Pages 1 -3
Two major themes that have dominated the sociological research of stratification. The first is the importance of class, gender, and race for understanding different social outcomes for people in any given society. These three "systems of ranking" influence who ends up where in the stratification of society.

The second big issue Beeghley raises is the distinction between ascription and achievement. Although we can successfully define these as different processes through which people end up in different locations in the system of stratification, we will see that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish analytically when it is achievement and when it is ascription that is dominating the scene.

Know what Beeghley means by "class" (i.e. a group of people "relatively equal….")

Know what Beeghley means by "structure of social stratification structure". This is a quintessentially sociological term and we will continue to consider in this class how the structure of stratification influences areas of life for people.

Page 3 onward: Beeghley now launches into a review of several theoretical perspectives describing and explaining social stratification systems (the layering of classes, or the class hierarchy). Take note of Beeghley's claim that sociology is a relatively young science. The theorists we are studying were tackling these issues for the first time, and hence, there are many ways that they can be criticized and many things they accomplished which are noteworthy and admirable.

Pages 3 - 7 introduce Karl Marx as a sociologist. Most Americans today think of him as a failed revolutionary, but we sociologists are still proud to call him one of our own because he so perceptively critiqued and evaluated the status quo of his day, making sense of how large scale changes in society were influencing people's lives. Study these pages to get see what were his main ideas that might matter for studying inequality in the U.S. and internationally.

Some specific things to ponder:

What is the role of ownership of the factories, companies, etc. in Marx's description of the class structure in industrialized countries? What is it that is owned that gives a person or group of people more class privilege than others?

What did he suspect would be the inevitable outcome of this situation? That is, what was the trajectory of history with regard to the class structure?

Beeghley says that Marx's predictions were wrong but he identifies why Marx is still relevant to us today. What are the reasons he thinks we should still pay attention to the ideas Marx presented?

Pages 7-12
Weber is the second of the "founders" of sociology. You'll notice that we borrowed his name for the Weber Towers.

Take note of the three ways that Beeghley says Weber added to Marx's insights.

Know what Weber means by "rationalization" (pp. 7)

Notice that the issue of "lifestyle" is very important in Weber's work. This is one of the reasons that American sociologists have keyed in on his work. They see that in the U.S. lifestyle and "appearances" matter very much when trying to understand how people of different "classes" or of different "status" distinguish themselves and interact with one another.

Note Beeghley's explanation about why we have so much trouble identifying permanent, eternal laws of cause and effect in sociology, as compared to the natural sciences (p. 11). In part, it is because we are studying a moving target - people. And society changes rapidly over time.

Pages 12-14
Davis and Moore's argument about stratification can be called a functionalist argument. Be familiar with what they think that stratification does for society and why this is beneficial.

What are a couple criticisms of their argument?

Beeghley says that in spite of these criticisms, there are some helpful things about looking at Davis and Moore's argument. Know what these are.

Pages 14 & 15
What are at least two things that Dahrendorf attempted to do to advance research of social stratification? Beeghley dismisses his work for several reasons (you'll not be responsible to know those reasons), but he admits that Dahrendorf "contributed to the study of stratification in two essential ways". Take note of the two contributions mentioned by Beeghley.

Notice how Dahrendorf managed to draw upon the ideas of Marx, without being a Marxist, and at the same time accomplished some of the things Weber was trying to do (a more realistic description of processes, with finer delineations between groups, and more effort at objective study and theory). This should alert you to the usefulness of "old" theorists.

Pages 15-18
What does Beeghley say was the major contribution of Lenski's work? Illustrate your answer with one of the hypotheses articulated on pp. 16-17.

On pp. 17-18 Beeghley summarizes the chapter to this point, reminding the reader that while flawed, these old studies of stratification have made important contributions to subsequent thinking about stratification.

Pages 18-26
Beeghley begins this new section on A Strategy for the Study of Stratification by saying that he will use these theorists to help him pursue a middle range analysis (in other words, not too grandiose and not focused just on individuals). He will keep in mind historical and international patterns (and not only look at the U.S. for understanding the U.S.) And he will distinguish between what happens for the individual and what happens at the social structural level. He will particularly focus on the issue of 'power', thus betraying his tendencies (mine as well) toward thinking from a Marx/Dahrendorf point of view.

He does a nice job on pages 19-26 outlining these things and I urge you to read this part carefully so you know what he will be doing. All three components of his analysis (historical/international comparison; individual/structural; exercising of power) are the kinds of things that sociologists usually emphasize when studying social phenomena.