Click here to join telegram group
Social stratification theory refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in society based on factors like class, caste, race, ethnicity, and status. Classical theories of stratification – like those of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Kingsley Davis & Wilbert Moore – primarily focused on economic inequality, occupational roles, and prestige.
However, a major critique is that these theories were largely gender-blind – they overlooked the systematic ways in which gender organizes inequality.
2. Why Stratification Theory is Considered Gender-Blind
- Class-Centric Approach (Marx and Weber)
- Marx analyzed stratification in terms of ownership vs. non-ownership of means of production. Women’s unpaid domestic labor, which sustains capitalism, was ignored.
- Weber emphasized class, status, and power, but did not highlight how gender hierarchies intersect with these dimensions.
- Functionalist Theory (Davis & Moore)
- Functionalists justified inequality as necessary for role allocation and efficiency.
- But they never questioned why women were disproportionately confined to low-paid, domestic, or care work.
- Focus on Public Sphere
- Classical stratification theories concentrated on the public domain of economy and politics, neglecting the private sphere (family, household, reproduction), where gendered power inequalities are deeply embedded.
- Invisible Women
- Women’s roles in kinship, caregiving, emotional labor, and informal economies were overlooked, rendering women “invisible” in mainstream stratification analysis.
3. Feminist Critique of Gender-Blindness
Feminist scholars argue that gender is a fundamental axis of stratification, not just a sub-category of class or status.
- Heidi Hartmann: Capitalism and patriarchy work together – women’s oppression is both economic and gender-based.
- Sylvia Walby: Identified six structures of patriarchy (household, paid work, state, male violence, sexuality, and culture) that intersect with stratification.
- Ann Oakley: Pointed out how sociological theories naturalized women’s subordination by treating it as “biological destiny” rather than structural inequality.
- Intersectionality (Kimberlé Crenshaw): Gender stratification intersects with class, caste, race, and ethnicity – e.g., Dalit women in India or Black women in the U.S. face compounded disadvantages.
4. Towards a Gender-Sensitive Stratification Theory
- Recognition of Patriarchy as a System
- Just as capitalism structures class inequality, patriarchy structures gender inequality.
- Stratification must be analyzed in terms of both economic and patriarchal relations.
- Inclusion of Unpaid and Care Work
- Women’s domestic and reproductive labor contributes to the economy, yet remains undervalued and excluded from stratification measures like income and occupational prestige.
- Dual Systems Analysis
- Many sociologists propose studying stratification as a dual system of class and gender. For example, a working-class man and a working-class woman face different forms of disadvantage.
- Global and Digital Stratification
- In contemporary times, stratification theories must also consider feminization of poverty, gender pay gap, digital gender divide, and representation in decision-making.
5. Conclusion
Yes, traditional social stratification theory is largely gender-blind because it neglected the structural basis of gender inequality and privileged male-centered experiences. However, feminist critiques and intersectional perspectives have corrected this blindness by showing that gender is as central to stratification as class, caste, or race.
Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of stratification requires incorporating patriarchy, unpaid labor, and intersectional identities, ensuring that gender is not treated as an afterthought but as a core axis of social inequality.