机经真题 4 Passage 1

纠错
置顶

Why Did Social Stratification Emerge?

纠错

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the 3 answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.Drag your choices to the spaces where they belong. To review the passage, select View Passage. There is debate about why and how social stratification first appeared.

Drag your answer choices to the spaces where they belong. To remove an answer choice, click on it.To review the passage, click VIEW TEXT.

A

显示答案
正确答案: B

B

显示答案
正确答案: E

C

显示答案
正确答案: F
  • A.
    Scholars have proposed various theories for why industrial and postindustrial societies are generally more socially stratified than agricultural societies are.
  • B.
    Supporting a strong military force required the development of specialized technology, and this specialization may have contributed to social stratification.
  • C.
    The chiefs in some cultures were unable to increase their control over economic resources, possibly because the people who distributed surpluses had greater access to these resources than chiefs did
  • D.
    The oldest evidence of social stratification is found in the Middle East at archaeological sites where people practiced agriculture.
  • E.
    Some scholars believe that social stratification was the result of power that individuals or groups obtained from surpluses, but their theories leave some questions unanswered.
  • F.
    Competition for land or other resources is one factor that may increase social stratification, as illustrated by developments in modern northern Nigeria.

我的笔记 编辑笔记

  • 原文
  • 译文


  • Without exception, modern industrial and postindustrial societies are socially stratified-that is, they contain social groups such as families, classes, or ethnic groups that have unequal access to important advantages such as economic resources, power, and prestige. Based on archaeological evidence, it seems the emergence of social stratification was connected with the advent of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago. Until then, all human societies depended entirely on food they hunted, gathered, and/or fished, and so anthropologists are reasonably sure that higher levels of stratification emerged relatively recently in human history. Archaeological sites dating before 8,000 years ago do not show extensive evidence of inequality. Houses do not appear to vary much in size or content, and different communities of the same culture are similar in size. Signs of inequality appear first in the Middle East about 2,000 years after agriculture emerged in that region. Inequality in burial suggests inequality in life. Particularly telling are unequal child burials. It is unlikely that children could achieve high status by their own achievements. So, when archaeologists find statues and ornaments only in some children's tombs, as at the 7,500-year-old site of Tell es-Sawwan, the grave goods suggest that those children belonged to a higher-ranking family or a higher class.



    Why did social stratification develop in the first place? Some scholars stress the importance of surplus production that resulted from increased agricultural activity. Others stress the degree to which wealth can be transmitted across generations. With regard to surpluses, the cultural anthropologist Marshall Sahlins suggested that surpluses would result in greater scope and complexity of the system of distributing goods, enhancing the status of chiefs (leaders) as agents for redistributing goods. Gradually, this would give the chiefs more control over resources and ultimately more power. The comparative sociologist Gerhard Lenski, too, argued that production of a surplus is the stimulus in the development of stratification, but he focused primarily on the conflict that arises over control of that surplus. Lenski concluded that the distribution of the surplus will be determined on the basis of power. Thus, inequalities in power promote unequal access to economic resources and simultaneously give rise to inequalities in privilege and prestige. A broader argument is that a surplus may lead to some advantages of one subgroup over another, such as more people to support a stronger military force, or more knowledge that could lead to the development of specialized, productive technology.



    The surplus theories of Sahlins and Lenski do not really address why people would produce surpluses or why redistributors or leaders will want, or be able, to acquire greater control over resources. Sahlins later amended his theory to suggest the reverse-that leaders may encourage the development of a surplus to enhance their prestige. But even if that were so, prestige enhancement is not the same as wealth enhancement. After all, the redistributors or leaders in many nonindustrial societies do not have greater wealth than others, and custom seems to keep things that way. One suggestion is that, as long as followers have mobility, they can reject leaders they do not like by moving away from them. But when people start to make more permanent investments in land or technology (such as irrigation systems), they are more likely to put up with a leader's elevated status in exchange for protection. Another suggestion is that access to economic resources becomes unequal only when there is population pressure-increased competition for resources resulting from population growth. Such pressure may be what induces redistributors to try to keep more land and other resources for themselves and their families.



    The anthropologist C. K. Meek offered a modern example of how population pressure in northern Nigeria may have led to economic stratification. At one time, a tribal member could obtain the right to use land by asking permission of the chief and presenting him with a token gift in recognition of his higher status. But, by 1921, the reduction in the amount of available land had led to a system under which applicants offered the chief large payments for scarce land. As a result of these payments, farms came to be regarded as private property, and unequal access to such property became institutionalized.


  • 暂无译文

  • 网友贡献解析

题目讨论

如果对题目有疑问,欢迎来提出你的问题,热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。

最新提问