Social work theory · Volume D: Critical, Structural & Emancipatory

Social stratification and inequality

Theories of social stratification and inequality explain how societies rank groups of people and distribute resources, status and life chances unequally between them.

1. What it is

Theories of social stratification and inequality explain how societies rank groups of people and distribute resources, status and life chances unequally between them. Stratification refers to the relatively stable, layered arrangement of positions based on class, status, gender, race, disability and other divisions. These theories examine how such hierarchies are produced and reproduced, how people at the bottom experience exclusion and devaluation, and what justice requires in response (Mullaly, 2010). Social work works mainly with people who are poor, stigmatised or excluded. These theories give the profession an explanation of disadvantage and the ethical frameworks that ground its commitment to social justice and human rights (AASW, 2020; Ife, 2012).

Conflict theory. Conflict theory views society as an arena of competition between groups with unequal power and opposing interests. It developed from Marx (see Marxist and political-economic theories) and Weber (1922/1978), who added that inequality rests on status and party (political power) as well as class. Dahrendorf (1959) argued that conflict arises from unequal authority in organisations, as well as from ownership of property. Coser (1956) showed that conflict can also strengthen group cohesion and bring about necessary change. Conflict theorists contrast their view with functionalism, which treats inequality as necessary for social order. For social work, conflict theory explains why the interests of service users, agencies and governments often diverge, and why social change typically requires organised pressure (Payne, 2021).

Social exclusion theory. Social exclusion refers to the processes by which individuals and groups are shut out, fully or partly, from the economic, social, political and cultural systems that integrate people into society. The concept originated in French social policy in the 1970s and was taken up by the European Union and the UK in the 1990s. Silver (1994) identified three paradigms: a solidarity paradigm concerned with weakened social bonds, a specialisation paradigm focused on discrimination and market failure, and a monopoly paradigm that sees exclusion as the result of powerful groups restricting access. Levitas (2005) showed that social exclusion discourse can emphasise redistribution, moral underclass or social integration through paid work, each with different policy implications. The concept builds on Townsend’s (1979) relative definition of poverty as the inability to participate in customary activities. In Australia, Saunders (2011) measured exclusion and deprivation alongside income poverty.

Stigma theory (Erving Goffman). Goffman (1963) defined stigma as an attribute that is deeply discrediting, reducing a person “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 3). He distinguished stigma of the body (such as visible disability), of character (such as mental illness, addiction or imprisonment) and of group identity (such as race or religion). He also distinguished the discredited, whose stigma is known or visible, from the discreditable, who must manage information to conceal it. Stigma produces a “spoiled identity” and leads people to manage interactions through passing or covering. Link and Phelan (2001) extended the concept, defining stigma as the co-occurrence of labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and discrimination in a context of power. Stigma is a major barrier to help-seeking in mental health, AOD and homelessness services.

Disability studies and the social model of disability (Oliver, UPIAS). Disability studies is an interdisciplinary field that treats disability as a social, political and cultural phenomenon. The social model of disability distinguishes impairment, a bodily or cognitive difference, from disability, the disadvantage imposed by a society that excludes people with impairments. The model was first set out by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS, 1976) and developed by Oliver (1990), a disabled academic and social work educator. It locates the problem in inaccessible environments, discriminatory attitudes and exclusionary institutions, contrasting with the medical or individual model, which locates it in the person. The disability rights slogan “nothing about us without us” expresses the movement’s demand for self-representation (Charlton, 1998). Shakespeare (2014) argues that the social model underplays the effects of impairment itself and proposes a critical realist, interactional approach. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) reflects social model principles, and Australia ratified it in 2008.

Human rights and social justice frameworks (Ife; AASW Code of Ethics; Rawls). Human rights frameworks hold that all people have inherent dignity and universal rights, including civil, political, economic, social, cultural and collective rights. Ife (2012) argues that social work is a human rights profession and that rights are constructed through dialogue and practice “from below”, as well as protected by law “from above”. Social justice frameworks concern the fair distribution of resources, opportunities and recognition. Rawls (1971) proposed that just principles are those people would choose behind a “veil of ignorance”, unaware of their own position. His difference principle permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. Sen (2009) and Nussbaum (2011) developed the capabilities approach, which judges justice by what people are actually able to do and to be. Fraser (1997) argued that justice requires redistribution and recognition. The AASW Code of Ethics (2020) identifies respect for persons, social justice and professional integrity as core values, and it commits Australian social workers to promoting human rights and challenging injustice.

2. Historical development

Theories of stratification grew from classical sociology, especially Marx and Weber, and developed into conflict theory as a challenge to functionalism. Stigma theory came from symbolic interactionism, while social exclusion theory came from European policy debates. Disability studies and the social model became independent because disabled people’s own movements rejected medical and charitable definitions of their lives. Human rights and justice frameworks have roots in moral and political philosophy and in post-war international law.

Social work has long concerned itself with poverty and inequality, from the settlement movement to contemporary anti-poverty advocacy. From the 1970s, conflict and stigma theories informed radical and structural social work (see Marxist and political-economic theories). Oliver’s (1990) work challenged social workers to abandon individualised approaches to disability. Human rights entered social work ethics strongly from the 1990s, and Ife’s (2012) work has shaped Australian education and the AASW (2020) Code of Ethics.

3. Practical guidance

These theories guide workers to address inequality and stigma and to ground practice in rights.

• Assess exclusion across domains. Look beyond income to housing, employment, health, social connection, digital access and civic participation (Saunders, 2011).
• Reduce stigma in service delivery. Use non-judgemental language, protect confidentiality, and design services that do not mark clients as different. Stigma reduction improves help-seeking (Link & Phelan, 2001).
• Apply the social model. In disability practice, identify environmental, attitudinal and systemic barriers and advocate for their removal. Support people’s choice and control in NDIS planning and challenge decisions that treat disability as an individual deficit (Oliver, 1990).
• Use a rights-based approach. Frame needs as rights, inform clients of their rights and use complaint and review mechanisms. Ife (2012) encourages workers to link everyday practice to human rights principles.
• Prioritise the least advantaged. In rationing decisions and policy advocacy, consider who benefits most and least, consistent with Rawls’s (1971) difference principle.
• Organise for change. Support collective action by service users, including peer-led and disabled people’s organisations.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. These theories explain persistent patterns of disadvantage and give social work clear ethical commitments. The social model has transformed disability policy and practice, and stigma theory has informed anti-stigma campaigns in mental health. Human rights frameworks provide an internationally recognised language for advocacy and a link between individual casework and law. Social exclusion broadens analysis beyond income poverty.

Limitations. Conflict theory can overstate division and understate cooperation and shared interests. Social exclusion has been criticised for implying that inclusion through paid work solves disadvantage, and for obscuring the role of the powerful in producing inequality (Levitas, 2005). The strong social model has been criticised for neglecting impairment, pain and embodied experience (Shakespeare, 2014). Universal human rights have been criticised as Western and individualist. Ife (2012) responds by stressing collective rights and dialogue, which matter for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights to self-determination.

Overall importance. This family provides the explanatory and ethical foundations of social work’s justice mission. Stigma theory and the social model are directly applicable in everyday practice, while human rights and social justice frameworks underpin the AASW Code of Ethics. Together with D4, these theories connect analysis of inequality with practice that challenges it.

5. References

• Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics. AASW.
• Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.
• Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
• Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.
• Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. Routledge.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
• Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Levitas, R. (2005). The inclusive society? Social exclusion and New Labour (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
• Mullaly, B. (2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan.
• Payne, M. (2021). Modern social work theory (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
• Saunders, P. (2011). Down and out: Poverty and exclusion in Australia. Policy Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133(5–6), 531–578.
• Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Penguin.
• Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. UPIAS.
• United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)