The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
– Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
– George Orwell, Animal Farm
The famous quotes above can help frame our discussion on the topic of social stratification.
Karl Marx believed that capitalism’s inequalities arise from the deeply rooted class divisions between the bourgeoisie haves (the rich) and proletarian have-nots (the poor). He laid the blueprint for a different type of society: a communist utopia. This would be a classless society, where equality and justice would be the rule, rather than the exception.
Sadly, as Orwell shows us in his famous book Animal Farm, countries that tried to establish this sort of communist utopia found that inequality continued. For example, Stalin’s Soviet Union was founded on Marxist principles, including political and economic equality for everyone. However, even though the country ended capitalist class divisions, other similarly damaging divisions took their place. These were political and bureaucratic class divisions that made some members of Soviet society (i.e. the ruling political class) like the pigs in Animal Farm—“more equal” than others!
The moral of the story is that as global citizens, we must bear these lessons from history in mind. These cautionary tales remind us to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes while we strive to address the inequalities (economic, political, social, and many more) that are inherent in all societies that are socially stratified.
Social Stratification
Consider the images below. For each of the two pairs of images, compare the left with the right, and think about these questions.
What do you think about when you view these images?
Thinking broadly, do you see yourself (and others like you, including family, friends, classmates, etc.) identifying more with one or another of the images in each pair? Which ones? Why?
On reflection, most people would agree that these pairs of images contrast two very different realities. The images on the left represent the reality for most of us: affordable ways to get around and affordable homes. On the right side, we see 1) a car that is worth as much as a decent-sized home, and 2) a mansion that is probably worth more than a dozen decent-sized homes put together!
Collectively, these images attest to the fact that in all societies today, people have (often vastly) different access to resources, such as cars and houses, and other vital things, like access to decent healthcare, education, jobs, etc. Of course, this list, besides being incomplete, is missing many other kinds of things that we don’t normally think of as “resources” but are needed by everyone to support decent, meaningful lives.
Such “resources” include freedom from oppression (e.g. police brutality against minoritized people of colour); freedom from racial and other forms of discrimination; and the same rights and privileges regardless of your identity or social status. In many cases, purely arbitrary factors such as where and to whom someone is born will go a long way to determining what resources they will have access to.
In other words, in every society, different social groups are not all treated equally. Like layers (another word for layers is strata) that make up an onion, or a tasty cake, societies are structured in levels. Sociologists and other theorists call this phenomenon
social stratificationThe hierarchical arrangement of social groups based on their control over basic resources, such as housing, jobs, healthcare, etc.
.
Social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of social groups based on their control over basic resources, such as housing, jobs, healthcare, etc. Usually, when we talk about social stratification, we are talking about
classThe concept of class refers to the relative location of a person or group within a given society based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued markers of one’s position (status) within a social hierarchy. Class determines one’s access to rewards, resources, and opportunities, which, in turn, influence one’s level of education, income, occupation, housing, healthcare, and life expectancy. Traditionally, class has been divided into five categories: upper class; middle class; working class; working poor; and underclass.
, but social stratification also includes how class intersects with other statuses such as gender, race, sexuality, and disability.
As mentioned above, the randomness (accident) of birth more often than not determines someone’s subsequent (mis)fortunes in life. But other crucial dimensions of identity also determine one’s life outcomes, including their gender, the colour of their skin, their ethnic background, sexual orientation, language, and religion. The list goes on.
The concept of class refers to the relative location of a person or group within a given society based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued markers of one’s position (status) within a social hierarchy. Class determines one’s access to rewards, resources, and opportunities, which, in turn, influence one’s level of education, income, occupation, housing, healthcare, and life expectancy. Traditionally, class has been divided into five categories: upper class; middle class; working class; working poor; and underclass.
Please note that while theoretical approaches to the study of class are varied, and often quite complex (see Go Deeper), we will limit our discussion to the above classification as it is most often used by social scientists and laypeople alike when discussing the concepts of class and social stratification.
In Canada most of us think of ourselves as middle class. But what does this mean? How accurate is this as a descriptor of our relative positions within Canadian society? Are we comfortably middle class, or are we instead struggling to pay off our various debts (i.e. credit cards, student loans, mortgage)?
Go Deeper
For an extended theoretical overview of social stratification (including analyses of functionalist, conflict [i.e. Marxist], and symbolic interactionist theories), see “Chapter 9: Social Stratification in Canada,” in William Little’s Introduction to Sociology: 2nd Canadian Edition. (Source: Little, 2016)
Social Stratification and Wealth Distribution in Canada
Think for a moment about how Canada’s overall wealth is distributed among the various members of Canadian society. Do you think that most people in our society have a roughly equal share of this total wealth? If not, how unequal do you think the distribution is?
Activity: Reflection on Canadian Wealth Distribution
If it were up to you, how would you ideally distribute the total wealth in Canada? Imagine dividing the total population into deciles (i.e. into 10 segments, each one representing 10% of the total population, from poorest to wealthiest). Would you redistribute the total wealth so each 10% of the population receives an equal share? If not, how much would the poor segments get in relation to the middle ones and to the richer ones?
Following up on your ideal wealth distribution, how do you think wealth is distributed in Canada? For example, what percentage of total wealth do you think the richest 20% of the population hold? What percentage do the poorest 20% have? What about the middle 20%?
Next, view the video Wealth Inequality in Canada, and compare your perspective to the one presented in the video (Source: Broadbent Institute, 2014). You might be surprised at the results!
The video’s narrator, Ed Broadbent, informs us that as of 2012, the richest 20% of Canadians owned nearly 70% of the total wealth! In contrast, the poorest 20% of the Canadian population owns less than 1% of Canada’s wealth. As if this isn’t shocking enough, we learn that the bottom 50% of Canadians own less than 6% of the country’s total wealth!
The video also reveals another important cause of wealth disparity. At the three-minute mark, the narrator tells us that the average Canadian chief executive officer (CEO) makes 200 times the wage of the average Canadian worker. Why do you think this might be? Can you think of some reasons that CEOs (who hold the top role in their organizations) make so much more?
Please note that the data from the video on wealth inequality in Canada is from 2012. In fact, the latest data released in a report by Canada’s Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicates that the numbers are even worse today than they were back in 2012. Most recently, in a report dated June 2020 and titled: Estimating the Top Tail of the Family Wealth Distribution in Canada, we find that the bottom 40% of Canadians only own 1.2% of total wealth in the country. In contrast, the middle class (i.e., approximately the middle 40% of the population) own fully 25% of the total wealth, while the top 20% own a whopping almost 75% of total wealth! As if these disparities in the numbers are not extreme enough, we also learn that the top 1% of Canadian super-rich elites own a staggering 25.6% of Canada’s total wealth!
Case Study #1: The Case For/Against CEO Pay in Canada
There are several common arguments made to explain the phenomenally differential levels of pay between CEOs and the average Canadian worker. Note here that the “average” Canadian worker means the average full-time worker who is usually white, middle class, male, etc. In other words, this classification misses the ever-increasing numbers of precarious workers who are stuck in part-time or temp/gig economy work. These workers are, more often than not, members of minoritized groups, including people of colour, First Nations, recent immigrants, women, and youth, among others.
One argument that is often made is that CEOs deserve to make much more than the average worker because they work harder than anyone else in the company. Thinking critically: Is it even physically or logically possible for anyone, including CEOs, to work more than 200 times harder than other company employees? What do you think?
Another argument often put forward to justify the unequal level of pay for CEOs is that they have more education and experience in the field they work in. Therefore, they should be compensated accordingly. No one doubts CEOs are, on average, well-educated and well-equipped to do their jobs, but again, is it humanly (or even logically) possible to be 200 times more educated or more experienced than the average worker?
A related argument is that CEOs possess very valuable, complex knowledge that can only be attained through years of experience in their field. This justifies their compensation. Upon critical reflection, this argument too fails to convince. One could counter argue that brain surgeons, astronauts, and nuclear physicists also possess very complex and intricate knowledge, as well as hands-on experience that cannot easily be replicated by anyone else (who is not also a brain surgeon, astronaut, or physicist). Yet, these highly specialized professions make on average much less than most corporate CEOs.
It is instructive to try and think of other arguments (and counterarguments!) to this example of inequality. Can you think of a convincing case to support paying CEOs more than 200 times the average worker? Conversely, can you think of a convincing case against the extreme inequality in pay between CEOs and average full-time Canadian workers?
“Case Study #1: The For/Against CEO Pay in Canada” by Athanasios Tom Kokkinias, Centennial College is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International License.
Global Stratification and Poverty
Social stratification doesn’t just “happen.” It is the result of a system that is designed to allow certain individuals to accumulate vast amounts of wealth while others face the pressures of low wages, precarious work, and decreased government investments in social welfare. The following video looks at the causes of global stratification and the links to poverty.
Activity: Global Stratification and Poverty
Watch this video on global stratification and poverty (Source: CrashCourse, 2017).
As you watch, think about what some of the causes of social stratification are at the global level. How are these related to poverty?
After watching, make a short list of 2–3 of the causes of stratification and poverty discussed in the video. Were you surprised to learn about some of the causes? How did the causes discussed relate to the issue of economic inequality discussed in this module?
Global Wealth Inequality
We’ve considered the unequal distribution of wealth in Canada, but what about economic inequality at the global level? As global citizens, we need to critically think about this issue as it has far-reaching implications for social justice and equity at the global level.
This video, titled Global Wealth Inequality, covers similar ground to the video on wealth inequality in Canada, but its focus is on the level of wealth inequality globally (Source: TheRulesOrg, 2013),
Activity: Reflection on Global Wealth Distribution
After you view the video, reflect on how wealth inequality between the richest and the poorest people of the world compares with that experienced by the richest and poorest people in Canada.
Are they the same? Or is wealth inequality at the global level greater or lesser (i.e. in the percent of wealth owned by the different sectors/strata) than it is in Canada? What are some of the reasons for this?
Within most nations, wealth inequality has been growing at an alarming pace, triggering concerns that the middle class is disappearing. More people are struggling to maintain employment and thus secure even a modest standard of living, while a relative tiny minority (i.e. CEOs and other corporate executives) are seeing their wealth grow at unprecedented rates.
Reports on Wealth Inequality
Oxfam is a group of independent non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It coordinates efforts by its member organizations to reduce poverty internationally. Oxfam International released a report in January 2016 titled An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can Be Stopped.
In the report summary, Oxfam lists several remarkable statistics that are good indicators of the extreme inequality of power and privilege between the world’s richest 1% and the rest (i.e. the 99%). While the following statistics are directly quoted from the summary of the report, the full data and examples provided in the body of the report are numerous, and make for a sobering read.
Oxfam has calculated that:
In 2015, just 62 individuals had the same wealth as 3.6 billion people—the bottom half of humanity. This figure is down from 388 individuals as recently as 2010.
The wealth of the richest 62 people has risen by 45% in the five years since 2010—that’s an increase of more than half a trillion dollars ($542bn), to $1.76 trillion.
Meanwhile, the wealth of the bottom half fell by just over a trillion dollars in the same period – a drop of 38%.
Since the turn of the century, the poorest half of the world’s population has received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that increase has gone to the top 1%.
The average annual income of the poorest 10% of people in the world has risen by less than $3 each year in almost a quarter of a century. Their daily income has risen by less than a single cent every year. (Oxfam International, 2016)
Here in Canada, the situation is not much better. The Broadbent Institute’s report, published in 2014, titled Haves and Have-nots: Deep and Persistent Wealth Inequality in Canada provides summary statistics (quoted below) that are no less shocking than the above numbers from Oxfam.
The report found:
The top 10% of Canadians accounted for almost half (47.9%) of all wealth in 2012.
In 2012, the bottom 30% of Canadians accounted for less than 1% of all wealth; the bottom 50% combined controlled less than 6%.
The median net worth of the top 10% was $2,103,200 in 2012. It rose by $620,600 (41.9%) since 2005. In contrast, the median net worth of the bottom 10% was negative $5,100 in 2012, dropping more than 150% from negative $2,000 in 2005.
The top 10% held almost $6 in every $10 (59.6%) of financial assets, excluding pensions – more than the bottom 90% combined. The bottom half of the population held less than 6% of financial assets and the bottom 70% of the population only 16%. (Broadbent Institute, 2014)
Social stratification is created and maintained through
power and privilegeSocial stratification is created and maintained through power and privilege. In a stratified society, dominant group members have the greatest degree of power, meaning they can make decisions, influence outcomes, and establish dominant ideologies. They can also use their position of power to develop laws and policies that benefit them and sway public opinion to maintain the status quo, which is overwhelmingly skewed in their favour. Privilege allows dominant groups to maintain and pass on this control to others like them. Privilege is gained through unearned power that gives dominant group members economic, social, and political advantage. Those who are privileged therefore have opportunities, resources, rights, choices, and freedoms that are denied to others.
. In a stratified society, dominant group members have the greatest degree of power, meaning they can make decisions, influence outcomes, and establish dominant ideologies.
They can also use their position of power to develop laws and policies that benefit them and sway public opinion to maintain the status quo, which is overwhelmingly skewed in their favour.
Privilege allows dominant groups to maintain and pass on this control to others like them. Privilege is gained through unearned power that gives dominant group members economic, social, and political advantage. Those who are privileged therefore have opportunities, resources, rights, choices, and freedoms that are denied to others. Social stratification reflects the deep inequalities that are “baked in” to social, economic, and political structures and institutions at the global level.
Another crucial consideration is how economic inequality is linked to racial and gender inequality. Social stratification is an intersectional phenomenon.
Different types of privilege cut across race, gender, class, sexuality, age and (dis)ability. For example, this video, titled Gender Inequality and Violence, shows that men can afford to worry less about the threat of sexual harassment and violence than women (Source: Against IPV, 2013).
women are often paid less than their male counterparts for doing the same job; and
work that is traditionally identified as women’s work is often less valued than men’s work. (Sources: SuperCareerWomen, 2013; EU Justice and Consumers, 2012)
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), a leading Canadian not-for-profit progressive think tank, publishes an annual report as part of their “Growing Gap” research area concerning the growing economic inequality in Canada. Their latest report’s title is: “The Golden Cushion: CEO compensation in Canada”
The report compares the average pay of the top 100 highest paid Canadian CEOs and the pay of the average Canadian worker. The results are striking. For instance, the report points out that many CEOs make in one day what it takes the average Canadian worker a full year to make! Furthermore, 2019 represents the third year on record when CEOs made over 200 times the average Canadian income.
Activity: Canada’s Top-Paid CEOs and the Rest of Us: Race and Gender vs. the 1%
Access the report here (Source: Macdonald, 2021). Then do the following:
Refer to page 4 of the report. Indicate the average pay for the top 100 CEOs vs. the average individual income in Canada.
Refer to “Table 1: Canada’s highest paid 100 CEOs, 2019” (the table starts on page 18) listing the top 100 CEOs and answer the following questions:
a. How many of the CEOs are men, and how many are women?
b. Looking over the entire list (on pp. 18–21), what do you notice about the racial/ethnic background of most people on the list? Is the number of white Anglo-Canadian names larger than that of visible minorities? How large (i.e., out of the hundred names on the list) is the disparity?
c. Look at the companies listed for the top 25 of the 100 CEOs and indicate primarily what industries these companies reflect (e.g., energy, banking/finance, media, etc.) Considering what you learned in the units on media and social analysis, as well as in this unit, do you find the industries represented to be a surprise?
d. Based on the above findings, what can you say about power and privilege in connection with this report’s listing of the highest paid 100 CEOs? How is power and privilege distributed among the elite in Canada? What does the severe lack of representation by women and racial and ethnic minorities tell you about who really has power and privilege in our country?
Power, Privilege, and Intersecting Inequality
So far, we have seen how we live in societies rooted in inequality and rigid forms of stratification. We have said, however, that this inequality does not just happen. It is the result of the calculated decisions made by people with power to maximize their advantages and to pass on those advantages to people like them. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1986) offered one way to understand how this works. He wrote that there are three forms of
capitalFrench sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1986) wrote that there are three forms of capital. These forms of capital—economic, cultural, and social—work together to confer power and privilege on those who are lucky enough to have access to them. Economic capital is about having access to economic resources like income and wealth. Cultural and social capital, on the other hand, refer to having access to group memberships, relationships, networks, and cultural “knowledge” that produce and sustain privilege. Social capital is simply the people you know and their ability to offer you access to opportunities. Cultural capital is the type of cultural knowledge that allows you to comfortably “fit in” with people in positions of power and privilege that can offer you access to opportunities
. These forms of capital—economic, cultural, and social—work together to confer power and privilege on those who are lucky enough to have access to them.
We have already discussed economic capital, which is about having access to economic resources like income and wealth.
Cultural and social capital, on the other hand, refer to having access to group memberships, relationships, networks, and cultural “knowledge” that produce and sustain privilege. Social capital is simply the people you know and their ability to offer you access to opportunities. Cultural capital is the type of cultural knowledge that allows you to comfortably “fit in” with people in positions of power and privilege that can offer you access to opportunities.
In this video titled Training the Elite: Shamus Khan, Dr. Khan discusses how these forms of capital work together in the context of elite private schools in the US (Source: Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, 2016). These schools perpetuate the cycle of power and privilege for the wealthy few (mostly—there are some exceptions) who can afford to attend them.
As you watch the video, identify instances in which Dr. Khan talks about economic, cultural, and social capital. What distinguishes these three forms? How do they work together to provide unearned advantages and opportunities for certain groups?
Summary
In this module, we discussed the factors that contribute to social stratification. It is very important to note that social stratification and power and privilege go hand in hand—that is, they work together to support one another. In other words, each is necessary for the existence of the other, and they exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship.
Key Concepts
Key Concepts
class
The concept of class refers to the relative location of a person or group within a given society based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued markers of one’s position (status) within a social hierarchy. Class determines one’s access to rewards, resources, and opportunities, which, in turn, influence one’s level of education, income, occupation, housing, healthcare, and life expectancy. Traditionally, class has been divided into five categories: upper class; middle class; working class; working poor; and underclass.
social stratification
The hierarchical arrangement of social groups based on their control over basic resources, such as housing, jobs, healthcare, etc.
capital
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1986) wrote that there are three forms of capital. These forms of capital—economic, cultural, and social—work together to confer power and privilege on those who are lucky enough to have access to them. Economic capital is about having access to economic resources like income and wealth. Cultural and social capital, on the other hand, refer to having access to group memberships, relationships, networks, and cultural “knowledge” that produce and sustain privilege. Social capital is simply the people you know and their ability to offer you access to opportunities. Cultural capital is the type of cultural knowledge that allows you to comfortably “fit in” with people in positions of power and privilege that can offer you access to opportunities
Global Indigenous Example
It is said that you can judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable members. In the case of First Nations and Indigenous peoples around the world, it is clear that many societies, including Canada and Australia, do not treat them with any measure of equality, let alone equity.
Aboriginal communities on practically every continent are constantly having to struggle to keep their communities, lands, traditions, and ways of life alive. They are pitted against powerful private corporations with immense influence and resources. These corporations are in turn supported by local and state governments that depend on these companies’ financial support to win elections and maintain the status quo.
In Australia, Aboriginal communities have been fighting for years against one of the world’s most powerful mining corporations. This company wants access and control over these communities’ ancestral lands and waterways, to extract coal resources to sell on the international market. Rather than protecting the rights of its Aboriginal communities, the Australian government has supported the company’s efforts to gain control.
The proposed mine is owned and operated by the Adani group of companies, headed by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. Adani wants to develop the Carmichael open-cut thermal coal mine in central Queensland’s Galilee Basin. The plan is to extract 10 million tons of coal per year (with approvals in place for future extraction of up to 50–60 million tons annually) for up to 60 years. This would make it Australia’s largest mine. This coal will be sold primarily to India. There, it will be burned to generate electricity. This electricity would then be sold to neighbouring Bangladesh and other South Asian countries to satisfy those nations’ rapidly increasing demand for coal-generated electrical power (Bravus Mining and Resources, 2021; see also: Environmental Law Australia, n.d.; Chandrasekhar, Williams, & Sengupta, 2019, para. 3).
The fight between local Aboriginal communities vs. Adani and the Australian and Queensland governments reads like the classic story of David and Goliath.
On one side are the Wangan and Jagalingou people. These communities have lived on their lands for thousands of years. Now the Australian government has granted these lands to Adani for exploitation. In the face of the immense power and privilege enjoyed by Adani, these Aboriginal communities are like David in the biblical story. The odds are against them.
On the other side is Adani. Like a veritable Goliath, it has spent huge sums of money to exert influence over local and federal politicians, and even local Aboriginal communities, in its quest to secure land title rights so it can proceed with this massive project (Robertson, 2017). The Carmichael mine would be the first of at least six mines to be constructed by Adani. Together, they would create a vast mining legacy in an environmentally sensitive area of Queensland. This area is home to myriad species of fauna and flora, and is the ancestral home to many Aboriginal groups (Moore, 2019).
The Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council represents two of the Aboriginal communities who oppose building the mine. On its web page, it describes the destructive impact the Adani Carmichael mine would have on their lands, waterways, communities, and cultures. The Council writes:
Our traditional lands are an interconnected and living whole; a vital cultural landscape. It is central to us as a People, and to the maintenance of our identity, laws and consequent rights.
If the Carmichael mine were to proceed it would tear the heart out of the land. The scale of this mine means it would have devastating impacts on our native title, ancestral lands and waters, our totemic plants and animals, and our environmental and cultural heritage. It would pollute and drain billions of litres of groundwater, and obliterate important springs systems. It would potentially wipe out threatened and endangered species. It would literally leave a huge black hole, monumental in proportions, where there were once our homelands. These effects are irreversible. Our land will be “disappeared”.
Nor would the direct impacts be limited to our lands – they would have cascading effects on the neighbouring lands and waters of other Traditional Owners and other landholders in the region. And the mine would cause damage to climate, with the burning of the coal unleashing a mass of carbon into the atmosphere and propelling dangerous global warming.
We could not in all conscience consent to such wholesale destruction. Nor could we allow such a project to contribute to the dire unfolding effects of climate change that pose such great risks to all peoples. (Wangan & Jagalingou Family Council, n.d.)
Environmental activists and various Aboriginal and other stakeholder groups have fought Adani at every turn, trying to overturn the company’s bid to begin mine operations. However, according to the Brisbane Times, after receiving approvals on a number of environmental assessment studies by the Australian government, the Adani mine is expected to begin operations in 2021 (Moore, 2020; see also: Babones, 2021).
Global Citizenship Example
Global citizenship means being mindful and acting as agents of positive change to help make our shared world more equal, fair, and just. To do this, we have to be willing to get involved in local, national, and global issues.
In the Global Indigenous Example, we discussed the proposed (and ongoing) development of the Carmichael mine. In particular, we explored the conflict between the Aboriginal people of Queensland and the multinational corporation Adani, as well as the Australian government. But these are not the only people/groups involved or interested in the outcome of this fight. Local residents, fellow citizens of Australia, and citizens of other countries have taken individual and collective action to help save the ancestral lands of the Wangan and Jagalingou people. In doing so, they embody what it means to be a global citizen. Their actions, and potentially your actions, can make a vital difference. But such struggles are not easy, nor do they always succeed.
The Galilee Blockade is a grassroots campaign that, in their own words, “aims to protect the Galilee basin from coal and gas extraction…. We are committed to taking action to keep Adani’s Carmichael coal mine from destroying our climate” (Galilee Blockade: Together We Will Win, n.d.). On their website, they effectively describe what it means to act as a global citizen fighting against injustice: “Civil resistance is not easy. It directly challenges powerful people and institutions, but it shifts the political spectrum of what’s possible” (Galilee Blockade: Together We Will Win, n.d.).
To illustrate why this issue is so important, it is necessary to be aware what is at stake. The well-organized grassroots campaign called #StopAdani is one of the “biggest people-powered campaigns in Australian history” (#StopAdani, n.d.-a). They provide a list of the calamities that will befall the Queensland areas presently under the control of Adani:
If built, Adani’s Carmichael mine will:
Destroy the ancestral lands, waters and cultures of Indigenous people without their consent.
Allow 500 more coal ships to travel through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area every year for 60 years.
Get access to 270 billion litres of Queensland’s precious groundwater for 60 years, for free.
Risk damaging aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin.
Add 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon pollution to our atmosphere.
Critically, if allowed to go ahead, Adani’s Carmichael coal mine will unlock the Galilee Basin – one of the world’s largest untouched coal reserves – paving the way for at least eight more coal mines to be built. All at a time when scientists are warning we can’t build any more fossil fuel infrastructure if we want to avoid catastrophic global heating. (#StopAdani, n.d.-b)
Adrian Burragubba is an Aboriginal member and council leader of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, as well as a musician and the voice of his people’s fight against Adani.
The three videos below provide great examples of the activism of Burragubba, the Aboriginal communities, and Australian and international citizens against the mine. They also offer us a window into the history, culture, and community of the Wangan and Jagalingou people.
The first video is a remarkable short film about the struggles faced by Aboriginal communities as they try to stop the Carmichael mine. It offers insight into the multidimensional, intersecting issues involved. It was produced by the #StopAdani action campaign.
The second short video is narrated by Burragubba. As you watch, take note of his calls to action on behalf of his community, the people of Australia, and the international community. Here, we see firsthand one way that global citizenship often takes form. Dispossessed and marginalized people are forced to rise up and fight for justice and fairness. This is the only way they can survive and save their community members, homes, and ancestral lands from the destructive actions of powerful corporations and their government defenders.
The third video, also produced by the #StopAdani grassroots organization, offers five concrete ways to keep up pressure on Adani and its various economic and political supporters.
These videos are examples of global citizenship, as well as social action in which Burragubba, his fellow community members, and the Australian and wider global communities continue their fight to bring a halt to the mine.
Social Analysis Example
One way to approach the Carmichael mine issue (described in the Global Indigenous Example and the Global Citizenship Example) is by asking critical thinking questions to analyze and assess the multiple dimensions of this ongoing struggle.
Who are the individuals directly affected by the actions of the Adani corporation as it seeks to establish and operate the Carmichael mine in Galilee Basin, Queensland, Australia?
Who are the key actors in this conflict? What are each actor’s motivations? What are the stakes for each actor? Are they all motivated by the same concerns?
Besides the human participants in this conflict, what other members of the natural world are implicated? Can you name at least three natural elements/areas of concern that would be directly impacted by this mine?
What institutions and power structures inform and affect this conflict between the Wangan and Jagalingou people and the Adani corporation?
What is the role of government in this conflict? Do you think that government supports the plight of the Aboriginal groups trying to stop the opening of the mine, or are they instead enacting legislation to support Adani’s efforts to establish the mine?
When you review the videos and other media created by grassroots organizations fighting to stop the mine, such as the #StopAdani campaign, do you think that social media is effective in this case in mobilizing support for the cause from the wider Australian and world communities?
What do you think is the dominant ideology that contributes to the constant push by the Adani corporation to open its Carmichael mine despite stiff opposition from local, national, and international groups and communities?
Sources
Licenses
The Dynamics of Social Stratification in Global Citizenship: From Social Analysis to Social Action (2021) by Centennial College, Athanasios Tom Kokkinias is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) unless otherwise stated.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
TheRulesOrg. (2013, April 3). Global wealth inequality – What you never knew you never knew (See description for 2017 updates) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/uWSxzjyMNpU
Social Stratification
Consider the images below. For each of the two pairs of images, compare the left with the right, and think about these questions.
On reflection, most people would agree that these pairs of images contrast two very different realities. The images on the left represent the reality for most of us: affordable ways to get around and affordable homes. On the right side, we see 1) a car that is worth as much as a decent-sized home, and 2) a mansion that is probably worth more than a dozen decent-sized homes put together!
Collectively, these images attest to the fact that in all societies today, people have (often vastly) different access to resources, such as cars and houses, and other vital things, like access to decent healthcare, education, jobs, etc. Of course, this list, besides being incomplete, is missing many other kinds of things that we don’t normally think of as “resources” but are needed by everyone to support decent, meaningful lives.
Such “resources” include freedom from oppression (e.g. police brutality against minoritized people of colour); freedom from racial and other forms of discrimination; and the same rights and privileges regardless of your identity or social status. In many cases, purely arbitrary factors such as where and to whom someone is born will go a long way to determining what resources they will have access to.
In other words, in every society, different social groups are not all treated equally. Like layers (another word for layers is strata) that make up an onion, or a tasty cake, societies are structured in levels. Sociologists and other theorists call this phenomenon social stratificationThe hierarchical arrangement of social groups based on their control over basic resources, such as housing, jobs, healthcare, etc. .
Social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of social groups based on their control over basic resources, such as housing, jobs, healthcare, etc. Usually, when we talk about social stratification, we are talking about classThe concept of class refers to the relative location of a person or group within a given society based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued markers of one’s position (status) within a social hierarchy. Class determines one’s access to rewards, resources, and opportunities, which, in turn, influence one’s level of education, income, occupation, housing, healthcare, and life expectancy. Traditionally, class has been divided into five categories: upper class; middle class; working class; working poor; and underclass. , but social stratification also includes how class intersects with other statuses such as gender, race, sexuality, and disability.
As mentioned above, the randomness (accident) of birth more often than not determines someone’s subsequent (mis)fortunes in life. But other crucial dimensions of identity also determine one’s life outcomes, including their gender, the colour of their skin, their ethnic background, sexual orientation, language, and religion. The list goes on.
The concept of class refers to the relative location of a person or group within a given society based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued markers of one’s position (status) within a social hierarchy. Class determines one’s access to rewards, resources, and opportunities, which, in turn, influence one’s level of education, income, occupation, housing, healthcare, and life expectancy. Traditionally, class has been divided into five categories: upper class; middle class; working class; working poor; and underclass.
Please note that while theoretical approaches to the study of class are varied, and often quite complex (see Go Deeper), we will limit our discussion to the above classification as it is most often used by social scientists and laypeople alike when discussing the concepts of class and social stratification.
In Canada most of us think of ourselves as middle class. But what does this mean? How accurate is this as a descriptor of our relative positions within Canadian society? Are we comfortably middle class, or are we instead struggling to pay off our various debts (i.e. credit cards, student loans, mortgage)?
Go Deeper
For an extended theoretical overview of social stratification (including analyses of functionalist, conflict [i.e. Marxist], and symbolic interactionist theories), see “Chapter 9: Social Stratification in Canada,” in William Little’s Introduction to Sociology: 2nd Canadian Edition. (Source: Little, 2016)