Sociology CSS (Chapter 4)

Social Interaction:
Caste and Classes
Forms of Social Classes
Feudal System in Pakistan
Social Mobility – nature of Social Mobility and its determinants in Pakistani Society
Culture of Poverty

Definitions of Social Interactions:

1. The general process whereby two or more persons are in meaningful contact as a result of which their
behavior is modified, however, slightly. (Eldredge and Merrill)
2. Social interaction is the process by which people act and react in a relation to one another. (John J Macionis)
3. Social interaction is such a process which influences the overt behavior or state of minds of individuals.
(Corkiness)
 Social Stratification
Introduction:
Social stratification refers to the ranking system of society. It can be defined as “the system of institutionalized
inequality and difference among the individuals in terms of status, power and income at a given time and place.
Maclver believes it to be the sense of status sustained by economic, political, ecclesiastical power and cultural
expressions. Ogburn and Nimkoff consider it the ranking of individuals by a community into socially superior and
inferior positions.
Definitions:
1. According to John J Macionis “A process by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy”
2. R.T Schaefer defines it as “Stratification is the structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuate
unequal economic rewards and powers in a society.”
3. Gilbert believes “Social Stratification is the division of society into permanent groups and categories linked
with each other by relationship of superiority and subordination.”

stratification though can have few functions in society but many scholars consider it unfavourable. The two systems of
stratification present in almost every society are discussed below:
Caste and Class Systems
Sociologists distinguish between closed systems, which allow for little change in social position, and open systems,
which permit much more social mobility. Closed systems are called caste systems, and more open systems are called
class systems.
The Caste System:
A caste system is social stratification based on ascription, or birth. A pure caste system is closed because birth alone
determines a person’s entire future, allowing little or no social mobility based on individual effort. People live out their
lives in the rigid categories assigned to them, without the possibility of change for the better or worse.
An Illustration: India
Many of the world’s societies, most of them agrarian, are caste systems. In India, much of the population still lives in
traditional villages where the caste system continues to be part of everyday life. The Indian system identifies four
major castes (or varnas, from a Sanskrit word that means “color”): Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. On the
local level, each of these is composed of hundreds of subcaste groups (jatis).
 From birth, a caste system determines the direction of a person’s life. First, with the exception of farming,
which is open to everyone, families in each caste perform one type of work, as priests, soldiers, barbers, leather
workers, street sweepers, and so on.
Second, a caste system demands that people marry others of the same ranking. If people were to enter into “mixed”
marriages with members of other castes, what rank would their children hold? Sociologists call this pattern of
marrying within a social category endogamous marriage (endo- stems from the Greek word for “within”). According to
tradition—today, this practice is rare and is found only in remote rural areas—Indian parents select their children’s
future marriage partners, often before the children reach their teens.
Third, caste guides everyday life by keeping people in the company of “their own kind.”Norms reinforce this
practice by teaching, for example, that a “purer” person of a higher caste is “polluted” by contact with someone of
lower standing.
Fourth, caste systems rest on powerful cultural beliefs. Indian culture is built on the Hindu tradition that doing the
caste’s life work and accepting an arranged marriage are moral duties.
Caste and Agrarian Life:
Caste systems are typical of agrarian societies because agriculture demands a lifelong routine of hard work. By
teaching a sense of moral duty, a caste system ensures that people are disciplined for a lifetime of work and are willing
to perform the same jobs as their parents. Thus the caste system has hung on in rural areas of India some seventy
years after being formally outlawed. People living in the industrial cities of India have many more choices about work
and marriage partners than people in rural areas.
Another country long dominated by caste is South Africa, although the system of apartheid, or separation of
the races, is no longer legal and is now in decline. The Thinking Globally box takes a closer look.
The Class System:
A modern economy must attract people to work in many occupations other than farming, it depends on developing
people’s talents in diverse fields. This gives rise to a class system, social stratification based on both birth and
individual achievement. (John J Macionis)
Class systems are more open than caste systems, so people who gain schooling and skills may experience
social mobility. As a result, class distinctions become blurred, and even blood relatives may have different social
standings. Categorizing people according to their color, sex, or social background comes to be seen as wrong in
modern societies as all people gain political rights and, in principle, equal standing before the law. In addition, work is
no longer fixed at birth but involves some personal choice. Greater individuality also translates into more freedom in
selecting a marriage partner.
Meritocracy
The concept of meritocracy refers to social stratification based on personal merit. Because industrial societies need to
develop a broad range of abilities beyond farming, stratification is based not just on the accident
of birth but also on merit (from a Latin word meaning “earned”), which includes a person’s knowledge, abilities, and
effort. A rough measure of merit is the importance of a person’s job and how well it is done. To increase the extent of
meritocracy, industrial societies expand equality of opportunity and teach people to expect unequal rewards based on
individual performance.
In a pure meritocracy, which has never existed, social position would depend entirely on a person’s ability and
effort. Such a system would have ongoing social mobility, blurring social categories as individuals continuously move
up or down in the system, depending on their latest performance.
Caste societies define merit in different terms, emphasizing loyalty to the system—that is, dutifully performing
whatever job a person has from birth. Because they assign jobs before anyone can know anything about a person’s
talents or interests, caste systems waste human potential. On the other hand, because caste systems clearly assign
everyone a “place” in society and a specific type of work, they are very orderly. A need for some amount of order is
one reason industrial and postindustrial societies keep some elements of caste— such as letting wealth pass from
generation to generation—rather than becoming complete meritocracies. A pure meritocracy, with individuals moving
up and down the social ranking all the time, would pull apart families and other social groupings. After all, economic
performance is not everything: Would we want to evaluate our family members solely on how successful they are in
their jobs outside the home? Probably not. Class systems in industrial societies develop some meritocracy to promote
productivity and efficiency, but they keep caste elements, such as family, to maintain order and social unity. Status
Status consistency:
Status consistency is the degree of uniformity in a person’s social standing across various dimensions of social
inequality. A caste system has limited social mobility and high status consistency, so the typical person has the same
relative ranking with regard to wealth, power, and prestige. The greater mobility of class systems produces less status
consistency, so people are ranked higher on some dimensions of social standing and lower on others. In the United
States, for example, most college professors with advanced academic degrees enjoy high social prestige but earn only
modest incomes. Low status consistency means that it is harder to define people’s social position. Therefore, classes
are much harder to define than castes.
Six fold classification of Classes By Warner
Classification Characteristics

Upper-Upper This class comprises few members and enjoy highest socio-economic and political status

Lower-Upper This class holds similar occupations as those of upper-upper however they are not yet
completely established in the upper cadre. They have recently acquired wealth and are in the
process of establishing their prestige through conspicuous consumption.
Upper-Middle They are relatively more in number as compared to upper classes. They are entrepreneurs,
civil leaders, academicians, and scientists by professions and are considered the intellectual
backbone of society.
Lower-Middle They are small entrepreneurs, investors, white collar workers and small land owners. They are
considered as the class who are highly motivated to change their social position.
Upper-Lower This class includes blue-collar and semi-skilled workers. They might be involved in lower cadre
administrative and clerical jobs. They are less motivated as compared to lower-middle class. In
 the words of R.K Merton, they are Ritualists who accept legitimate means but reject the
persuit of wealth.
Lower-Lower They represent the lower position in the hierarchy of society. They are unskilled, uneducated,
and are mostly involved in menial tasks. Their social, economic and health status is appalling.

The Difference Class Makes:

Social stratification affects nearly every dimension of our lives. We will briefly examine some of the ways social
standing is linked to our health, values, politics, and family life.
1. Health:
Health is closely related to social standing. Children born into poor families are twice as likely to die from disease,
neglect, accidents, or violence during their first years of life as children born into privileged families. Among adults,
people with above-average incomes are almost twice as likely as low-income people to describe their health as
excellent. In addition, richer people live, on average, five years longer because they eat more nutritious food, live in
safer and less stressful environments, and receive better medical care (Adams, Lucas, & Barnes, 2008;National Center
for Health Statistics, 2010; Singh, 2010).
2. Values and Attitudes:
Some cultural values vary from class to class. The “old rich” have an unusually strong sense of family history because
their social position is based on wealth passed down from generation to generation. Secure in their birthright
privileges, upper-uppers also favor understated manners and tastes; many “new rich” engage in conspicuous
consumption, using homes, cars, and even airplanes as status symbols to make a statement about their social position.
Affluent people with greater education and financial security are also more tolerant of controversial behavior such
as homosexuality. Working-class people, who grow up in an atmosphere of greater supervision and discipline and are
less likely to attend college, tend to be less tolerant (Lareau, 2002; NORC, 2009).
Social class has a great deal to do with self-concept. People with higher social standing experience more
confidence in everyday interaction for the simple reason that others tend to view them as having greater importance.
The Thinking about Diversity box describes the challenges faced by one young woman from a poor family attending a
college where most students are from elite families.
3. Politics:
Do political attitudes follow class lines? The answer is yes, but the pattern is complex. A desire to protect their wealth
prompts well-off people to be more conservative on economic issues, favoring, for example, lower taxes. But on social
issues such as abortion and gay rights, highly educated, more affluent people are more liberal. People of lower social
standing, by contrast, tend to be economic liberals, favoring government social programs that benefit them, but
typically hold more conservative views on social issues (NORC, 2009).
A simple pattern emerges when it comes to political involvement. Higher-income people, who are better
served by the system, are more likely to vote and to join political organizations than people with low incomes. In the
2008 presidential election, 80 percent of adults with family incomes of $100,000 voted, compared to 57 percent of
those with family incomes of less than $40,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).
4. Family and Gender:
Social class also shapes family life. Generally, lower-class families are somewhat larger than middle-class families
because of earlier marriage and less use of birth control. Another family pattern is that working class parents
encourage children to conform to conventional norms and to respect authority figures. Parents of higher social
standing pass on different “cultural capital” to their children, teaching them to express their individuality and use their
imagination more freely. In both cases, parents are looking to the future: The odds are that less privileged children will
have jobs that require them to follow rules and that more privileged children will have careers that require more
creativity (Kohn, 1977; McLeod, 1995; Lareau, 2002).
The more money a family has, the more parents can develop their children’s talents and abilities. Affluent
families with typical earnings of $171,710 a year will spend $369,360 raising a child born in 2009 to the age of
eighteen. Middle-class people, with an average annual income of $76,250, will spend $222,360, and a lower-income
family, earning less than $56,670, will spend $160,410 (Lino, 2010). Privilege leads to privilege as family life reproduces
the class structure in each generation.
Class also shapes our world of relationships. In a classic study of married life, Elizabeth Bott (1971, orig. 1957)
found that most working-class couples divide their responsibilities according to gender roles; middle-class couples, by
contrast, are more egalitarian, sharing more activities and expressing greater intimacy. More recently, Karen Walker
(1995) discovered that working-class friendships typically serve as sources of material assistance; middle-class
friendships are likely to involve shared interests and leisure pursuits.

Caste and Class: The United Kingdom

The mix of caste and meritocracy in class systems is well illustrated by the United Kingdom (Great Britain—consisting
of England, Wales, and Scotland—and Northern Ireland), an industrial nation with a long agrarian history.

Aristocratic England
In the Middle Ages, England had an aristocratic society that resembled a caste system. At the top, the aristocrats
included the leading members of the church, who were thought to speak with the authority of God. Some clergy were
local priests who were not aristocrats and who lived simple lives. But the highest church officials lived in palaces and
presided over an organization that owned much land, which was the major source of wealth. Church leaders, typically
referred to as the first estate in France and other European countries, also had a great deal of power to shape the
political events of the day.
The rest of the aristocracy, which in France and other European countries was known as the second estate,
was hereditary nobility that made up barely 5 percent of the population. The royal family— the king and queen at the
top of the power structure—as well as lesser nobles (including several hundred families headed by men titled as
dukes, earls, and barons) together owned most of the nation’s land. Most of the men and women within the
aristocracy were wealthy due to their ownership of land, and they had many servants for their homes as well as
ordinary farmers to work their fields. With all their work done for them by others, members of the aristocracy had no
occupation and came to believe that engaging in a trade or any other work for income was beneath them. Aristocrats
used their leisure time to develop skills in horseback riding and warfare and to cultivate refined tastes in art, music,
and literature.
To prevent their vast landholdings from being divided by heirs after they died, aristocrats devised the law of
primogeniture (from the Latin meaning “firstborn”), which required that all property pass to the oldest son or other
male relation. Younger sons had to find other means of support. Some of these men became leaders in the church—
where they would live as well as they were used to—and helped tie together the church and the state by having
members of the same families running both. Other younger sons within the aristocracy became military officers or
judges or took up other professions considered honorable for gentlemen. In an age when no woman could inherit her
father’s property and few women had the opportunity to earn a living on their own, a noble daughter depended for
her security on marrying well.
Below the high clergy and the rest of the aristocracy, the vast majority of men and women were simply called
commoners or, in France and other European countries, the third estate. Most commoners were serfs working land
owned by nobles or the church. Unlike members of the aristocracy, most commoners had little schooling and were
illiterate.
As the Industrial Revolution expanded England’s economy, some commoners living in cities made enough
money to challenge the nobility. More emphasis on meritocracy, the increasing importance of money, and the
expansion of schooling and legal rights eventually blurred the difference between aristocrats and commoners and
gave rise to a class system.
Perhaps it is a sign of the times that these days, traditional titles are put up for sale by aristocrats who need
money. In 1996, for example, Earl Spencer—the brother of the late Princess Diana—sold one of his titles, Lord of
Wimbledon, to raise the $300,000 he needed to redo the plumbing in one of his large homes (McKee, 1996). The

United Kingdom Today

The United Kingdom has a class system, but caste elements from England’s aristocratic past are still evident. A small
number of British families still hold considerable inherited wealth and enjoy high prestige, receive schooling at
excellent universities, and are members of social networks in which people have substantial political influence. A
traditional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is the United Kingdom’s head of state, and Parliament’s House of Lords is
composed of “peers,” about half of whom are aristocrats of noble birth.
However, control of government has passed to the House of Commons, where the prime minister and other
leaders reach their positions by achievement—winning an election—rather than by birth.
Lower in the class hierarchy, roughly one-fourth of the British people form the middle class. Many earn
comfortable incomes from professions and business and are likely to have investments in the form of stocks and
bonds. Below the middle class, perhaps half of all Britons consider themselves “working-class,” earning modest
incomes through manual labor. The remaining one-fourth of the British people make up the lower class, the poor who
lack steady work or who work full time but are paid too little to live comfortably. Most lower class Britons live in the
nation’s northern and western regions, which have been further impoverished by the closings of mines and factories.
The British mix of caste elements and meritocracy has produced a highly stratified society with some
opportunity to move upward or down ward, much the same as exists in the United States (Long & Ferrie, 2007).
Historically, British society has been somewhat more caste like than the United States, a fact reflected in the
importance attached to linguistic accent. Distinctive patterns of speech develop in any society when people are set off
from one another over several generations. People in the United States treat accent as a clue to where a person lives
or grew up (we can easily identify a mid western “twang” or a southern “drawl”). In the United Kingdom, however,
accent is a mark of social class, with upper-class people speaking “the King’s English” but most people speaking “like
commoners.” So different are these two accents that the British seem to be, as the saying goes, “a single people
divided by a common language.”

Another Example: Japan

Social stratification in Japan also mixes caste and meritocracy. Japan is both the world’s oldest continuously operating
monarchy and a modern society where wealth follows individual achievement.

Aristocratic Japan
By the fifth century C.E., Japan was an agrarian society with a rigid caste system, ruled by an imperial family,
containing both aristocrats and commoners. The emperor ruled by divine right (meaning that he claimed that God
intended him to rule), and his military leader (shogun) enforced the emperor’s rule with the help of regional nobles or
warlords.
Below the nobility were the samurai, a warrior caste whose name means “to serve.” This second rank of
Japanese society was made up of soldiers who learned martial arts and who lived by a code of honor based on
absolute loyalty to their leaders.
As in Great Britain, most people in Japan at this time in history were commoners who worked very hard to live
from day to day. Unlike their European counterparts, however, Japanese commoners were not lowest in rank. At the
bottom were the burakumin, or “outcasts,” looked down on by both lord and commoner. Like the lowest-caste groups
in India, these outcasts lived apart from others, performed the most distasteful work, and could not change their
social standing.

Modern Japan
By the 1860s (the time of the Civil War in the United States), the nobles realized that Japan’s traditional caste system
would prevent the country from entering the modern industrial era. Besides, as in Britain, some nobles were happy to
have their children marry wealthy commoners who had more money than they did. As Japan opened up to the larger
world, the traditional caste system weakened. In 1871, the Japanese legally banned the social category of burakumin,
although some people still looked down on those whose ancestors held this rank. After Japan’s defeat in World War II,
the nobles lost their privileges and, although the emperor remains as a symbol of Japan’s traditions, he has little real
power.
Social stratification in Japan is very different from the rigid caste system of centuries ago. Today, Japanese
society consists of “upper,” “upper-middle,”“lower-middle,” and “lower” classes. The exact lines between these
classes are unclear to most Japanese, and many people do move between classes over time. But because Japanese
culture tends to respect tradition, family background is never far from the surface when sizing up someone’s social
standing. Officially, everyone is equal before the law, but in reality, many people still look at one another through the
centuries-old lens of caste.
Finally, traditional ideas about gender continue to shape Japanese society. Legally, the two sexes are equal,
but men dominate women in many ways. Because Japanese parents are more likely to send sons than daughters to
college, there is a significant gender gap in education. With the recent economic downturn in Japan, many more
women have entered the labor force. But most working women fill lower-level support positions in the corporate
world. In Japan, only about 10 percent of corporate and political leaders are women. In short, individual achievement
in Japan’s modern class system operates in the shadow of centuries of traditional male privilege (Norbeck, 1983;
Brinton, 1988; H.W. French, 2002; OECD, 2009).
 Social Mobility – nature of Social Mobility and its determinants in Pakistani Society

Introduction:
Social mobility refers to change in a person's socio-economic situation, either in relation to their parents (inter-
generational mobility) or throughout their lifetime (intra-generational mobility). Social mobility is linked to equality of
opportunity: the extent to which people have the same chances to do well in life regardless of the socio-economic
background of their parents, their gender, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, birthplace, or other circumstances
beyond their control. Social mobility and equality of opportunity can be measured in terms of earnings, income, or
social class, but can also be understood to encompass other well-being dimensions such as health and education.

Origin of the Social Mobility Concept

Russian-born American sociologist and political activist Pitirim Sorokin first introduced the concept of social mobility in
his book “Social and Cultural Mobility.” He states that there is no society that is completely open (such as the class
system) and no society that is completely closed (like the caste system in India).

According to Sorokin, no two societies are the same in terms of movement allowed and discouraged, and that the
speed of social mobility can change from one time period to the next. It depends on how developed the society is.

Such a societal shift can happen over time as individuals move from one position to another due to various social
interactions. Mobility, more or less, provides people with benefits as they are motivated by different factors in society
and work to reach new roles that offer them a better standard of living and greater rewards. People compete and
cooperate with others in society to move up the social mobility ladder.

Definitions:
1. A change in one’s position in the social hierarchy. (John J Macionis)
2. Social mobility is a movement of individuals or groups from one position of a society’s stratification system to
another. (R.T. Schaefer)
3. Social mobility is a characteristic of industrial societies, in which people are free to move from status to status,
both upward and downward, a change in social position. (L.A. Coser)

Types of Social Mobility:

Social mobility can take different forms, and people can experience different types of mobility in different stages of
their lives. The types of mobilities are independent of one another and can often overlap. They are only distinguished
for the purpose of analysis.
1. Horizontal mobility:
This occurs when a person changes their occupation but their overall social standing remains unchanged. For example,
if a doctor goes from practicing medicine to teaching in a medical school, the occupation’s changed but their prestige
and social standing likely remain the same. Sorokin describes horizontal mobility as a change in religious, territorial,
political, or other horizontal shifts with no change in the vertical position.
2. Vertical mobility:
This refers to a change in the occupational, political, or religious status of a person that causes a change in their
societal position. An individual moves from one social stratum to another. Vertical mobility can be ascending or
descending.
Ascending involves an individual moving from a group in a lower stratum to a higher one or the creation of a similar
group with a higher societal position, instead of side by side with its existing group. Descending mobility occurs, for
example, when a businessman incurs losses in his business and is forced to declare bankruptcy, resulting in a move to
a lower stratum of society.
3. Upward mobility:
This is when a person moves from a lower position in society to a higher one. It can also include people occupying
higher positions in the same societal group. However, upward mobility, while seen as a good thing, can also come at a
cost for individuals.
When a person moves upward, they often need to leave behind familiar surroundings such as family and places. They
may also need to change their way of thinking and behavior. The individual will need to adapt to the new environment
as a result of their upward movement and adopt different behaviors in the new society.
4. Downward mobility:
Downward mobility takes place when a person moves from a higher position in society to a lower one. It can occur
when someone is caught performing a wrongful act that can result in the loss of the position they currently hold.
Downward mobility can be extremely stressful for people who face a rapid decline in their social status. They may find
it hard to adapt to the new environment, as it is not similar to the standard of living they are used to. Downward
mobility is an example of the extent to which a society values equal opportunity and structure.
5. Inter-generational mobility:
Inter-generational mobility happens when the social position changes from one generation to another. The change can
be upward or downward. For example, a father worked in a factory while his son received an education that allowed
him to become a lawyer or a doctor. Such societal change also causes the generation to adopt a new way of living and
thinking. Inter-generational mobility is affected by the differences in the parents’ and their offspring’s upbringing,
changes in population, and changes in occupation.
6. Intra-generational mobility:
The intra-generational change in societal position occurs during the lifespan of a single generation. It can also refer to
a change in position between siblings. One way is when a person climbs up the corporate ladder in their career. For
example, an individual starts their career as a clerk and through their life moves on to a senior position such as a
director. One sibling may also achieve a higher position in society than their brother or sister.

Social mobility in Pakistan

According to human nature every human wants superior job in the society for achieving that superior job people do
sometimes hard work and sometimes smart work but almost the people who worked hard and smart they achieved
that superior job/status in that society during that period of time people moves from one place/position to another so
that is called social mobility OR in other words the movement of any class from one status to another is also said to be
as social mobility.
In the whole world there is no country where social mobility is not existence somewhere social mobility is at
the top position and somewhere is very low according to the social mobility ranking report of 2020 Denmark,
Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland are the five top countries where social mobility is existence out of 82
countries while Pakistan is at 79th position where social mobility is very low in current period of time if we look
around our society there will be very less chances that you met unknown person in your society. In Pakistan social
mobility is highest in middle social classes where 56 percent of these classes are living cities and towns where 44
percent are living in rural areas mostly these middle social class moves from one place to another for education
purposes and they are the more educated than other social classes on the other hand only 2 percent are in upper
social classes these types of people mostly moves for business purposes and working social class in Pakistan is
nearly 42 percent in this social class social mobility is almost non-existence/lowest in them. All the social classes
moves in the whole world according to their needs but in Pakistan all the sectors are not developed if sometimes
people moves for health purposes there is less hospitals which provides good hospitality, for education Pakistan is
having less institutions which gives you outstanding education, for skill learning purposes there is almost not
available any institution where you learn skills etc so that’s why we can say social mobility is very less in Pakistan.
Every society of the Pakistan has social mobility. Though the rate of mobility is different in all the societies
depending upon their cultural condition. The following are in the factors which bring about social mobility.

Causes of Social Mobility:

1. Dissatisfaction from previous condition:
The people stick to the same condition does not fulfill the purpose of new social ways of living. They leave it and
attend to the new condition of life. The study are shows People achieving higher levels of employment and home
ownership than their parents. 83 percent are in management position or running their own businesses compared to
65 percent of their father and 28 percent of their mothers.88 percent of the social mobile own their own home,
compared to 81 percent of their parents at the same age.
 2. Adoption of new conditions:
The people leaving the old conditions adopt the new ones which are functional according to the new ways of living.
This adoption of new way of living is called Adoption of new condition. Pakistan's emerging affluent are comfortable
going online for financial advice, with majority (60 percent) saying they would invest in financial product online if an
on demand adviser was available
3. Industrial and Technological Development:
The development of technology and industry brings about a have in the social economic structure of society. The
modes of living of the people are changed which bring about change in attitudes, ideas, habits, customs and sentiment
of the people. It means total socio cultural life is changed. He we get social mobility.
4. Education:
The progress of education is imperative in industrially advanced society. The development of technology industry and
education are simultaneous processes being correlated. Advancement in education makes a society mobile. Pakistan
have better educated and achieving higher levels of employment and than their parents. 89 percent went to
university, compared to 66 percent to their fathers
5. Urbanization:
The development of urban population and modern attitude is called urbanization. It is also attached with the
development of education, technology and industry. These factors are interrelated together. According to the 2017
population census Pakistan showed the highest rate of urbanization in south Asia which is 34.6% of the population
lives in urban area. This factor of urbanization is being guessed due to high rate of expansion in technology industry
and education in this city.
6. Creation of a new model for Social Mobility:
Suggesting the creation of a new financing model for social mobility; improving tax progressivity on personal income;
policies that address wealth concentration and broadly re-balancing the sources of taxation can support the social
mobility agenda.

Culture of Poverty
Oscar Lewis was the first sociologist who came up with the concept of Culture of Poverty. In his work, he managed to
deliver the ideation of cultural norms set up by a poor farmer. He further explained why a poor peasant remains in the
same financial position.

The culture of poverty is seen as the cycle of same cultural norms which are believed and performed by a farmer
which restricts their financial growth. For example, there are many new techniques and better quality of fertilizers but
due to conservative thinking, the farmers stick to old ideations only. The motive of replacing poverty with any backup
plan or extra effort is diminished, as they think that the status which they are bearing is the wish of almighty. There is
a high sense of alienation in poor people although they belong to the same country. The marginal difference was felt
by them and they accepted that this will be their life only. For example a ragpicker offspring will be engaged in picking
litter only in the age where the only thing they should be involved is education. The ability to dream was withdrawn as
the cultural barrier among groups were higher than any change for betterment.

John Kenneth a popular economist studied poverty in a detailed manner. His researches held the reasons that why
poverty is transmitted from one generation to next. He has also studied the two major causes or classification
of poverty viz. case poverty and insular poverty.
Case Poverty is the type of poverty in which people faces discrimination, certain limitations like a family member
becoming a drug addict or gambling which leads to poverty of families. This is not the case of the whole community
which means it is not a collective phenomenon. Insular poverty is a type in which the whole community is barren from
their rights. Some of the examples are slums of Mumbai where the whole group is below the poverty line.

Another sociologist Daniel Patrick also added his work in the favor of Oscar Lewis stating that the reason people are
not getting out of the trap of poverty is their values. He studied the ways of living of Black families in New York City. He
studied how the white contemporary peasants were living a different life. He made a report for black families known
as Moynihan Report in 1965. Galbraith, another sociologist explained the transmission of disabilities and poverty from
one generation to another. There was a popular belief that if anyone tries to leave old methods and pursuit new
techniques for a better result, it will be the cause of mis happenings in future. Galbraith came up with inferences that
the only reason there is no progress in financial status in periphery countries is due to the cultural foundation. The
conservative ways fulfill their idea of being culture full-fledged human being but on the other hand, many of them died
in the name of keeping culture intact. It was the scenario of earlier times but nowadays there is a famous saying
whatever profession or way serves a person food for his family is taken as right.

Sources
A. Sociology 16th edition (John J Macionis) (FPSC Recommended)
B. An Introduction to Sociology (Abdul Hameed Taga, Abdul Aziz Taga)(Recommended by CSS Officers)
C. Sociology (Jahangir’s World Times) (Amal Sajjad, Jawad Tariq)
D. Research paper (Balochistan University of Information Technology Engineering Management & Sciences,
Department Of Economics)