Social Stratification In Satrujitpur Social stratification the diversion of society into levels, steps or positions, is perpetuated by the major institutions of society such as economy, the family, and religion, education. In sociology, social stratification is a concept involving the “classification of people into groups based on shared socio-economic conditions … a relational set of inequalities with economic , social, political and ideological dimensions. ” When differences lead to greater status, power or privilege for some groups over the other it is called Social Stratification.
It is a system by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy Social stratification is based on four basic principles: (1) Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences; (2) Social stratification carries over from generation to generation; (3) Social stratification is universal but variable; (4) Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well. In modern Western societies, stratification is broadly organized into three main layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each of these classes can be further subdivided into smaller classes.
These categories are particular to state-based societies as distinguished from feudal societies composed of nobility-to-peasant relations. Stratification may also be defined by kinship ties or castes. For Max Weber, social class pertaining broadly to material wealth is distinguished from status class which is based on such variables as honor, prestige and religious affiliation. Talcott Parsons argued that the forces of societal differentiation and the following pattern of institutionalized individualization would strongly diminish the role of class (as a major stratification factor) as social evolution went along.
It is debatable whether the earliest hunter gatherer groups may be defined as ‘stratified’, or if such differentials began with agriculture and broad acts of exchange between groups. One of the ongoing issues in determining social stratification arises from the point that status inequalities between individuals are common, so it becomes a quantitative issue to determine how much inequality qualifies as stratification. The concept of social stratification is interpreted differently by the various heoretical perspectives of sociology. Proponents of action theory have suggested that since social stratification is commonly found in developed societies, hierarchy may be necessary in order to stabilize social structure. Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, asserted that stability and social order are regulated, in part, by universal value although universal values were not identical with “consensus” but could as well be the impetus for ardent conflict as it had been multiple times through history.
Parsons never claimed that universal values in and by themselves “satisfied” the functional prerequisites of a society, indeed, the constitution of society was a much more complicated codification of emerging historical factors. The so-called conflict theories, such as Marxism, point to the inaccessibility of resources and lack of social mobility found in stratified societies. Many sociological theorists have criticized the extent to which the working classes are unlikely to advance socioeconomically; the wealthy tend to hold political power which they use to exploit the proletariat inter generationally.
Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf, however, have noted the tendency toward an enlarged middle-class in modern Western societies due to the necessity of an educated workforce in technological and service economies. Various social and political perspectives concerning globalization, such as dependency theory, suggest that these effects are due to the change of workers to the third world. In Marxist theory, the capitalist mode of production consists of two main economic parts: the substructure and the superstructure.
Marx saw classes as defined by people’s relationship to the means of productions in two basic ways: either they own productive property or labour for others. The base comprehends the relations of production—employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations—into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. In the capitalist system, the ruling classes own the means of production, which essentially includes the working class itself as they only have their own labor power (‘wage labor’) to offer in order to survive.
These relations fundamentally determine the ideas and philosophies of a society, constituting the superstructure. A temporary status quo is achieved by various methods of social control employed, consciously or unconsciously, by the bourgeoisie in the course of various aspects of social life. Through the ideology of the ruling class, false consciousness is promoted both through ostensibly political and non-political institutions, but also through the arts and other elements of culture.
Marx believed the capitalist mode would eventually give way, through its own internal conflict, to revolutionary consciousness and the development of egalitarian communist society. Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx’s ideas, but rejected the possibility of effective communism, arguing that it would require an even greater level of detrimental social control and bureaucratization than capitalist society. Moreover, Weber criticized the dialectical presumption of proletariat revolt, believing it to be unlikely. Instead, he developed the three component theory of stratification and the concept of life chances.
Weber supposed there were more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both functionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system. He emphasized the difference between class, status, and power, and treated these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on social action. Working at half a century later than Marx, Weber claimed there to be in fact four main classes: the upper class, the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual working class.
Weber’s theory more-closely resembles contemporary Western class structures, although economic status does not currently seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber envisioned. Weber derived many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining the social structure of Germany. He noted that contrary to Marx’s theories, stratification was based on more than simply ownership of capital. Weber examined how many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet had strong political power. Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were Jewish.
Weber introduced three independent factors that form his theory of stratification hierarchy, which are; class, status, and power: Class: A person’s economic position in a society, based on birth and individual achievement. Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification. Weber noted how corporate executives control firms they typically do not own; Marx would have placed these people in the proletariat despite their high incomes by virtue of the fact they sell their labor instead of owning capital.
Status: A person’s prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted that political power was not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one’s individual status. Poets or saints, for example, can have extensive influence on society despite few material resources. Power: A person’s ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a member of the United States Congress, may hold little property or status but still wield considerable power.
Wright Mills contended that the imbalance of power in society derives from the complete absence of countervailing powers against corporate leaders of the power elite. “… Mills both incorporated and revised Marxist ideas. While he shared Marx’s recognition of a dominant wealthy and powerful class, Mills believed that the source for that power lay not only in the economic realm but also in the political and military arenas.
During the 1950s, Mills stated that hardly anyone knew about the power elite’s existence, some individuals (including the elite themselves) denied the idea of such a group, and other people vaguely believed that a small formation of a powerful elite existed. Some prominent individuals knew that Congress had permitted a handful of political leaders to make critical decisions about peace and war; and that two atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan in the name of the United States, but neither they nor anyone they knew had been consulted.
Mills sought to inform people about the existence of the power elite through his book The Power Elite Mills explained that the power elite embodied a privileged class whose members were able to recognize their high position within society. In order to maintain their highly exalted position within society, members of the power elite tend to marry one another, understand and accept on another, and they also work together. The most crucial aspect of the power elite’s existence lays within the core of education.
The upper class individuals who receive elite educations typically have the essential background and contacts to enter into the three branches of the power elite: The political leadership, the military circle, and the corporate elite The Political Leadership: Mills stated that prior to the end of World War II, leaders of corporations became more prominent within the political sphere, with a decline in central decision-making among professional politicians.
The Military Circle: During the 1950s-1960s, increasing concerns about warfare existed, resulting in top military leaders and issues involving defense funding and military personnel training becoming a top priority within the United States. Most of the prominent politicians and corporate leaders were strong proponents of military spending. The Corporate Elite: Mills explains that during the 1950s, when the military emphasis was recognized, corporate leaders worked with prominent military officers who dominated the development of policies. Corporate leaders and high-ranking military officers were mutually supportive of each other.
Mills believed that the power elite has an “inner-core” that was made up of individuals who were able to move from one position of institutional power to another; a prominent military officer who becomes a political adviser or a powerful politician who becomes a corporate executive . These people have more knowledge and a greater breadth of interests than their colleagues. Prominent bankers and financiers, who Mills considered ‘almost professional go-betweens of economic, political, and military affairs,’ are also members of the elite’s inner core.
Anthropologists have found that social stratification is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy writes, “Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples. Non-stratified egalitarian or acephalous (“headless”) societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership. After above description we can define stratification of satrujitpur easily .
Satrujitpur unions under Shibganj Upazila (NAWABGANJ district) is bounded by BHOLAHAT and West Bengal of India on the north, NAWABGANJ SADAR and West Bengal of India on the south, Bholahat, GOMASTAPUR, NACHOLE and Nawabganj sadar upazilas on the east, West Bengal on the west. Main rivers are GANGES, Mahananda and Pagla . Satrujitpur is under shibganj upazilla. Shibganj came into existence in 1903 as Thana. Nothing is definitely known about the origin of the upazila name. It is learnt that the previous name of the upazila was Sherganj which was named after the name of emperor Sher Shah.
Subsequently the name was changed into Shibganj by the Hindu community to commemorate the honour and respect of their god Shiba . My union was under Maldah befor independence of india Pakistan. If it was Maldah this area was Gaur/Gour. Gaur was ruled by different types of Emperor. Before muslim emperor it was ruled by hindu emperor. So that time was elite group was mainly hindu emperor. Non elite group was people of this area. people mainly do farming. Emperor group was collected revenue from people. People must give revenue to emperor.
In that time there are stratification by power, economy. Because the person who was emperor or emperor’s people he was always elite group member. Other people was non elite. Businessman and landlord was non elite. Farmer, porter etc were lower class people. After The Sen kings ruled Bengal till Bakhtiyar Khalji conquered Bengal in 1204 AD. There after the Muslim rule started. The name Mal Daha was coined (Mal= riches, Daha= lake). Sultan Ilyas Shah, Firuz Shah, Sikandar Shah, Raja Ganesha, Alauddin Hussain Shah and Nasiruddin Nasrat Shah are the notable rulers of medieval age.
Afghan warrior Sher Shah Suri invaded Gour and was repelled by Mughal emperor Humayun. Humayun loving the mango of Gour named the place as Jannatabad (garden of heaven). Muslim ruler ruled this area and we found many relics of Muslim structures. Such as Chota Sona Mosque (constructed by Sultan Alauddin Hossain Shah, 1493-1519), Darashbari Mosque and Madrasa (established by Sultan Yusuf Shah, 1479), Dhanaichak Mosque and Khanjandighi Mosque (c 15th century), Dakhil Darwaza, Kachari Bari (Toha Khana) of Shah Suja (1639-58), Tohakhana Mosque and Mazar of Shah Niamatullah (1668-1669) .
We can now easily explain that the muslim emperor was highly enriched with everything they need. That‘s why they built this type of relics. Now here description of muslim emperor relics they built : Chhota Sona Mosque sometimes described as a ‘gem of Sultanate architecture’ is situated about 3 kilometres due south of KOTWALI DARWAZA and half a kilometre to the southeast of the TAHKHANA COMPLEX in the Firuzpur Quarters of GAUR-Lakhnauti, the capital of Sultanate Bengal. It occupies the western end of the southern bank of a large tank.
A little to the west of the mosque is a modern two-storied Guest House, built several years ago by the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Bangladesh. In between the Guest House and the mosque there runs north-south a modern road, which appears to have been of earlier origins, connecting the main city of Gaur-Lakhnauti with its suburb to the south through the Kotwali Darwaza. An inscription tablet still fixed over the central doorway records that the mosque was built by one Majlis-i-Majalis. Majlis Mansur Wali Muhammad bin Ali.
The letters in the inscription, giving theexact date of construction, have been obliterated. But the name of Sultan Alauddin HUSAIN SHAH in the inscription suggests that the mosque must have been built sometime during his rule (1494 -1519 AD). The mosque is one of the best-preserved Sultanate monuments under the protection of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Bangladesh. The gilding employed in the ornamentation that has given the building its appellation Chhota Sona Masjid (Little Golden Mosque) does not exist now. An outer wall