7.6 Global Stratification: Three Worlds

 Global Stratification: Three Worlds 7.6 

Compare social stratification in the Most Industrialized Nations, the Industrializing Nations, and the Least Industrialized Nations. Let’s start this section a little differently. The Down-to-Earth Sociology that follows should get you thinking. Down-to-Earth Sociology Inequality? What Inequality? There is a lot of talk about social inequality. Like so many things, maybe it’s overblown. There are differences among us, of course. Some people do have newer cars than others. Some do have bigger houses, better clothing, and more expensive foods and drinks. We all know this. So there are a few differences among us. But why the concern? Is this perhaps just a little rabble-rousing by a few radical sociologists and some other troublemakers? Well, let’s see. To be logical, perhaps even a bit scientific, we probably should start out by determining if there really is inequality. How can we do this? With all the statistical techniques available to us, things quickly could become mind-boggling. There must be a simpler way of doing this. And there is. It turns out that the 85 richest people in the world own as much of the world’s wealth as the bottom half of the entire world’s population (Hardoon 2015). Let’s see. If eighty-five people have as much as three and a half billion people, then … Hmm. Maybe there is inequality. Ah, maybe not. Perhaps this is just the normal state of affairs of the world, just another fact like there are more cats than dogs in the world, or more mice than elephants. Or perhaps this indicates that something is out of kilter in the world, an imbalance that doesn’t seem quite right. Hmm. Could be. 

For Your Consideration 

→ I don’t mean to skew this box too much in one direction. Or maybe I just sort of can’t help it. 

This is perhaps one of the most mind-boggling statistics you will ever come across in your life, and I feel compelled to tell you about it. 

Anyway, what do you think? 

Hearing from the Author: Three Worlds

 Listen to the Audio 

As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, just as the people within a nation are stratified by property, power, and prestige, so are the world’s nations. To depict global stratification, a simple model was used: First, Second, and Third Worlds. First World referred to the industrialized capitalist nations, Second World to the communist (or socialist) countries, and Third World to any nation that did not fit into the first two categories. 

The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 made these terms outdated.

 In addition, although first, second, and third did not mean “best,” “better,” and “worst,” they implied it. An alternative classification that some now use—developed, developing, and undeveloped nations—has the same drawback. 

By calling ourselves “developed,” it sounds as though we are mature and the “undeveloped” nations are backward. 

To resolve this problem, I use more neutral, descriptive terms: Most Industrialized, Industrializing, and Least Industrialized nations.

We can measure industrialization with no judgment implied as to whether a nation’s industrialization represents “development,” ranks it “first,” or is even desirable at all. 

The intention is to depict on a global level the three primary dimensions of social stratification: property, power, and prestige. 

The Most Industrialized Nations have much greater property (wealth), power (they usually get their way in international relations), and prestige (they are looked up to as world leaders). 

As you read this analysis, don’t forget the sociological significance of the stratification of nations, its far-reaching effects on people’s lives, as illustrated by the two families sketched in our opening vignette.