Social Stratification: Crash Course Sociology #21
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2017
- How do different societies establish a social hierarchy? Today we’re starting our unit on social stratification, starting with four basic principles of a sociological understanding of stratification. We’ll explain open and closed systems of stratification and explore examples of different kinds of stratification systems, including caste systems and class systems.
Crash Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud. Get a free trial here: www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark, Les Aker, Bob Kunz, Mark Austin, William McGraw, Jeffrey Thompson, Ruth Perez, Jason A Saslow, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, Eric Prestemon, Malcolm Callis, Advait Shinde, Rachel Bright, Khaled El Shalakany, Ian Dundore, Tim Curwick, Ken Penttinen, Dominic Dos Santos, Indika Siriwardena, Caleb Weeks, Kathrin Janßen, Nathan Taylor, Andrei Krishkevich, Brian Thomas Gossett, Chris Peters, Kathy & Tim Philip, Mayumi Maeda, Eric Kitchen, SR Foxley, Tom Trval, Cami Wilson, Moritz Schmidt, Jessica Wode, Daniel Baulig, Jirat
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
10 minutes for my 3 hour paper tomorrow. Bless up
If one 10 minute video is enough for a 3 hour paper you must be in high school.
If 3 hours is enough to write a paper, you must be in high school..
As a sociology student, I think this video was very well presented and offered a clear explanation of the basics of social stratification. Great to see.
Thanks crash course sociology team for all the hard work you do to inform people on the subject but I'm not going to lie the comment section is the most fun part of the series.
I appreciate the fact that you summarised what we've learnt, very professional.
DON'T GO TO THE COMMENT SECTION! TURN BACK!
I MADE A HUGE MISTAKE!
wait, I thought all comment sections were full of highly intellectual people who make clear and concise points
Planetbustard Nah fam, came here for lolz
thank you
The first comment I see😂 and I shall turn back around.
But how does the adjunct professor improve speed and defense?
+Mikhail Rezanov
+Mikhail Rezanov
Boots of mobility and Chain armour i would say.
run and hide
not enough passive traits to help warmogs is better but with less pay they cant get it lmao
I study social linguistics and struggled to understand class stratification. Now it makes sense to me! Thank you!
I really love this Crash Course series. Thank you people of Crash Course!
Crystal Roberts Yup tc
The best episode of Crash Course Sociology so far!
Thank you for making my life easier. Your videos assuaged my concerns about all those concepts and terms I should know about the subject. Now, I have a better understanding of them.
I just love your videos... they are too clear and just so amazing
just read chapter 8 from macionis & plummer's introduction to sociology and THIS SUMS IT UP PERFECTLY
I hate that phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". If you've ever tried it, you'll find it's physically impossible. No matter how much force you exert, the most you'll end up doing is snapping the straps.
I will say, i am a Sociology student and your videos have helped me pass a million tests! Thank you!
i would like to see crash course do a segment on Post-Modernism. In this post-truth, post-fact era that we live in many people have turned away from reason and rationalism and have instead turned to emotionalism and tribalism. As one person stated it's now emotion versus the logos. Many have shown a great distrust in science, educators, government and modernism. I would like to know a little more about that.
I like this video. It put a lot of info and explains a lot. Well presented too.
It would be nice if you could bring this back to Durkheim and talk about how social changes (trending toward class from cast) effects people's feelings of satisfaction and meaning.
Very impressive,keep doing your great work.
Great video, thanks CrashCourse! I couldn't get good grades without your videos!
Thank you so much for this crash course. It was very helpful.
And I'm making through the semester exams because of you ❤️
Thank you so much for these lectures
Covering and presentation method
Of charectiristics and stratification of defferent types society in a short lecture was realy nice..
Loving the new lighting!
finally understood this chapter. thnx a lot
Thank, for such a good lecture on social stratification
finally spending my time on YT wisely
"It still maintains a limited caste system of nobility as a legacy of the feudal system of estates," lmao CrashCourse this is the reason I have to have all your videos at 0.75 speed and with the captions on😂 Don't get me wrong though I love the info! Keep up the education!
The caste system is so f-ed up in almost every way, even though other class systems aren't the best at times too.
These videos have saved my exam scores. Genuinely thank you so much
Social Stratification: That thing the trolls feel is threatened by these videos but are unable to articulate how or why.
Rob McCune most of the trolls on here are threatened by any form of social discourse, especially when initiated by a female. I think MGTOW is more their speed 😂 which says a lot.
Rob McCune, i love you more than you could ever know right now,
You ever tried shutting up. I wanted to say to some random
Thank you for taking the Caste System in India as an example. But the thing is, it is nowhere near declining it is becoming more and more rigid every day. So, when you talk about caste, do not use the past tense. And the caste system doesn't only hold sway in rural India but plays an equal or even more significant role in urban India too.
10 minutes worth 15% of my course, thank you
Great explanation!
I really hope you talk about post-structuralism and its critiques on the structure of language and reality
Very helpful, thanks!
I appreciate the honesty with which the closed stratification of the traditional Indian society (Indian caste system was described and I agree with the fact that it still exists today!! but the Indian caste system was a result of the degradation of the merit-based open stratification present in Ancient India Called "the Varna System " it was a merit-based system which allowed social mobility. but due to the arrogance of the INDIAN CLERGY CLASS i.e Brahmans, it was reduced to a closed stratification system.
It's probably dumb to comment about the narrator on an educational video but I'm gonna do it anyway:
She has such gorgeous hair!
lol
For me both deserve the wealth but just the one who work deserve recognition
The suggested scenario immediately brought The Great Gatsby to mind...
Why so many dislikes for a free, quality, professional, educational course????
because it isn't quality and educational
You answered your own question.
Because they feel threatened by knowledge.
Because crash course is mainly watched by the white, upper middle class STEM students. Sociology is a social science, not a pure science, that exposes the lie of meritocracy that all these upper middle class geeks rely on for self esteem. I'm not saying you haven't worked hard I'm saying it's seen comparitively easier btw
This video is going to save my butt for my next quiz 🤩 I was struggling with class/caste so much
Love these!
very informative, thank you.
Great video!
This is, as could only be expected from such a short video, a simplification. For instance many scholars argue a clear distinction between stratification (drawn out based on systems of distinction) and classification (how income is generated in unequal ways) - a difference which isn't developed here. This may be in part due to the influence of American sociological traditions upon this course content. Bourdieu influenced the trajectory of European sociology more than that of America, and his work paid a great deal more attention to stratification as a non-economic (but connected) force based on social networks and the propagation of cultural taste, which translate through complex exchanges into economic value. Though Bourdieu's key weaknesses come in his lack of theorisation of capital. Here we can turn to the work of more recent scholars such as Beverly Skeggs who develop more complex models of class that are linked in important ways to stratification but also the economic models which underlie much of the social difference we experience today.
Really good content!
That blouse is so adorable! This is my favorite Crash Course series right now; I always watch it the day it comes out! Thank you for making it! (^^)
U presented it beautifully
Speed and defense of teachers are underrated. 😂
Trolls are the lowest of the low. The proper way to deal with them is not to deal with them.
I wish social class wasn't a 'reason' to treat someone with more or less respect.
Now I can write my discussion board thank you so much
Anyone have an idea of where to get her glasses? They're awesome!
Tommorow is my paper of sociology , this lecture helps me alot to attempt a good paper Thankyou so much
Good explaination thanks😊
Mam u did a tremendous job..u help me alot..tmrw is mah sessional..nd m vry stsfied by watching this video...thanks mam..
nice explanation
Goobers: "I love science, me."
Crash Course: "Here's important social phenomena supported by research."
Goobers: "Science is fake actually."
Since they're not really giving citations or named who worked on a lot of the research, or putting up mathematical models, or anything that lets us confirm their science, it's hard to say people disagreeing, are people disagreeing with science.
I could give 50 people of a minority group an IQ test, and if those 50 happened to score low scores, I could say my research shows, X minority is scientifically less intelligent; but 50 is a bad sample size for large populations of people, and was their a control group, was the same test give to the groups I'm now claiming are of higher IQ than people who just scored low.
A person needs to record their data well, and show that data, you can't just make statements, and when people question them, say that those people don't get science... in fact questioning things is about as big a part of a scientists job as proving things.
Answers start with questions, and those answers are further refined by more questions.
Social science is considered a soft science in many way because of the high difficulty in creating predictive models, and very often when predictive models are made in social science, the prove the opposite of what academic currently would like to be true, thus those predictive models are ignored.
Your example, those productive in terms of making people chuckle, is not productive in terms of assessing the situations, largely do to over simplification.
btdtpro Most of what they talk about here is pretty widely accepted. You probably don't ask for citations when watching 10 minute divulgative videos about quantum field theory either but you trust they're talking about mainstream physics.
Why do we bash on sociology when it does actually have research-defended observations about how recurring societal structures function, when psychology is generally accepted at face value but often has limited studies and inconclusive results? How is studying the complex mind of the individual so much more important than studying how many complex minds interact with each other?
btdtpro I'm not sure where you get that people interested in the topic can't question sociological findings with valid inquiries, if they're not simply statements of disbelief and criticism.
Marc AG, check out PBS Space Time, when they talk, they put equation and charts on the screen, they talk about who discovered what's being talked about.
The stuff PBS Space Time is talking about is not just "widely accepted", they're proven with highly predictive models, but nonetheless, they include the data, cause that is how you teach people science.
You don't tell them what to think, you show them how we got to what we currently think.
There is a LONG list of widely accepted things that turned out to be wrong.. not to say "widely accept" in any way means wrong, but to point out that it's not a replacement for data, which can people show on screen or linked to.
Awesome!
Can you please mention important authors of the theories? Like Pitirim Sorokin who was the author of the term "social mobility"🌚
I’ll rise above my station, organize your information till we rise to the occasion of our new nation...
This feels like a Hamilton flow.
Here comes the general!
well explained ,, makes a sociologist student's life more positive and comfortable...
👍🏿
Thankyou ma'am.
i got sociology exam tomorrow n m done. 😶
Very very awesome speach, u clr my confusion
Safikul Islam Uhhhhh. WHAT?!
Class system and Caste system are the same thing once you read between the lines of the unwritten laws of society.
The term social inequality is the existence of social stratification , within a community, which refers to the unequal opportunities and benefits for different social roles within the society. These unequal distribution of social, political and economic assets within a social community and social trends include depending on a person's class, ethnicity, location, tradition,level of education, gender and age. Based on the individual's place in the social stratification, this depends on the person's access to resources, money, and source of income, and have a great influence on how they live their lives.
yea,missoula,mt.! do net neutrality. so we can all move up or be equal if we want in class. good theory here.
Gandalf's granddaughter
right in front of my salad!
Can anyone tell me how should I reference this video for an essay? (APA format)
"Stratification is a characteristic of society and not a matter of individual differences."
Ok that I can understand and agree with, either my teachers aren't doing it right or idk
There was really mostly one way to move in the Feudal system of Medieval Europe: whoever you were, you could join the Clergy, become a Priest, a Monk or a Nun, that is, if you were willing to not have children or property of any kind.
thank you so much
You are great.
Please explain the Income, Education, Prestige, Defense, Speed pentagon diagram. What is Defense & Speed?
I see, you are attempting to be funny by mixing in role-playing game character attributes.
(e.g. The six attributes used in D&D are Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.)
God Bless You😭
How do i increase my speed and defense though.....
Thanks!
Thank you for supporting our channel!
There is no middle ground in open or closed systems. A mixed system is really a closed system with a large section of the country's unable to transfer into the levels of the closed system.
Shirt is adorable :)
What’s an example of closed system and open system from this video? Please help!
I think america has a sort of loophole based caste system. While its true that being apart of the underclass isnt close to being the same as untouchables, but being a felon isnt all that distant.
I moved downwards since birth. Not hit rock bottom yet.
I think that the next episode should come first followed by examples...
does the estate system of social stratification in medieval europe promote to productivity in the society?
I should have learned more about this at an earlier age. I would have shed my ignorance and frustration long ago lol
Interestingly enough, social stratification describes core differences between the European mindset and the United States mindset.
Europeans, mainly, believe that there are strong outside factors that contribute to a person's status, hence, such vast government social programs are so popular. It is due to a long-standing feudal history that had a very fixed social hierarchy and if you were poor, you were considered the unfortunate one. Furthermore, Europe has a very strong Union tradition that is very much respected in majority of European countries. Also is the place of birth of proto-modern public education and other vast majority of social programs that had/have been in different forms present for centuries in Europe.
Americans on the other hand have a very distinct John Locke approach to liberalism that came with the Enlightenment. It is also supplemented with the agrarian ideal of self-sufficiency found in Jefferson and distrust of centralized powers found in Thoreau. It's a very strong tradition of abolishing social distinctions but it is very superficial on many levels if someone cares to read Tocqueville and his thoughts on the American experience.
The core underlining factor of success in life is accumulating wealth and that is the basis for majority of American social hierarchy. Europe has a much more vague distinction of social class that is based on birth, education, occupation, and focuses little on accumulated wealth.
So much talk of caste vs class and endogamy and the Indian caste system, but no mention of Ambedkar, the man who wrote about it all before anyone else.
The western sociologists are quoted, but what about the others 🤔
I'm curious about what she said about soviet stratification. Can anyone refer me to some sources to better understand it?
went a bit fast at points but thought the content was pretty good :)
I seem to keep not keeping attention intendencies... c How many times multiples properties to trate validity
In USSR it was possible to move to any position, without a problem
Those classes are more like types, how to distinguish people, and what are they specializing for
You could be just a villager from a far-far settlement, and you could become the leader of some state, or even USSR if you wanted to
Plus, party membership, anyone could assign and become the political power of the country
Class is so weird here in the UK... we have this bizarre 'deference' to people of 'higher class' (often Eton/Oxbridge grads), which explains the success of certain politicians...
What really weirds me about about British notions of class is that "upper class" people can be poorer than "lower class" people, and yet still have that class relation.
That's in part a heritage of the earlier stratification into estates (i.e. clergy, nobility, commoners). In that kind of society (usually called "medieval", though it persisted, with modifications, until the early 1800s), social stratification was _not_ congruent or dependent on wealth but on rights and privileges. While the nobility _on average_ had more wealth than commoners, of course, that didn't need to be true on an individual basis. There were very wealthy commoners (like merchants) and rather poor nobles. What distinguished them, were their estate - i.e. the rights and privileges they had inherited from birth. (That's the most frequent misconception about that three estates model. It was not based on wealth, and getting rich didn't necessarily help you into becoming nobility.)
The British upper class is a remnant of that era that developed in the 19th century when social stratification became more open, and the more land-based nobility was regularly outperformed by the new businessmen with industrial or commerical enterprises. It's changed quite a bit in the last 100 or so years, but that's where that distinction comes from. In America, there never was a truly hereditary upper class, and socal stratification is _a lot_ more tied to personal wealth and success than in the Old World.
Absolutely, The work of Bourdieu is good on this. Class is also about culture and social capital, as well as honours and titles (which we love in the UK for some reason).
yeee! Pierre Bourdieu! Where is Pierre Bourdieu in those videos?
He can explain why students can be poor but still belong the future upper class.
Tom Rivlin Things are changing slowly
Am just here because of a test next week,...not so interested in this aspect of life tbh ..I can't wait to graduate. 😧
i honestly just need the answers to the worksheet
Was there no thought bubble?
very nice glasses ma'am
Both deserved their wealth because maintaining money is work too.
The question in the beginning has the same answer, the workers