A Well Seasoned Story

Written by Chris Chiller

In the last blog post I explored the subtle caste system in America that sorts us into higher and lower strata creating a social hierarchy. What purpose does this separation serve, and what positives and negatives does it produce? 

These questions have been pondered by humans for millennia such that they were the progenitors of an academic discipline called Sociology. After many years of study of diverse cultures—both human and animal—there is still no single unified theory. There are several views which each illuminate a piece of the whole for sociologists. There also appear to be human inclinations, prompted by genetics, that imply we are hard wired for some sort of hierarchy. A look at the biology will come in a subsequent post.

Sociology currently has two mainstream ideas about the stratification used to assign rank and roles, and the privileges which accrue with each. There are many streams of thought contributing to the understanding of societal organization, as well as cultural manifestations of hierarchy. To avoid getting lost in the weeds (I’ve just crawled out of the weed patch for you), we may limit this discussion to a 30,000 foot view of Structural Functionalism and Conflict Theory. 

Sociologists will bridle at my misuse of the term “caste.” They have strictly defined caste as a stratum into which a member is born and can never transcend. While “caste” for the purpose of this discussion may be hyperbole, a person can feel just as stuck when their ascribed status is lacking—wrong school, wrong accent, wrong personal code—and earned status is out of reach. So, yes, hyperbole, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you’re still ducked.

Structural Functionalism looks at group behavior as it tends toward stability and encourages talented people to fill critical roles. Order is preserved by social stratification which serves as a function, not a bug in the system, and the system relies on the interdependence between strata. The consensus in social hierarchy is used to produce stability and predictability.

 American culture uses the term “merit-based” to set arbitrary boundaries between strata. Merit is lauded as a way to move up in hierarchy, through what sociologists call earned status or prestige. Less admired—and often shorter-lived—is movement by aggression, by ignoring societal boundaries. Resource distribution within a hierarchy serves as a check on the most aggressive among us, though there are times the system is slow to counter their activities. 

Conflict Theory recognizes the inequalities and injustices of the status quo are fertile soil for discord. Current examples range from public figures denigrating the science-based vaccines with vague accusations of bias, to unequal conviction rates between races. Conflict theorists call into question whether an unjust society can remain stable when the consensus itself creates misery. 

To answer the question posed in the title: Yes, we must have a social hierarchy. Not necessarily the one we live with now, but we must have some organizing principles to promote fairness and opportunity for all people as well as equal protection under law. To resist this notion is like the levees along the Mississippi. They held for years until they didn’t, because as a song by AJ Alanson says (or sings), Water Gotta Run.

If this hasn’t killed your curiosity about Sociology’s examination of the social hierarchy, I recommend The Helpful Professor. Dr. Ryan Drew makes things as simple as possible, with many links to peer-reviewed articles and books. 

Next post I will move from the macro level view to some of the mechanisms in place that sustain the current hierarchy and how we might at least refrain from becoming part of the problem.