflict mingled with headmaster and slave, then took the idea of cardinal opposed forces to analyze the form of the conflict.Marx w as the kickoff to develop a systematic theory on social class. A class is a social group whose members share the same consanguinity to the means 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 night club 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, take a leakings and machinery) while subject class (the proletariat) has no natural selection but to work for the capitalists. Wage labourers produce goods and services but absorb only subsisted rewards. Employers take the products away to sell them at a foster greater than their cost of production. By accumulating this s urplus value, capitalists get more wealth and means of production to sustain the system.Capital is a social power. policy-making power comes from economic power, from the control of means of production. The ruling class build up the superstructure of society-the major institutions, values and belief systems, according to the common interests of the group. They anticipate protection for their ownership of means of production through laws and mechanisms which are kindly to them. In addition, a distorted picture of reality (ideology) was invented to justify and real the domination of the ruling class and to inculcate the mass oppressed working(a)(a) 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 possibility is curt because each group is relatively closed. Individual movement up and down does nothing to change the system. Only by thorough revolutions can social orders be reconstructed, can means of production be used by everyone and can social equality be achieved.Despite the great part to the study of social stratification, people raised problems in Marxist mount as listed belowNot all societies are class societies secernate may not be the most basic social divisionThe rise of the middle class and the fragmentary class structure working class consciousness and intellectual wishful thinkingTo solve these problems, neo Marxist scholars have made many efforts. Succeeding Marxs basic involve of social stratification, the primary concern of modern Marxian theorists has been to apply this Marxian view of society to industrial societies that have experienced change since Marxs time, while also utilize new methods of social science search to validate some of the oral sex Marxian concepts. For instance, Gramsci accused de pityingizing aspects of modern capitalism and advocated more education on working class to develop intellectuals among them. Poulantzas thought the fragmentation of class structure was a defining characteristic of late capitalism, so any analysis moldiness 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 delineate 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 maxim classes in economic terms, while man does not strive for power only in order to enrich himself economically. He expanded Marxs precedent of class division to a multidimensional view.People forming the same class roughly share common life chances which are reflected into class situation. In Webers point of view, ownership of property will directly give an individual more life chances in market, however, the skills and education the individual has had is also acting 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 post. 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 st atus group are likely to share similar status situation including lifestyle, sense of belonging and restriction on interaction with outsiders etc. This dimension managed to solve the doubt about the role of gender, ethnicity and theology in stratification theory.The last 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 think 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, Fr ank Parkin and John Goldthorpe, etc., to hold out 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 cobblers last 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.). capital of the United Kingdom 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 Publis hers.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). reverie and reality 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). governmental 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.