Theories of Stratification
Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in society according to factors such as wealth, income, status, and power. Every known society exhibits some form of stratification, but sociologists disagree profoundly about its causes, consequences, and whether it is inevitable. Why do some people inherit advantage while others inherit disadvantage? Is inequality a necessary feature of any complex society, or a remediable product of a particular economic system? The AQA A-Level Sociology specification requires you to understand and evaluate functionalist, Marxist, Weberian, and feminist theories of stratification, and to apply them to contemporary UK society. This opening lesson establishes the theoretical toolkit you will draw on throughout the entire Stratification and Differentiation option.
Key Definition: Social stratification is the division of society into a hierarchy of layers, with the most privileged at the top and the least privileged at the bottom. It is a structured, patterned inequality that persists across generations.
Spec Mapping (AQA 7192 — Paper 2, Topics in Sociology, Section B: Stratification and Differentiation)
This lesson directly addresses the first specification bullet of the Stratification and Differentiation option:
- Different theories of stratification — functionalist, Marxist, Weberian and feminist accounts of the nature, extent and basis of social inequality.
- The relationship between dimensions of stratification — economic class, social status and political power, and how these are theorised differently.
- It underpins every later bullet: theories of class, mobility, gender, ethnic and age inequality are all elaborations of the four foundational perspectives covered here.
Paper 2 is assessed by a single essay paper (2 hours, 80 marks total across two options). In the Stratification option you will answer one 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse two…" question and one 20-mark "applying material from the Item, evaluate…" essay. Note: Paper 2 essays are worth 20 marks, not 30 — only Paper 1 (Education with Theory and Methods) and Paper 3 carry the longer essays.
Synoptic Links
The AQA specification rewards students who connect material across the course. Stratification theory links to:
- Theory (Paper 1/3): The functionalism vs. Marxism vs. Weberianism vs. feminism debate is the core theoretical division in the whole specification. Mastering it here strengthens your Theory and Methods answers.
- Methods (Paper 1/3): Theories carry methodological preferences — functionalists and positivists favour large-scale quantitative data; interpretivists and many feminists favour qualitative methods that capture lived experience. Marxists use a macro, structural lens.
- Education (Paper 1): Bourdieu's cultural capital, Bowles and Gintis's correspondence principle, and the meritocracy myth all apply functionalist and Marxist stratification theory to schooling.
- Families and Households (Paper 2): Feminist analysis of patriarchy, the domestic division of labour and Oakley's work originate in stratification theory.
- Globalisation: Wallerstein's neo-Marxist world-systems theory (covered later in this option) extends Marx's exploitation thesis to the global scale.
Functionalism: Davis and Moore
Functionalist sociologists argue that social stratification is both universal and necessary. The most influential functionalist theory of stratification was developed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) in their essay "Some Principles of Stratification."
The Davis-Moore Thesis
Davis and Moore argued that stratification exists because every society must ensure that the most important positions are filled by the most qualified people. They proposed the following logic:
- Functional importance: Some positions in society are more important than others for the survival and efficient functioning of the social system — for example, surgeons are more functionally important than refuse collectors.
- Talent is scarce: Only a limited number of individuals have the talent and ability to fill these important roles.
- Training requires sacrifice: Those who train for demanding positions must defer gratification — spending years in education while others earn money.
- Differential rewards: To motivate talented people to undergo the sacrifice of lengthy training, society must offer unequal rewards — higher pay, greater prestige, and more power.
- Stratification is inevitable and functional: The result is a meritocratic hierarchy that benefits the whole of society by ensuring the best people fill the most important roles.
The thesis rests on the broader functionalist assumption of value consensus. Talcott Parsons (1951) argued that societies are held together by shared values, and that members agree on which roles deserve the greatest rewards. For Parsons, stratification is the differential ranking of individuals according to how well they perform roles that society collectively values. Inequality is therefore not the result of conflict but the expression of a moral agreement about what matters.
The logic of the Davis-Moore thesis can be represented as a self-reinforcing cycle:
flowchart TD
A["Some positions are functionally more important"] --> B["Only scarce talent can fill them"]
B --> C["Long training requires sacrifice"]
C --> D["Unequal rewards offered as incentive"]
D --> E["Most able people motivated to fill key roles"]
E --> F["Society functions efficiently (meritocracy)"]
F --> A
Exam Tip: The Davis-Moore thesis is the single most frequently examined functionalist argument on stratification. You must be able to state it precisely and evaluate it from multiple perspectives.
Evaluation of Davis and Moore
Strengths:
- The theory offers a clear explanation of why inequality exists in all known societies.
- It highlights the role of incentives in motivating individuals — consistent with human capital theory in economics.
- Parsons (1951) supported the view that shared values about the importance of certain roles help integrate society through value consensus.
Criticisms — Tumin's classic rebuttal:
Melvin Tumin (1953) wrote the definitive critique of Davis and Moore, and you should be able to reproduce his points precisely:
- The problem of functional importance is circular. How do we know a role is "important"? Davis and Moore infer importance from the rewards attached to it — but this is precisely what they set out to explain. Many low-paid jobs (nurses, bin collectors, teachers, care workers — vividly illustrated when essential workers were celebrated during the COVID-19 pandemic) are arguably more essential to survival than highly paid roles in finance or entertainment.
- Talent is not as scarce as claimed. Davis and Moore underestimate the pool of talent in society. Much potential is wasted because barriers — poverty, poor schooling, discrimination — prevent able people from developing their abilities. Stratification therefore restricts rather than maximises the discovery of talent.
- Training is not always a sacrifice. Students from affluent families often enjoy university; the "sacrifice" is offset by status, lifestyle and parental support. Meanwhile a manual worker who left school at 16 made an arguably greater sacrifice of lost opportunity.
- Stratification is dysfunctional. Far from integrating society, inequality breeds hostility, distrust and conflict. It limits social mobility and concentrates power, allowing elites to entrench their advantage.
Further criticisms:
- The theory assumes a meritocracy, but inherited wealth, private education and social networks mean that access to top positions is far from equal. The Social Mobility Commission (2019) showed that those from affluent backgrounds are disproportionately represented in elite professions such as law, medicine and journalism.
- Marxists argue that high rewards do not reflect functional importance but rather the ability of powerful groups to exploit others.
- The theory ignores the dysfunctions of stratification — poverty, crime, mental illness and social exclusion are consequences of inequality, not evidence that it works.
- It fails to explain why women and ethnic minorities are systematically under-rewarded, even when they hold the same positions as white men. The theory is, in feminist terms, malestream.
Marxism: Class Conflict and Exploitation
Karl Marx (1818–1883) offered a radically different theory of stratification. For Marx, inequality is not functional or inevitable — it is the product of exploitation within a specific economic system.
Key Concepts
- Infrastructure and superstructure: The economic base (infrastructure) — comprising the forces of production (technology, raw materials) and the relations of production (who owns what) — determines the superstructure (law, politics, education, religion, media). The ruling class shapes the superstructure to serve its own interests.
- Class: Marx defined class in terms of the ownership of the means of production. In capitalist society, there are two main classes:
- Bourgeoisie (ruling class): own the factories, land, and capital.
- Proletariat (working class): own only their labour power, which they must sell to survive.
- Surplus value: Workers produce goods worth more than they are paid. The difference — surplus value — is taken by the bourgeoisie as profit. This is the mechanism of exploitation.
- Alienation: Workers are alienated from the product of their labour, the process of production, their fellow workers, and their own human potential (species-being).
Class Conflict
Marx argued that the interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat are fundamentally opposed. The bourgeoisie seek to maximise profit by keeping wages low; the proletariat seek higher wages and better conditions. This creates an inherent class conflict that drives historical change.
Marx predicted that capitalism would produce:
- Polarisation: The middle class would shrink as small businesses are absorbed by large corporations. Society would divide into two hostile camps — a tiny bourgeoisie and a vast proletariat.
- Proletarianisation: White-collar workers would be de-skilled and pushed down into the working class.
- Immiseration: The working class would become increasingly impoverished.
- Revolution: Eventually, the proletariat would develop class consciousness — an awareness of their exploitation — and overthrow the bourgeoisie, establishing a communist society without private ownership of the means of production.
Evaluation of Marx
Strengths:
- Marx correctly identified that economic power translates into political and social power. Wealthy individuals and corporations wield enormous influence over government policy.
- His theory draws attention to exploitation — a concept that remains highly relevant in an era of zero-hours contracts, precarious employment, and the gig economy.
- The concept of ideology (false consciousness) remains useful for understanding how inequalities are legitimised through media, education, and culture.
Criticisms:
- The predicted revolution has not occurred in advanced capitalist societies. Instead, the welfare state, trade unions, and rising living standards have moderated class conflict.
- Weber argued that Marx's model was too simplistic — status and political power cannot be reduced to economic class alone.
- The working class has not been homogenised; instead, new class fractions have emerged (see Savage et al., 2013).
- Postmodernists such as Pakulski and Waters (1996) argue that class has become less important as an identity — people now define themselves through consumption, lifestyle, and culture rather than their position in the relations of production.
- Feminists criticise Marx for ignoring gender. The exploitation of women's unpaid domestic labour is not adequately addressed in classical Marxist theory.
Neo-Marxism: Braverman and Proletarianisation
Harry Braverman (1974) revived Marx's proletarianisation thesis in Labor and Monopoly Capital. Braverman argued that deskilling — the process by which management breaks complex tasks into simple, repetitive operations — had extended from manual work to white-collar occupations. Clerical, secretarial, and even professional roles were being routinised and cheapened, effectively pushing their holders into the working class.
Evaluation:
- Braverman's thesis is supported by evidence of automation replacing skilled work in banking, retail, and administration.
- However, critics such as Gallie (1991) point out that some occupations have been upskilled — the growth of IT, management, and professional services has created new skilled jobs.
Neo-Marxism: Wright and Contradictory Class Locations
A key problem for the two-class model is the existence of a large salaried middle class — managers, professionals and supervisors who neither own the means of production nor are straightforwardly exploited workers. Erik Olin Wright (1985) addressed this by arguing that some positions occupy contradictory class locations: managers, for example, are exploited by owners (like workers) yet exercise control over other workers (like owners). Wright thus retained Marx's emphasis on exploitation while accommodating the complexity of the modern occupational structure — a useful response to the Weberian charge that Marxism is too simplistic.
The Contemporary Relevance of Marx
Although the revolution Marx predicted has not occurred, many sociologists argue his framework remains strikingly relevant:
- The rise of the gig economy, zero-hours contracts and platform labour (delivery riders, drivers) has recreated forms of precarious, low-paid work with minimal protection — a modern face of exploitation.
- The concentration of wealth at the very top (the elite identified by Savage) echoes Marx's account of capital accumulation.
- The concept of ideology illuminates how inequality is legitimised — the meritocracy myth, for instance, persuades people that the system is fair.
These continuities explain why neo-Marxist analysis has been revived in debates about precarity and the precariat (Standing, 2011), even as classical predictions have failed.
Weber: Class, Status, and Party
Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx that economic factors are crucial to stratification but argued that Marx's model was incomplete. Weber identified three dimensions of stratification:
1. Class (Economic)
Weber defined class as a group of people who share a similar market situation — their ability to sell their skills and labour on the open market. Unlike Marx, Weber recognised multiple classes, not just two:
- Property owners
- Professionals and managers (with marketable skills and credentials)
- Manual workers (with limited skills)
- The underclass (with no skills or property)
Weber's concept of life chances is central: your class position determines your access to material goods, education, healthcare, and other resources that shape the quality and length of your life.
2. Status (Social Prestige)
Status refers to the social honour or prestige attached to a group. Status groups share a common lifestyle, level of social esteem, and patterns of consumption. Crucially, status does not always correspond to class:
- A university professor may have high status but relatively low income.
- A successful plumber may earn more than a teacher but enjoy less social prestige.
- Ethnic and religious groups may be given low status regardless of their economic position.
Weber noted that status can cut across class lines — members of a high-status ethnic group may feel solidarity with one another regardless of economic differences.
3. Party (Political Power)
Party refers to the organised pursuit of power. Political parties, pressure groups, trade unions, and social movements are all examples. Power can be exercised independently of class and status — a charismatic political leader from a working-class background can wield enormous influence.
Evaluation of Weber
Strengths:
- Weber's multi-dimensional model is more nuanced than Marx's two-class model. It can explain situations where economic class, social status, and political power do not align.
- The concept of market situation remains central to contemporary class analysis (see Goldthorpe's class scheme).
- The distinction between class and status helps explain phenomena such as racism (where low status is ascribed regardless of class) and the influence of cultural capital.
Criticisms:
- Marxists argue that by separating class, status, and party, Weber obscures the fundamental importance of economic exploitation. Status and political power are ultimately derived from economic relationships.
- Weber's model can be seen as overly descriptive — it tells us what stratification looks like but not why it exists or how it might be changed.
- Some argue that in practice, class, status, and party overlap so heavily that treating them as independent dimensions is artificial.
Neo-Weberianism: Parkin and Social Closure
The Weberian tradition was developed by Frank Parkin (1979), who introduced the concept of social closure — the process by which a social group monopolises advantages and opportunities by closing them off to outsiders. Parkin identified two strategies:
- Exclusion: Powerful groups restrict access to resources and positions — for example, professions requiring expensive qualifications, lengthy training, or membership of regulatory bodies (the British Medical Association, the Bar) that limit entry.
- Usurpation: Subordinate groups attempt to claim a greater share of resources — for example, trade-union action or social movements pressing for redistribution.
Parkin's concept is a powerful alternative to Marx's exploitation: it explains how credentials, ethnicity and gender (not just ownership of capital) can be used to hoard advantage. It directly informs the analysis of professional closure in the social-mobility topic.
Bourdieu: Bridging Marx and Weber
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) offered an influential synthesis. He argued that class advantage is reproduced not only through economic capital (wealth, income) but also through:
- Cultural capital — the knowledge, tastes, language and educational credentials valued by dominant institutions.
- Social capital — networks of contacts and connections that provide information and opportunity.
- Symbolic capital — prestige, honour and recognition.
Bourdieu's concept of habitus — the durable dispositions instilled by one's class upbringing — explains why inequality feels natural and is reproduced across generations. Bourdieu is essential because his capitals underpin both Savage's Great British Class Survey and the analysis of educational inequality.
Feminist Perspectives on Stratification
Feminist sociologists argue that traditional theories of stratification — whether functionalist, Marxist, or Weberian — have been malestream: developed by men, focused on men's experiences, and blind to gender inequality.
Key Arguments
- Oakley (1974): The conventional class scheme classified women by their husband's occupation, rendering women's own class position invisible. A woman working as a cleaner was classified as middle-class if her husband was an accountant.
- Walby (1990): Identified six structures of patriarchy that create gender-based stratification: paid employment, household production, culture, sexuality, violence, and the state. These structures operate independently of economic class and affect women across all social positions.
- Stanworth (1984): Demonstrated that women's class position could not be derived from their male partner's occupation. Women with identical qualifications to men earned less, had fewer promotion opportunities, and experienced a dual burden of paid work and unpaid domestic labour.
Marxist Feminism
Marxist feminists argue that women's oppression is rooted in capitalism. Women serve capitalism by:
- Reproducing the labour force — bearing and raising the next generation of workers, unpaid.
- Providing emotional support — acting as a "safety valve" for men's frustrations with alienating work.
- Constituting a reserve army of labour — drawn into the workforce during periods of expansion and pushed back into the home during recessions.
Benston (1969) argued that women's unpaid domestic labour produces surplus value for capitalism because it reduces the cost of reproducing the labour force.
Intersectional Feminism
Contemporary feminists argue that gender cannot be understood in isolation. Crenshaw (1989) introduced the concept of intersectionality to show how gender, race, class, sexuality, and disability interact to produce unique patterns of disadvantage. A working-class Black woman faces qualitatively different barriers from those experienced by a middle-class white woman — her oppression cannot be understood by simply "adding up" gender and race.
Exam Tip: The AQA specification increasingly rewards answers that demonstrate awareness of intersectionality. When discussing any form of inequality, consider how multiple dimensions of stratification interact.
The Dual-Systems Debate
A key debate within feminism concerns the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism:
- Radical feminists (e.g. Firestone, 1970) treat patriarchy as the primary and most fundamental system of oppression, predating and underlying capitalism.
- Marxist feminists treat capitalism as primary, with women's oppression serving capital.
- Dual-systems theorists such as Hartmann (1979) argue that patriarchy and capitalism are two distinct but interacting systems — capitalism exploits workers while patriarchy ensures that women bear the costs of social reproduction. This synthesis avoids reducing gender to class while retaining a structural, materialist analysis.
This debate matters for the exam because it shows that "feminism" is not one position but a family of competing accounts — a point that earns analytical credit.
Theory in Action: Applying the Perspectives
Consider a single phenomenon — the persistence of a wealthy, privately educated elite at the top of British society — and how each perspective explains it:
| Perspective | Explanation of the elite |
|---|
| Functionalism | The elite occupy functionally important roles and are rewarded for the talent and training these require (Davis and Moore) — though Tumin would challenge whether their rewards match their usefulness. |
| Marxism | The elite are the bourgeoisie, who own and control capital, extract surplus value, and use the superstructure (private schools, media) to reproduce their dominance. |
| Weberianism | The elite combine high class (market situation), high status (prestige, accent, culture) and political power (party); they practise social closure to exclude outsiders (Parkin). |
| Bourdieu | The elite transmit economic, cultural and social capital across generations; their habitus makes their advantage appear natural and deserved. |
| Feminism | The elite are overwhelmingly male; patriarchy intersects with class so that even within the elite, women are under-represented at the very top. |
This comparative approach — applying multiple theories to one example — is exactly what distinguishes top-band evaluation.
Summary Table
| Theory | Key Thinker(s) | Basis of Stratification | Key Concepts | View of Inequality |
|---|
| Functionalism | Davis & Moore, Parsons | Functional importance, talent | Meritocracy, value consensus | Inevitable and beneficial |
| Marxism | Marx, Braverman | Ownership of means of production | Exploitation, surplus value, alienation | Product of capitalism; can be abolished |
| Weberianism | Weber | Market situation, status, power | Class, status, party; life chances | Multi-dimensional; complex |
| Feminism | Walby, Oakley, Crenshaw | Patriarchy, gender | Six structures, intersectionality | Gender inequality is structural |
Evaluation (AO3): An Analytical Spine
A top-band answer does not simply list theories — it argues a sustained line through them. A useful spine for any "evaluate theories of stratification" question runs as follows:
- Functionalism overstates consensus and understates power. The Davis-Moore thesis cannot escape Tumin's circularity, and the assumption of meritocracy is empirically weak given the persistence of inherited advantage.
- Marxism captures exploitation but is economically reductionist. Marx correctly links economic and political power, and the gig economy gives the exploitation thesis fresh relevance — but the predicted revolution has not arrived, and class is not as binary as the two-class model implies.
- Weber offers the more flexible model. By separating class, status and party, Weber can explain phenomena Marx cannot — racism (low status independent of class), professional closure (credentialism), and the rise of a salaried middle class. This is why most contemporary class schemes (Goldthorpe, NS-SEC) are broadly Weberian.
- Feminism exposes the malestream blind spot. All three "classic" theories were developed by men and ignored gender; Walby's structures of patriarchy and Crenshaw's intersectionality show that stratification is multi-dimensional in ways the founders never grasped.
- Synthesis: The strongest position is that no single theory is sufficient. Class, status, gender and ethnicity intersect; a complete account must be multi-dimensional. This is the judgement examiners reward.
Specimen Question
Item A
Functionalist sociologists argue that social stratification is both inevitable and beneficial. They claim that unequal rewards are necessary to motivate the most talented individuals to undertake the long training required for the most important jobs. Critics, however, point out that rewards often bear little relationship to a job's usefulness to society, and that those born into wealthy families enjoy advantages that have nothing to do with talent or effort.
Question 1 (10 marks): Applying material from Item A, analyse two criticisms of the functionalist theory of stratification.
Question 2 (20 marks): Applying material from Item A and elsewhere, evaluate the view that social stratification is best understood as the product of economic class.
AO breakdown (20-mark essay): AO1 (Knowledge and understanding) ≈ 8 marks; AO2 (Application — using the Item and applying concepts to the question) ≈ 4 marks; AO3 (Analysis and evaluation) ≈ 8 marks. The 10-mark question is marked AO1 (≈ 4), AO2 (≈ 2/3 — explicit use of the Item) and AO3 (≈ 3/4 — developing each criticism analytically).
Banded Model Answers
10-mark question — Mid-band response
One criticism in the Item is that "rewards often bear little relationship to a job's usefulness." Tumin made this point. He said nurses and bin collectors are useful but not paid much, so functionalism is wrong about functional importance. Another criticism is that wealthy families have advantages. This means it is not really a meritocracy because rich children get private schools.
10-mark question — Top-band response
The first criticism drawn from Item A is that "rewards often bear little relationship to a job's usefulness to society." This directly echoes Tumin's (1953) charge of circularity: Davis and Moore infer a role's functional importance from its rewards, yet rewards are precisely what the theory claims to explain. The point applies powerfully today — care workers and refuse collectors were designated "key workers" during the pandemic yet remain among the lowest paid, while hedge-fund managers earn vast sums for socially questionable activity. This shows that market reward and functional necessity diverge, undermining the meritocratic logic.
The second criticism, that "those born into wealthy families enjoy advantages," challenges the assumption that stratification reflects talent. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital and the Social Mobility Commission's (2019) finding that elite professions remain dominated by the privately educated both demonstrate that access to top positions is structured by class of origin, not ability. If outcomes are inherited rather than earned, the functionalist claim that stratification efficiently allocates talent collapses.
Examiner-style commentary: The Mid-band response identifies two valid criticisms and names Tumin, but the application is thin — the Item is quoted only loosely and the second point is asserted rather than developed. The Top-band response explicitly anchors each criticism in the Item ("rewards often bear little relationship…"), names and explains the relevant sociologist, and analyses the implication for the functionalist argument (the circularity, the collapse of meritocracy). This analytical development of two distinct, well-applied points is what lifts a 10-mark answer into the top band.
20-mark essay — Stronger response (opening and judgement extract)
The view that stratification is best understood as economic class is most strongly associated with Marx, who argued that society divides into the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and the proletariat, who own only their labour power. Surplus value is extracted as profit, and this exploitation is the engine of inequality. The Item's reference to inherited wealth supports a Marxist reading, since capital is passed down to reproduce ruling-class power.
However, Weber argued that class is only one dimension. Status and party can vary independently — a high-status profession may earn less than a self-employed trader, and racism shows that low status can be ascribed regardless of economic position. Feminists go further, arguing that all these male theorists ignored patriarchy. Overall, while economic class is hugely important, it cannot alone explain status- and gender-based inequality, so a multi-dimensional Weberian and feminist account is more convincing.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a competent Stronger-band essay: accurate Marx, a clear Weberian counter, application of the Item, and an evaluative judgement. To reach the very top band it would need wider range (Tumin and the functionalist position explicitly weighed, Crenshaw's intersectionality, Braverman's neo-Marxism) and a more sustained analytical thread rather than a sequence of paragraphs. The judgement is sound but could be sharpened by explaining why the Weberian model handles racism and credentialism better than the Marxist one.
Common Misconceptions
- "Functionalists think inequality is fair." Not quite — they argue it is functional (it works for the system), which is a claim about consequences, not a moral claim about fairness. Keep the two separate.
- "Marx had three classes." Marx's model is fundamentally two-class (bourgeoisie/proletariat), though he acknowledged transitional groups like the petty bourgeoisie. It is Weber who insists on multiple classes based on market situation.
- "Status means the same as class." For Weber they are distinct dimensions that can move independently. Conflating them loses the analytical power of his model.
- "Feminism is one theory." There are liberal, radical, Marxist and postmodern feminisms with very different explanations and solutions. Specify which strand you mean.
- "Tumin disproved functionalism." Tumin offered a powerful critique; functionalism remains a perspective with defenders. Examiners want evaluation, not the claim that a theory has been "disproved."
Going Further
- Read the original exchange: Davis and Moore (1945) "Some Principles of Stratification" and Tumin's (1953) reply — the founding debate of the whole topic.
- Explore Wright's (1985) neo-Marxist concept of "contradictory class locations" for managers who are neither pure bourgeoisie nor proletariat.
- Compare Parkin's (1979) Weberian concept of "social closure" with Marxist exploitation as competing accounts of how groups monopolise advantage.
- Connect to your Theory and Methods study by asking how each perspective's methodology (positivist/quantitative vs. interpretivist/qualitative) shapes the kind of evidence it produces.
Key Terms for Revision
- Social stratification — hierarchical ranking of groups in society.
- Meritocracy — the idea that rewards are based on ability and effort.
- Bourgeoisie / Proletariat — Marx's two main classes.
- Surplus value — the difference between the value workers produce and the wages they receive.
- Class consciousness — awareness of one's class position and interests.
- Life chances — Weber's term for access to resources and opportunities.
- Patriarchy — a system in which men dominate women.
- Intersectionality — the interaction of multiple forms of inequality.
This content is aligned with the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) specification.