Sociology Project
Sociology Project
Sociology Project
Session 2013-2014
Submitted By:
Submitted To:
Gajendra Bhansali
Semester I, Section A
1 | Page
Acknowledgements
I, Gajendra Bhansali, would like to humbly present this project to Dr. Uttam Kumar Panda. I
would first of all like to express my most sincere gratitude to Dr. Uttam Kumar Panda, my
Sociology Professor for his encouragement and guidance regarding several aspects of this
project. I am thankful for being given an opportunity to work on the project of Stratification of
Gender Perspective. I express my thankfulness to the invisible hands behind the making of this
project the library staff and the I.T. Staff for all the conveniences they have provided me with.
A Vote of Thanks goes to God for keeping me in good health and senses to complete this project
with due diligence.
Last but definitely not the least, I am thankful to my seniors and friends for all their support and
valuable advice wherever and whenever needed. I present this project with a happy and humble
heart.
2 | Page
Certificate of Declaration
..
(GAJENDRA BHANSALI)
Date
3 | Page
Research Methodology
Nature of Research: This research work is descriptive in nature. It describes how Gender
Stratification has become a part and parcel of societal phenomena and how it has evolved overtime with the changing circumstances. There has been drastic developments within this
phenomena but its basic form has remain unchanged.
Sources of Data: This study is done with the help of secondary data. This secondary information
has been obtained from published sources such as books, journals, newspapers, official websites,
government publications, etc.
4 | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Stratification - In a Nutshell.6
2) Revisiting and Envisioning Gender......................................7
3) Construction of Gender Stratification.....8
4) Religion and Kinship on Gender Stratification
4.1) Religion...9
4.2) Kinship..10
5 | Page
Stratification In a Nutshell
The term stratification has been borrowed by sociologists from the science of geology. There,
it refers to the successive layers or strata of rocks and other materials which have been laid down
over the millennia to form the earths crust. Translated into the very different science of
sociology, the concept of stratification has been adapted to refer to the different layers or strata
of social groups which are thought to be arranged, one on top of the other, in various human
societies. Thus, just as the geologist who drives a bore-hole into the earth may discover a layer of
sandstone on top of a layer of basalt on top of a layer of granite, so too the sociologist who digs
deep down into the social structure may discover layer upon layer of different kinds of social
groupings upper classes upon middle classes upon lower classes, one gender upon the other for
example. The study of social stratification is the study of how these different groupings or strata
relate to one another. Usually, we find that they are related unequally. One group may own and
enjoy more economic resources than another, or it may be held in higher esteem, or it may be in
a position to order other groups around. In our own society there are poor and wealthy people,
there are families of high birth and families of commoners, and there are politically powerful
elites and relatively powerless groups of people who are expected only to follow commands and
obey orders.1
There are, thus, different ways in which groups may be stratified. In most societies, for instance
there are clear systems of stratification based on gender. Inequalities between men and women
may be found in the kinds of work they do, the opportunities which are open to them, the chance
to become powerful leaders and so on and so forth. However, everything boils down, in this
regard to a conceptualization of gender as it was earlier and as it is now, more importantly since
gender is the seed of stratification.
7 | Page
o Religion
The religious approach has almost universally naturalized gender differences, treating them as
immutable. Women are treated as inferior to men in their mind and bodily attributes and almost
invariably men are treated as the normative human beings of whom women represent a
deviation. But most religious worldviews also embody an ambiguity towards women. On the one
hand women are treated as inferior and dangerous and on the other hand they are venerated. Thus
the fact that in Hinduism women are equated with animals on the one hand and on the other
worshipped as goddesses is characteristic of the religious ambiguity towards women.
Also, some religions ordain a very strict segregation between the sexes while others may curtail
their reproductive rights. This may manifest itself in practices of seclusion or in laws curtailing
abortion rights. The practice of secluding women is prevalent in more than one religious systems
of the world. Similarly many religions treat womens bodies as impure and defiling and thus
women remain excluded from several spheres of social life. Such beliefs and consequently
practices have severe implications for relations between men and women as also for the life
chances of women. Thus, the curtailment of reproductive rights disadvantages woman far more
seriously than man. However, in contemporary times, a number of other competing perspectives
9 | Page
(of the modern state and law and of the representatives of oppressed groups) also jostle with the
religious worldviews and none of them enjoy an unambiguous superiority over each other.8
o Kinship
The kinship organization of a society also plays a significant role in shaping gender relations and
roles in most societies. The system of descent followed in a social group has direct consequences
for the construction of gender stratification in the group. Whether the descent system of a society
is predominantly patrilineal, matrilineal or bilateral, it has major implications for the construction
of gender stratification in a society. This is because the descent system is very often the basis of
group membership, entitlement to valued resources, ownership of property and patterns of
residence.9
I.
Patrilineal Society
Societies that are strongly patrilineal are very widespread. Such societies are usually among
those that are most unfavorable to women as they tend to markedly differentiate between the
sexes. In a patrilineal system, descent is reckoned in the male line and usually women move to
their husbands home after marriage, a practice referred to as patrivirilocality. In such a system,
there is a high value placed on the male offspring and men largely inherit property. Women are
treated as temporary members of their natal household and their incorporation into their
husbands household is always fraught with uncertainties. The temporariness of a womans
relation with her natal kin is a recurring theme in Indian folk songs and forms the underlying
motif of many religious celebrations which enact the brief return of a daughter to her fathers
home.
Patrilineal societies usually show resistance in sharing property with the daughters as also their
children, neither of whom are likely to retain membership of the daughters natal family.
8 Infra. Note 2, at p.62.
9 Salzinger L., Genders in Production 57-60, (2nd Ed., 2002).
10 | P a g e
II.
Matrilineal Society
While discussing how kinship constructs gender, we should consider the case of matrilineal
societies even though their actual prevalence has always been marginal. As against the popular
view, matrilineal societies are not the mirror opposites of patrilineal societies. They are also far
from being matriarchal in the sense in which most patrilineal societies are patriarchal. In other
words, women do not occupy the same position in matrilineal societies that men occupy in
patrilineal societies. Thus while descent is traced through women in matrilineal societies such as
the Nairs of Kerala and the Khasi of North East India, men continue to hold an important
position in their mothers/sisters household. In fact, in a matrilineal society, the brother sister
unit is as important, if not more, as the husband wife unit. The absence of a common conjugal
residence is not uncommon in matrilineal societies. Men may periodically visit their wives to
sustain the marital relationship while they continue to be residential members of their
mothers/sisters kin group.
Matrilineal societies are not resistant to sharing property with men but are not well-disposed to
sharing the same with the mens children who belong to their matrilineal group. Matrilineal
societies do not value virginity and chastity of women in a manner comparable to patrilineal
societies. This does give a certain amount of sexual freedom to women unheard of in strictly
patrilineal societies. The practice which allowed Nayar women to enjoy relationships with
several visiting husbands is highly incongruous with the possibilities offered by a patrilineal
society where this would be treated as akin to prostitution.
o Bilateral Society
In bilateral societies, both male and female children derive their identities from both their
parents. Again, there may be many variations in the manner in which bilateral systems of
kinship, sometimes also referred to as cognatic descent systems, are actually organized. Here, at
the time of marriage one decides whether to retain the membership of ones parents group or
ones spouses parents group. A child may be born into a family which is made up of mother
father along with the mothers parents or one may be born into a family of parents along with the
fathers parents.
11 | P a g e
Also, there is no general pattern of sharing parental residential property as in Patrilineal and
Matrilineal Societies.
The idea that "female exploitation" within the home, for example, is not the same as "employee
exploitation" within the workforce although there are evident similarities in terms of the
ideologies surrounding each form of exploitation; for example, the idea that employer and
employee work together to create "wealth for all" is mirrored by the idea that family partners
compliment the primary roles played by each partner to create a "family environment".
However, the main difference between the two forms is that:
10 Frank Parkin, Class, Inequality and Political Order 101-105, (1971).
12 | P a g e
1. Functionalist Perspective
The Functionalist Perspective was most robustly articulated in the 1940s and 1950s. This theory
suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way to create a Division of Labor or as a
social system where particular segments are clearly responsible for certain, respective acts of
labor. The Division of Labor works to maximize resources and efficiency. A structural
functionalist view of Gender Inequality applies the Division of Labor to view pre-defined gender
roles as complementary; women take care of the home and men provide for the family. Thus,
according to them, Gender Stratification, like other social institutions contributes to the stability
of society as a whole.
Criticism:- This view has been criticized for reifying, rather than reflecting gender roles.
While gender roles, according to functionalist perspective, are beneficial in the way they
contribute to stable social relations, many argue that gender roles are discriminatory. The
Feminist Movement takes the position that Functionalism neglects the suppression of women
within the family structure.12
2. Conflict Perspective
11 Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament 91-92, (1935).
12 C.N. Shankar Rao, Principles of Sociology 349-355 (7th Ed., 2012).
13 | P a g e
According to Conflict Theory, society is defined by a struggle for dominance among social
groups that compete for scarce resources. In the context of Gender Stratification, Conflict Theory
argues that it is best understood as men attempting to maintain power and privilege to the
detriment of women. Therefore, men can be seen as the dominant group and women as
subordinate group. Conflict theorists argue that the only reason the gender roles, as they are
construed, persist because the dominant group naturally works to maintain their power and
status. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or
oppress subordinate groups. Therefore, their approach is normative in which it prescribes
changes to the power structure, advocating a balance of power between genders.
In most cultures, men have historically held most of the world's resources. Until relatively
recently, women in Western cultures could not vote or hold property, making them entirely
dependent on men. Men, like any other group with a power or wealth advantage, fought to
maintain their control over resources (in this case, political and economic power). Conflict
between the two groups caused things like the Women's Suffrage Movement and was responsible
for social change13. This was due to womens dependence on men for the attainment of wages.
Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they gain
power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although
they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden.
3) Interactionist Perspective
Scholars of this perspective study how individuals act within society, and believe that meaning is
produced through the interactions of individuals. According to Interactionists, gender
stratification exists because people act toward each other on the basis of the meanings they have
for one another. Interactionists believe that these meanings are derived through social interaction,
and that these meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that
people use to make sense of, and handle, the objects that constitute their social worlds.
13 Lim and Linda Y.C., Capitalism, Imperialism and Patriarchy : A Dilemma of Third World Women 7091, (1983).
14 | P a g e
According to Erving Goffman, one of the forefathers of this theoretical perspective, during an
interaction, individuals will attempt to control the behavior of the other participants, in order to
attain needed information, and in order to control the perception of one's own image.
4) Feminist Perspective
According to Feminists, social stratification occurs when differences lead to greater status,
power, or privilege for some groups over others. Simply put, it is a system by which society
ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. Members of society are socially stratified on many
levels, including socio-economic status, race, class, ethnicity, religion, ability status, and
gender. Gender Stratification occurs when gender differences give men greater privilege and
power over women, transgender, and gender-non-conforming people.
Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse. It aims
to understand the nature of gender inequality, and examines women's social roles, experiences,
and interests. While generally providing a critique of social relations, much of feminist theory
also focuses on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's interests. Radical
feminism, in particular, evaluates the role of the patriarchy in perpetuating male dominance. In
patriarchal societies, the males perspective and contributions are considered more valuable,
resulting in the silencing and marginalization of the woman. Feminism focuses on the theory of
patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on
the assertion of male supremacy.
15 | P a g e
Major Findings
Within the ambit of Gender Stratification, it does not require much effort to see how gender is
inextricable from the vital determinants like class, caste, race and ethnicity structures of any
social organization. One of the major findings is that to be an urban middle class woman implies
holding a different social position than that occupied by a urban middle class man. But the
17 | P a g e
position of an urban middle class woman is also significantly different from and also unequal to
one occupied by a poor rural woman. The class distinctions permeate gender distinctions in a
manner that may sometimes obliterate the possibility of gender consciousness to rise above class
consciousness.
Secondly, a society stratified along gender lines also sustains different patterns of inter-sexes
relations across different classes with complex social ramifications. Thus the position of a well
off middle class housewife as also of a professional woman from the same class in urban India is
dependent upon her poor counterpart, i.e., a domestic worker, who is very often a woman. This
possibility does much to mitigate the need to negotiate an equitable division of household labor
between husband and wife.
Thirdly, Gender also significantly intersects, in most Indian settings, with caste and, in the
multicultural settings of the west, with race and ethnicity. In India, the life chances of dalit
women are significantly different from the life chances of a Brahmin woman and the former may
actually have more in common with the dalit man than with a Brahmin woman. A lot has been
written about the racial divide between men and women in the west. Thus there is a huge social
gulf between a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male and a migrant muslim woman which cannot
be accounted only on grounds of gender but nonetheless has significant implications for
construction of gendered identities. The divide between the black and white men and women has
been a particularly sharp one in the modern west and has led to sharp divisions within the
feminist movement as well.
Lastly, women among the marginal groups are necessarily more oppressed in the domain of
gender relations than the women in dominant groups are or of going to the other extreme of
romanticizing the formers apparent freedom. The women from the dominant groups are often
expected to become the harbingers of social respectability and honor for their families and
communities in ways in which the women from marginal groups seldom do. But this caveat
should not let us undermine the reality of class and caste privileges which are enjoyed by both
men and women from dominant groups.
18 | P a g e
References
Beauvoir, Simone de 1988 (1949) The second sex, London:
Butler, Judith, 1990 Gender trouble: Feminism and subversion of identity, New York: Routledge.
Connell, R.W. 2002 Gender regimes and the general order in The Polity Reader in Gender
Studies, Polity Press, pp. 29-40.
Dube, Leela 2001 Anthropological explorations in gender: Intersecting fields, New Delhi: Sage
publications.
Engels, Frederick 1948 The origin of the family, private property and the state, Moscow:
Progress Publishers.
Foucault, Michel 1989 The history of sexuality, vol. I, Penguin: Harmondsworth.
Freeman, J.D. 1958 The family system of the Iban of Borneo in Jack Goody (ed.) The
developmental cycle of the domestic groups, London: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, Harold 1967 Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Geetha, V., 2002 Gender, Stree Publications, Kolkata.
Gough, Kathleen 1994 The Nayars and the definition of marriage, in Patricia Uberoi (ed.)
Family, Kinship and Marriage in India, OUP, Delhi.
19 | P a g e
Jackson, Stevi and Sue Scott 2002 Gender: A sociological reader, London and New York:
Routledge.
Kessler, Suzanne J. 1990 The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed
infants, Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 16(1): 3-26.
20 | P a g e