Social stratification—systematic patterns of social inequality that sort individuals and groups into hierarchical positions—remains a central concern for sociological theory and public policy. Systems of hierarchy and mobility take diverse institutional forms, historically and cross-nationally: caste systems, class structures, and estate (or status-based) orders represent analytically distinct modalities through which access to resources, life-chances, and social recognition are distributed (Bourdieu, 1984). Contemporary scholarship also draws attention to methodological choices in the measurement of stratification, noting a persistent tension between income-based and occupation/class-based approaches to social position (Barone, Hertel, & Smallenbroek, 2022). This article synthesizes theoretical perspectives on hierarchy and mobility, compares caste, class, and estate forms, examines mechanisms that reproduce or disrupt social positions, and highlights recent methodological debates relevant to empirical study and policy design.
Theoretical Framework: Capitals, Habitus, and the Logic of Hierarchy
A useful starting point is Pierre Bourdieu’s relational theory of social fields, which articulates how multiple forms of capital (economic, cultural, social, symbolic) interact to produce durable hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1984). For Bourdieu, class position is not reducible to income or occupation alone; rather, dispositions (habitus) shaped by early socialization and differential access to cultural goods reproduce class distinctions through everyday tastes, educational practices, and institutional recognition. The conceptual advantage of Bourdieu’s approach lies in its ability to link micro-level practices with macro-structural closures: what appear as “preferences” simultaneously function as markers of distinction that legitimate privilege and constrain mobility (Bourdieu, 1984).
Bourdieu’s formulation complements classical approaches (e.g., Marxian analyses of ownership and Weberian attention to status and authority) by emphasizing symbolic processes and boundary maintenance. In doing so, it helps explain why ostensibly meritocratic institutions reproduce unequal outcomes: the conversion and transmission of different capitals create cumulative advantages that are robust to episodic economic shocks. This theoretical orientation also maps well onto comparative analyses of caste and estate systems, where cultural and status markers can be institutionalized and legally sanctioned.
Forms of Hierarchy: Caste, Class, and Estate
Caste systems represent a paradigmatic form of ascriptive stratification in which status is typically hereditary, endogamous, and governed by normative and often ritual prescriptions. Unlike market-based class systems, caste hierarchies prescribe socially enforced boundaries that regulate occupation, marriage, and social interaction. Empirical studies of caste emphasize its persistence through cultural sanction, localized social networks, and institutional legacies that limit mobility even where formal legal equality exists. Conceptually, caste is best understood as an extreme case of boundary closure where social distance is embedded in everyday practices and collective norms (Bourdieu, 1984).
Class systems—by contrast—are typically organized around economically mediated relations: ownership of productive resources, control over labor, and patterns of market participation. Class remains analytically variegated (e.g., occupational class schemas, income deciles, or multidimensional socio-economic indices), but the enduring core is that class positions are linked to different life-chances through labor markets, education systems, and institutional arrangements. Estate systems (often associated historically with feudal or early-modern polities) combine elements of ascription and legal privilege: formal entitlements and obligations link social rank to legal and political prerogatives, producing a status order that is partly hereditary yet intertwined with political authority.
These analytic distinctions matter for mobility: caste and estate arrangements typically limit spatial and intergenerational mobility through social and legal barriers, while class systems, particularly in advanced industrial societies, may permit greater fluidity but reproduce inequality indirectly through differential investment in education, credentialing, and networking opportunities (Bourdieu, 1984).
Mechanisms of Reproduction and Mobility
Three intertwined mechanisms explain how stratification endures or changes: (1) institutional sorting, (2) cultural transmission, and (3) structural opportunity. Institutional sorting occurs in schools, labor markets, and legal systems that allocate rewards and restrictions (e.g., reservation policies, credential thresholds). Cultural transmission—via family socialization and schooling—transmits tastes, dispositions, and expectations that align with particular class or status positions (Bourdieu, 1984). Structural opportunity refers to macroeconomic conditions, labor market dynamics, and policy frameworks that expand or constrict avenues for upward mobility (e.g., mass higher education, welfare regimes).
Recent empirical syntheses note that methodological choices about how socio-economic position (SEP) is measured affect conclusions about these mechanisms: income-centric measures foreground immediate material resources and can make mobility appear more fluid, whereas occupation- or class-based measures emphasize structural continuity across generations (Barone et al., 2022). This measurement heterogeneity has substantive implications: policy prescriptions premised on income redistribution may differ from those that target occupational credentialing or cultural inclusion.
Measurement and Methodological Debates
A salient methodological debate in contemporary stratification research concerns the relative prominence of income-based versus class-based indicators of SEP. Systematic reviews of empirical practice show a marked rise in the use of income measures at the expense of occupation-based class and status scales in recent decades (Barone et al., 2022). The shift reflects data availability (administrative earnings records), the growing emphasis on economic inequality per se, and econometric approaches that prioritize monetary outcomes. Yet this trend risks occluding non-economic dimensions of stratification—cultural capital, symbolic closure, and status distances—that matter for long-term mobility and social cohesion (Barone et al., 2022; Bourdieu, 1984).
Methodologically, the tension invites pluralistic measurement strategies. Combining income trajectories with occupational histories and indicators of cultural and social capital permits more nuanced portraits of mobility processes. Longitudinal designs, intergenerational linkage of administrative data, and mixed-methods approaches (quantitative trend analysis plus qualitative fieldwork) are particularly well-suited to capture both the fluid and the entrenched aspects of stratification. Barone et al. (2022) caution that an exclusive focus on income may “herald the death of class-analysis” unless researchers deliberately integrate multiple dimensions of socioeconomic position (p. 3).
Policy Implications
Policy responses to stratification must be tailored to the type of hierarchy under consideration. In contexts where caste or legally institutionalized estates shape opportunity, legal reform, affirmative action, and interventions that weaken culturally enforced closures (e.g., anti-discrimination enforcement, inclusive curricula) are necessary complements to material redistribution. Where class stratification predominates, policies that equalize access to high-quality education, reduce labor market segmentation, and supply progressive taxation can attenuate intergenerational persistence. Crucially, policies that neglect cultural and social capital dimensions—such as interventions that only transfer income without addressing credentialing and social networks—are unlikely to dismantle boundary mechanisms that reproduce advantage (Bourdieu, 1984; Barone et al., 2022).
Conclusion
Systems of hierarchy and mobility—caste, class, and estate—represent analytically distinct but often overlapping modalities of social stratification. Bourdieu’s relational lens highlights how multiple capitals and habitus interact to reproduce distinctions that appear naturalized, while recent methodological work documents a shift in empirical practice toward income-based measures with attendant interpretive risks (Bourdieu, 1984; Barone et al., 2022). A robust agenda for research and policy should therefore combine theoretically informed, multidimensional measurement with interventions that address both material resources and the institutional and cultural mechanisms that sustain boundaries. Only by attending to the full architecture of stratification can scholars and practitioners develop effective strategies to promote mobility and reduce entrenched inequality.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Barone, C., Hertel, F. R., & Smallenbroek, O. (2022). The rise of income and the demise of class and social status? A systematic review of measures of socio-economic position in stratification research. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 78, 100678.
