Abstract
Every society has an organizational structure that reflects what is valued by that society. Those members of the society that are deemed more valuable or that contribute more to society are rewarded with a larger share of the goods and services. The ancient Mediterranean world functioned within a rigid hierarchical structure, in which the most valued members were openly designated—in the family, the city, the empire, and the cosmos. The virtues of the social stratification system were made apparent through the patronage/clientage system as the means of distribution of goods, the cultural battle for honor and the aversion to shame, and the patriarchal structure of the family, to name a few instances. Recognition of the prevailing hierarchical structure in the ancient Mediterranean world sheds light upon biblical writings, some of which affirm, and others of which challenge the cultural customs arising from the hyper-stratification of the societies from which they emerged.
Keywords
Despite the fact that the study of social systems is a relatively new academic field, the issue of social inequality was a common topic of ancient discussions. The Hebrew Bible prophets often railed against society's most powerful who exploit those weaker than themselves:
Alas for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in their power. They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them away; they oppress household and house, people and their inheritance [Mic 2:1–2].
I will tear down the winter house as well as the summer house; and the houses of ivory shall perish; and the great houses shall come to an end, says the Lord. Hear this word you cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy. … The time is surely coming upon you when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishhooks [Amos 3:15; 4:1–2; see Lenski: 3–4].
In contrast to the biblical prophets' expectation of a divine corrective to the social hierarchical structure of the Ancient Near East, Aristotle observes the inequities within society as evidence of an inherent, natural order:
It is thus clear that there are by nature free men and slaves, and that servitude is agreeable and just for the latter. … Equally, the relation of the male to the female is by nature such that one is superior and the other is dominated [Politics, Bk I, emphasis added; see Kerbo: 79].
Whether accepted as a fact of nature or viewed as a societal evil, discussions of social stratification have existed nearly as long as society itself. Gerhard E. Lenski (1966) tersely described the issue with the opening chapter title in his seminal work Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. It reads, “The Problem: Who Gets What and Why?” This guide will introduce the reader to the phenomenon of social stratification through definitions and key concepts, then through stratification theories, followed by human stratification systems, and finally will conclude with some key issues related to social stratification in the Bible.
Definition and Key Concepts
There are requisite precursors to stratification in any society. The most fundamental is social differentiation, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whereby individuals have unique qualities, abilities, or social roles that allow for distinctions between persons to arise (Kerbo: 10). Some differences are due to physical traits such as gender, height, strength, and age; some differences are related to societal functions such as child-rearing, food acquisition, and building. Differentiation does not necessitate hierarchy, but it is the first, essential step towards social inequality (Heller: 3).
Once social differentiations exist, values are often placed upon individuals' different attributes and functions within the society. This step is termed social inequality. A society may determine that it is preferable to have certain physical characteristics: to be male, or to be white, or to be between the ages of 25 and 50. Any persons who lack one or more of these qualities are then deemed to be inferior. Value judgments may also be placed upon the role of individuals within a given society. In hunting societies, for instance, strength was a determining factor in success; therefore these individuals were able to demand or to be offered more goods or greater rewards and respect as a result of their proficiency at an essential aspect of societal life. Other societies may determine that other roles such as healing, advising or entertaining are worthy of greater rewards. Conversely, certain roles in society are deemed to be dishonorable, and therefore worthy of fewer goods and services.
When social differentiation leads to social inequality that becomes fixed or hardened there is a shift in nomenclature that employs geological imagery of rock layers or “strata” to point to the permanence of these notions of social inequality. At this stage, the differences in the way the society values and rewards individuals has become an expected part, and largely rigid aspect, of societal life; therefore, the layers in society are analogous to the layers in rock—thus the term, social stratification. When social stratification occurs, a hierarchy of inequality has become institutionalized and is generally accepted by the individuals and groups within that society (Kerbo: 11; Pyle & Davidson: 57). Even if everyone within the society does not approve of the hierarchy, it is assumed that it is the way things are. Along with social stratification comes a justification for the unequal distribution of rewards.
The general argument is as follows: those who provide more for society should reap more of the rewards from the society. This justification falls under two broad categories. The first is ascription—in which value to the society is primarily hereditarily based. Individuals are rewarded for attributes for which they have no control, such as race, gender, or ethnicity. Societies that select their leaders based upon family bloodlines place more weight upon ascription as a determiner of social worth. The second is achievement—in which value to the society is primarily determined through accomplishments, merit, and living up to agreed-upon ideals (Kerbo: 12). The United States, for instance, promotes a myth of an achievement-based, meritorious society, where each individual has the ability to attain the highest level in society regardless of his or her heritage or physical attributes. Even though societies usually organize their justification for stratification around one of these principles, both ascribed and achieved categories of value are nearly always involved in constructing any societal hierarchy.
Social stratification arises out of assent from the majority of the individuals in any given society to the justified hierarchy. The system itself serves to “reduce overt conflict over the distribution of valued goods and services in a society” (Kerbo: 151). Conflicts persist within any society, but as long as the dissenting views over how to determine individual value and how to distribute goods are not overt, the system of social stratification will remain unchanged.
Social Stratification Theories
There are two broad categories of social stratification theorists:
the functional theorists (also referred to as conservatives) who believe that social stratification is inevitable and perhaps useful, and
the conflict theorists (also referred to as radicals or Marxists) who argue that social inequities can and should be challenged (Lenski: 22–23).
Voices from classical Greek society reveal that these two social perspectives have existed for centuries. Representing the conflict position, Plato's character Socrates in The Republic advocates for communal ownership of all property and the selection of a ruling class based upon moral virtue and intellectual capacity (see Lenski: 6). In contrast, Aristotle defends the natural order of slavery and the subjugation of women (Politics, Bk I, see Lenski: 6).
The key figure of conflict theory is Karl Marx, who, along with Friedrich Engels, was the first to develop a critical-conflict paradigm of social stratification in 1848 (Kerbo: 85). Marx was a philosopher of history whose work sought to restructure the view of human history and social change. His seminal views of the stages of human history set the table for subsequent discussions for conflict theorists. Corrupt economic structures were at the root of humanity's strife:
[I]t is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness [Marx 1964: 124; see Fromm: 19].
Therefore, Marx had an optimistic view of the trajectory of society: people were subject to corrupt social systems that led to conflict over goods and services. If societies could be made more just, people would migrate towards a more humane and less agonistic existence.
Marx understood private ownership of the means of production as the foundation of class conflict (Kerbo: 93). Persons are realized through their productive activity; labor is the expression of life (Fromm: 34, 40). Private ownership of the means of production paves the way for worker exploitation, because owners may choose to pay workers only a fraction of the value of what they produce with the result of a surplus, which the owners keep. The disparity in class then grows with the owners and management accumulating the surplus over time and moving farther and farther away from the lifestyle of the workers. An alternative system was recognized by Marx where the dominant class does not own the means of production. Rather, the working classes unite to establish a system of production that works for the interests of the laborers. A workers' state, according to Marx, would bring the end of class struggle because there would be a society of plenty for all (1964: 257; see also Kerbo: 94–95). One of the most-quoted phrases of Marx's movement describes his vision of how this workers' state might function: “to each according to his needs.” Sociologists note that this concept, like many of Marx's ideas, is borrowed from an earlier writing; interestingly, this phrasing is almost identical to the description of the early church in Acts 2:44–45: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need” (see also Lenski: 12).
According to Marxist theory, inequitable societal conditions arise from the social structures themselves and not from the corrupt nature of humanity. In this respect, Marx is fundamentally an optimist, because he does not blame the ills of society upon the depraved nature of humanity. As one sociologist puts it, “a positive image of man, of what man might come to be, lies under every line of his analysis of what he held to be an inhumane society” (Mills: 25; see also Lenski: 86).
Functional theory contrasts with conflict theory in its assertion that social stratification is inevitable (and in some cases, necessary), largely due to a negative view of human nature. According to this perspective, social stratification functions to decrease the on-going class conflict within society. The strata that occur in society and become solidified over time are based upon a consensus of norms and values and reflect what is most highly valued and respected in society and to what degree those individuals should be rewarded. Although not 100% of the persons in any society agree with the reward and value structure that the social stratification reflects, there is a vast majority who do, and their approval keeps the structure in place and rejects the challenges that the small minority brings against the system. As long as the percentages are largely weighted towards approval of the social structure, class conflict is minimized and order is maintained.
Adam Smith, described as the founder of modern economics, went beyond the notion of social stratification as the means to reduce class conflict. He viewed the free market system as a leveling mechanism that would ultimately provide what is best both for the individual and for society. Although per sons would naturally pur sue their individual interests, motivated by selfish desires, Smith observed that the interests of society—what it wanted, what it would be willing to pay for a certain product—would lead the individual to produce what the society wanted and needed and to offer those items at a price that the society would deem appropriate. Therefore, the selfish individual would respond to the needs and wants of the larger society, to the benefit of all. Smith theorized that the selfishly-motivated individual operates under the influence of “the invisible hand” that guides people to work for the benefit of the society. It is clear that he imagined that economic classes were a naturally-occurring and useful social phenomenon, and through this analogy of “the invisible hand,” he implied that this inequity was divinely moderated and orchestrated (Adam Smith; see Lenski: 12–13). Adam Smith's economic theory highlights another contrast between functional and conflict theories—the former emphasize society's interests, while the latter emphasize human interests. Similarly, functional theory takes a holistic view of society, in contrast to conflict theory, which focuses upon the processes and segments within society (Kerbo: 82).
Arguably, the most influential functional theorist was Max Weber, whose work responded to Marxist theory. Whereas economic or working class conflict was the reason for social stratification in Marx's theory, Weber argued that there was more to consider than an individual's economic class when determining that individual's place in the social structure (302–07; see also Whimster: 176–81). Weber developed a multi-dimensional view that took class, status, and party into account (Kerbo: 95). In different societies in different eras, one of the three dimensions emerges as most significant. For instance, in the early stages of capitalistic society, the issue of class is most dominant; within caste societies, the issue of status is most significant; and in modern industrial societies, the dimension of power (or party) is preeminent (Kerbo: 100). According to Weber, the party that has bureaucratic power has the ability to determine the social structure, and thus can advance the social position of those who contribute to its ethic.
Weber did agree with Marx that conflict was the driving force that shaped society, but disagreed with Marx's contention that conflict could be reduced or eliminated. In this way, Weber is more of a pessimist about the inherent goodness of humanity. Social stratification, and thus conflict, was inevitable.
Another sociological perspective bears discussion, as it has laid the groundwork for modern functional social stratification theories. Émile Durkheim (1962) believed that society was analogous to a biological organism (see also Kerbo: 105); therefore he, along with other functional theorists, viewed society holistically, rather than focusing upon individual human interests. Social stratification was a necessity, according to Durkheim, for the health of society; in fact, the needs of a social system supersede those of individual classes in society (Kerbo: 104). The health of the society was largely dependent upon morality. More than any other factor, a strong moral order was the means to reduce conflict in society (Strasser: 120; see also Kerbo: 105). The best means to instill this morality in the society was through occupational guilds, which could help restrain the inherent selfish interests of the individual.
Two types of social inequity existed in Durkheim's perspective: external and internal. External inequalities were based upon things beyond one's control—sex, family heritage, etc.—what might be labeled as ascribed status. This type of inequality should be resisted, as it undermines society as a whole. Internal inequalities, on the other hand, are essential to the health of society, as these are talent-based differences (or achieved status) and it is imperative that the most gifted for each task should be installed in the appropriate positions in society in order for them to produce for the good of the whole. Social stratification based upon merit was something to be encouraged (Kerbo: 106).
Finally, the work of Gerhard Lenski bears mention because he brought the important notion of prestige into the discussion of social stratification. In his paradigm, power and privilege are the two basic elements in every social distributive system, but the desire for prestige and the fear of the loss of prestige is a primary motivation for the acquisition of power (Lenski: 37–38). Although people in every society contend for status or prestige, the pursuit of status is more overt in some societies than others.
Human Stratification Systems
In this section, I will give two examples of contrasting social stratification systems, paying attention particularly to which sphere of influence—ascription or achievement—is the most determinative factor in each system's structure.
Hindu Caste System—Ascription
Records for social stratification in India date as far back as 200
For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds, he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. … To Brahmana he assigned teaching and studying, sacrificing for their benefit and for others, giving and accepting. The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people. … The Vaisya to tend cattle … to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these [other] three castes (Laws of Manu: 31, 88–91; see also Lenski: 4).
The four named social divisions are also referred to by their function in society, namely: priestly, warrior, worker, and servant classes. There is also a large group of individuals who fall below the Sudra and are literally “outcastes,” otherwise labeled as “untouchables” (Kerbo: 50–51). The caste system is marked by its rigid and well-defined hierarchy, lack of social mobility, and widespread acceptance of the social ranks.
Even though one's economic condition coincides regularly with one's place within the caste system, the primary determinative factor in this society is status. The group to which an individual belongs has everything to do with his or her access to goods and services in the society (Lenski: 287). The longevity of the caste system in India, some scholars argue, is due to the interrelation of the Hindu religious belief of reincarnation and social stratification. The motivation to respect one's place in society arises from the belief that souls are reborn after death into a new position in society based upon the manner in which one's previous life was led. If an individual respectfully accepts and carries out the duties of his or her caste, then he or she will live the next life in an elevated caste of society. Conversely, individuals can migrate downward on the caste system, depending upon their inappropriate behavior (Kerbo: 51–52).
The social stratification of a caste, status-focused society relies primarily upon ascription rather than achievement, implying that one's place is determined by events beyond one's control. Furthermore, the possibility of a better lot in the next life depends upon one's acquiescence to one's ascribed place in this one.
Industrialized Society—Achievement
Ascribed social placement fades with the rise of industrialization and the middle class. Rewards for skilled and educated workers allow for greater social mobility, and one's social status is based more upon achievements than heredity (Hodges: 37). The belief that through education and hard work one can better one's place in society and the hope that one's children can surpass the status of one's parents encourages productivity in industrial societies. In addition, marriage outside one's class, although not necessarily encouraged, is not illegal.
Those who are at the bottom of industrial societies accept that their placement is fair in large part due to the myth of “equal opportunity” (Feagin; see also Kerbo: 55). Even though the statistics do not bear out the ideology of a simple merit-based society, the great majority of individuals believe that those who achieve the most will advance the most. This is the primary means to legitimize the social strata in industrial societies. Social advancement by ascription is rarely recognized and even less often relied upon as a justification for one's advantages.
Class placement in industrial societies is largely dependent upon one's economic standing. The number of social strata in industrial societies varies from a basic three-tiered system (Lower Class, Middle Class, Upper Class), to a complex ten-class paradigm proposed by Lenski (347–88) that attempts to define the social structure in industrial society by means of more than economic position:
The Entrepreneurial Class;
The Managerial Class;
The Class of Political Functionaries;
The Military class;
The Professional Class;
The Clerical Class;
The Sales Class;
The Working Class;
The Farming Class;
The Unemployed and Slave Labour Classes
Many current sociologists employ a five- or six-tiered system, whereby the middle class is subdivided further: upper; upper-middle; middle; lower-middle; upper-lower; lower-lower (Hodges: 105); or alternatively: upper class, corporate class, middle class, working class, lower class (Kerbo: 145).
Up until the last quarter of the twentieth-century, social structure in the United States adhered to the description of an industrial society, but sociologists note a decrease of the middle class, with most of those people falling, rather than rising on the economic scale. The shift from a manufacturing-based to technology-based economy has lowered the overall annual income of the middle and working class (Kerbo: 224–25; see also Figure 1 above). Yet, the perception of a societal structure based primarily upon merit persists in the United States. Warner, Meek, & Eells comment on the echo of this theme throughout the daily life of American citizens:
Gilbert-Kahl Model of Western Class Structure (Gilbert: 14). Reproduced with permission of Pine Forge Press.
From grade school on, we have learned to recite chapter and verse proving from the lives of many of the great men of American history that we can start at the bottom and climb to the highest peaks of achievement … it might be thought that the public would tire of the theme; [b]ut we never do tire of this theme, for it says what we need to know and what we want to hear [cited in Levine: 61].
Ascription-based Stratification
Despite the common myth of merit-based reward that is frequently referenced in modern industrial societies, sociologists note the persistence of social inequality that is based upon ascribed qualities of race, ethnicity, and gender (Pyle & Davidson: 57; see also Anderson & Massey 2001; Kerbo; Nerad). Race is a powerful component of social stratification, yet has been increasingly described as a “meaningless concept” (Kerbo: 294). Biological studies show that there are no clear genetic traits that neatly define humans into races; yet social studies reveal that differences in physical appearance correlate to social inequality in many modern societies. Ethnic groups, in contrast, are defined primarily by cultural differences rather than physical distinctions. For instance, within the United States, Irish Americans would be defined racially as Caucasian, but they would be considered a discrete cultural or ethnic group, with distinct traditions and practices. Gender, as a consideration of social stratification, is related to the biological difference between males and females, but the term gender also includes the social expectations and behaviors associated with established roles for both men and women.
A quick look at the statistics from the International Labor Organization (Kerbo: 296) reveals that income ratios in the top 23 industrial nations between men and women all favor men, with Iceland producing the highest ratio of equality for women at 91% of that for men, and Japan at the lowest ratio for women at 50% of that for men. Moreover, gender inequality persists across racial categories in the United States. White, black, and Hispanic women's median earnings for year-round workers were less than their male counterparts in each category (Kerbo: 298). Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that income inequalities in the United States are sharply drawn according to categories of race. For example, in 1991, blacks earned 57% of the income of whites and Hispanic Americans earned at 63% compared to whites (Kerbo: 297–298). Even though the variables are much greater in terms of social stratigraphy based upon ethnic groups, recent studies show that descendants from Western Europe in the United States with Protestant backgrounds dominate the elite ranks of corporations, Ivy League universities, and the Presidential cabinets (Mintz: see also Kerbo: 314). This brief discussion intends to point out the social phenomenon—“the persistence of ascription”—that Harold Kerbo observes within U.S. society:
What is meant by the persistence of ascription is that the more modern trend towards achievement variables influencing where a person ends up in the stratification system continues to apply less to people of other race and ethnic categories and to women [Kerbo: 315].
For the purposes of this discussion, it is notable that within the past few decades, several sociologists are adding the dimension of religion to the discussion of social stratification in the U.S. (McGwire; Pyle & Davidson; Davidson). In general, religious affiliation had not been considered as an ascribed trait that one is born with, such as race or gender, but rather as a social variable that could be changed in order to advance one's position. However, former president of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, James Davidson, after studying the long-term effect of religious affiliation in the U.S., concluded that people rarely change religions, even when doing so would likely improve their social standing. Therefore, Davidson argues that religion functions in American society much like an ascribed ethnicity. He found that U.S. citizens who occupied the power positions in society during the days of colonial America were fairly homogeneous when it came to their religious affiliation (2008; see also Finke). Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were considered the upper stratum during the colonial period, all notably Protestant denominations. These three religious groups accounted for 94.6% of signers of the Declaration of Independence and for 85% of delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Pyle & Davidson: 70).
Perhaps most striking is the weight of the Anglican-affiliated members who accounted for 60% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but made up only 16% of the entire population in America at the time. A survey of social stratum according to religious affiliation done in 2001 reveals that many the religious power dynamics in colonial America persist to the present. Episcopalians and Presbyterians still occupy the privilege of position in American society, and Baptists, who were in the lower-middle stratum in colonial America, persist in that position. Therefore, the religious inequality that developed at the outset of America's history continues to shape American society.
Examples of Social Stratification in the Bible
The model in Figure 2 (next page) displays the acute disparity of wealth during the era of Roman imperialism. Such disparities in wealth and prestige were sustained by a pervasive notion of social hierarchy, ascertained within many aspects of ancient near eastern culture.
Social Stratification in First-Century Palestinian Society (Duling: 97). Used by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers. www.wipfandstock.com”
A foundational writing of the Greco-Roman world, Plat o's Timaeus imagines the origins of the various species of life on earth as a process of devolution from the pinnacle of the universe—the male. By nature, the male should be brave and virtuous, but those males who failed to live up to this standard, “who proved themselves cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed, at their second incarnation, into women.” Those males who were “harmless but light-minded” acquired feathers in place of hair and became birds; wild animals arose from males who ignored philosophy and the study of the nature of the heavens, and as a result, their arms and head were drawn down towards the earth; those wild animals who were even more drawn towards the earth and away from the heavens lost all appendages and simply dragged their entire bodies upon the earth; and the most degraded of males, “utterly thoughtless and stupid of men,” were entirely disconnected from the earth and lived and breathed within the water instead (Timaeus, 91–92; LCL Vol. VII, 249–53).
Plato's myth serves as an example of the inescapable influence of social stratification in daily life in the ancient Mediterranean world, played out in various, recurring rituals. One's attire, for example, designated a woman's marital status or signaled that one was a slave (Rousselle: 315; Dixon: 126–29; Cohick: 65–71). One's status was also on public display when dining; each place at the table represented a different place on the social ladder and higher ranked individuals ate better food and drank better wine (Dennis Smith: 13–20; Corley: 24–31), hence Jesus' warning against the shame that would be visited upon the one who is demoted from the seat of higher honor in his parable of the wedding banquet (Luke 14:7–11). This same phenomenon of status and place was visible in the seating in theaters and athletic contests (Garnsey & Saller: 117).
In addition, public competition for social status was a common dynamic of daily life. Rather than the current North American social ethic that understands honor as a quality available to every member of society through his or her own achievements, such as education, athletic competition, and military service, ancient Mediterranean societies understood honor as a commodity for which people must compete. This concept of the “limited good” results in an agonistic society in which honor is acquired by taking it from someone else (Malina 1978; Hanson & Oakman: 101–12). There are numerous examples in the New Testament in which Jesus strips his opponents of some of their honor by besting them at their own area of expertise—interpreting the law—much to the amazement and pleasure of the bystanders (e.g., Mark 2:1–12). Jesus gains honor from the crowds, but he does so at the expense of the Jewish leaders. As potent as the desire for honor was the fear of public shame.
This cultural value is referred to as honor/shame and is one of the of the most commonly applied social-science models in the study of the Bible (Moxnes; Peristiany; Crook 2009). Even as the desire for honor motivated the wealthy to act as patrons for the lower classes and benefactors for voluntary associations and cities, the risk of shame motivated girls and women to remain chaste and males to avenge those who brought shame upon their family by assaulting their women (Cohick: 33–56; Malina 2001: 46–56; Moxnes).
The economic inequities that were perpetuated out of the highly stratified society of the ancient Mediterranean world did not escape the attention of the biblical authors. Indeed, one of the best-known messages of Jesus contains words of encouragement to those with little and words of warning to those with much. Contained within the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel is one of the famous Beatitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (5:3), which implies a rectification of class disparities, but not necessarily in the current life of the listeners. Luke's Gospel has a parallel passage that is more direct in its challenge to economic inequities: “Blessed are you who are poor” (6:20). In addition, in Luke's account, Jesus follows up this blessing with a warning for the rich: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry” (6:24–25a). Examples of biblical references to economic injustice have long been documented (Horsley; Capper; Hoppe; Weineld). What this section will focus upon are three key concepts related to social stratification—patronage/clientage, ethnocentrism, and patriarchy—that are often used as social science models for the study of the Bible.
Patronage/Clientage
The patronage/clientage system was the primary vehicle for the distribution of goods and services during the early Roman Empire (Saller; Gellner & Waterbury; Boissevain; Carney). The system consisted of a network of mutually agreed upon relationships between people of unequal social status. The patrons would provide services for their clients ranging from procurement of food, to monetary loans, to legal advocacy, to career advancement (Chow: 38–82; Elliott: 42). In return, the clients would tout daily and publicly the names of their benevolent patrons, would act as an entourage to display their patron's largess, would assist in the advancement of the patron's status in society, and would attempt to thwart the advancement of any of their patron's rivals (Chow: 30–36; Hands).
One key motivating factor for the proliferation of the patronage system is that the people who are less powerful have the opportunity to access more goods and services through their connections to a more powerful patron. The more their patron advances socially, the better their own situation; thus the lowly of society are motivated out of self-interest to promote their patrons. However, as Max Weber noted in his response to Karl Marx, this system functions on more than an economic level. In imperial Rome, arguably the most valuable commodity was honor (Moxnes: 167–76; Pitt-Rivers: 21–77; deSilva: 23–42), which motivated the patrons to serve as benefactors to those beneath them in social standing. The vast numbers of inscriptions that survive from this era tell the story of the public adulation that was heaped upon the benefactors of Rome's cities. Patrons' civic acclaim compelled them to distribute large gifts from their personal fortunes for the betterment of those beneath them in the social structure (Crook 2004: 67–74; Danker; Wallace-Hadrill).
Inherent in this distributive system is the acknowledgement by most of the population that some members of the society are more valuable than others. In imperial Rome this value arose primarily through ascription. One's place in society was determined by birth and the prospect of social advancement was extremely limited. There are numerous biblical passages that assume that the patronage structure was the way society functioned, two of which will demonstrate the pervasive nature of the patronage system. First, Paul writes a letter of recommendation for Phoebe to the Romans in which he labels her as his and others' patron and lauds her for her past generosity for the sake of the gospel (Rom 16:1–2; see Campbell). Second, in the story of the centurion's plea for Jesus to heal his slave in Luke 7, the centurion's case is not brought by himself, but is first presented to Jesus by Jewish elders who claim that this Roman deserves special attention: “he is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us” (7:5). Jesus is expected to reciprocate for this Roman's generosity to the Jews (deSilva: 123–24).
The New Testament also presents frequent and varied challenges to the patronage/clientage system (Crook 2004; Osiek; Horsley 1997; Neufeld & DeMaris). As David deSilva notes (153–54), quite often God performs the duties typically associated with powerful patrons, and thus is the one who deserves accolades and loyalty. The familiar Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9–13 directs such requests as one's daily portion of grain, debt forgiveness, and protection from litigation—familiar petitions made to one's patron—to God (Bazzana).
John Kloppenborg Verbin sees another challenge to the system at work in the book of James. He argues that the teachings of James 2:1–13 circumvent the social construct of patronage. The key proposition to defend, he claims, is to “hold the faith of Jesus Christ without partiality,” as presented in James 2:1 (755–94). A final example is drawn from the Pauline letters. Paul's staunch determination to present the gospel to the Corinthians “free of charge” and without their patronage (1 Cor 9:15–18; 2 Cor 11:7–12) caused him no end of trouble, as he combatted charges of financial impropriety and disloyalty brought by the Corinthians against him (Chow; Welborn; Burke & Rosner; Horsley 1997).
Ethnocentrism
Although there is little evidence of racially-ascribed social stratification in the Bible, the same cannot be claimed for ethnocentric social demarcations. Ethnocentrism is defined in at least two ways by biblical scholars. The first perspective is broadly focused, in that one displays a preference for one's own culture with an “uncritical prejudice” and conversely, a “distorted, biased criticism of alien cultures” (Bidney: 546; Craffert: 451). Therefore, the ethnocentric person imagines his or her own cultural values as normative for everyone and believes that others would recognize the superiority of and embrace those values if possible. The second perspective functions on a more personal scale, that is, devaluing all people who have not arisen from or do not share one's cultural values (Kwok Pui-Lan: 107–10). This latter perspective is a viewpoint that encourages discrimination against particular persons solely upon the basis of their different cultural heritage.
Some common examples of ethnocentric behavior of this sort include resistance to mingling with others from other cultures, including: discouraging inter-marriage; fear or suspicion of others that includes belief in the inherent aggressive nature of those from different cultures; and the assumption that those from other cultures are morally and intellectually inferior, and thus are both sexually promiscuous and ignorant (Plaskow; Sugirtharajah). It is this latter definition of ethnocentrism that is readily observable in various biblical passages.
An oft-cited example of ethnocentrism in the Hebrew Bible is the injunction against marriage outside of the Israelite cultural circles. The Canaanites are perhaps the best-known recipients of this prohibition, who are frequently characterized as idolaters, sinners, and sexually licentious people (Sugirtharajah: 283). It has not escaped the notice of biblical scholars that once a person is characterized as outside the ethnic center, the call to take action against that person, even violent action, becomes much more easily defensible (Kwok Pui-lan: 108; Warrior: 289). Ezra 9:1 contains a lengthy lament over the intermarriage of the Israelites with “the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. … [These people] have filled [the lands] from end to end with their uncleanness.”
Even though the apostle Paul took pains to bring Gentiles into the group that called itself God's people, he sometimes revealed his ethnocentric perspective on the inherent limitations of non-Jews. In Romans 1, for example, those who do not acknowledge God are described as having senseless, darkened minds, impure hearts, and degraded bodies with unnatural passions (vv 18–32). Romans 7, in which Paul adopts the voice of a Gentile whose inherent nature does not allow him to live a righteous life, the persistent anguish of the “sinful” Gentile is palpable: “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. … Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of sin?” (Stowers). Even though Paul argued vehemently that Gentiles were part of Israel through Christ, he assumed that they had an inherent inability for self-control when it came to their passions.
Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as one who both challenges and falls prey to ethnocentrism. A good example of the former appears in Luke's Gospel, in which Jesus challenges the ethnocentric perspective of his Jewish audiences through his parable of the Good Samaritan (10:29–37). In this familiar story, the hero is a Samaritan who “shows mercy” to a nameless man who was the victim of bandits on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. In contrast to the non-actions of a priest and a Levite (both Jewish leaders), the Samaritan was the one who acted honorably towards the victim. The exemplary behavior of the Samaritan proved to be the answer to the question, “how do I inherit eternal life (by loving my neighbor as myself)?” posed just prior to the telling of this parable by one of Jesus' many interrogators.
Whereas Jesus in Luke's Parable of the Good Samaritan challenges Jewish prejudice against Samaritans, Jesus in Mark's Gospel has his ethnocentric perspective challenged by a woman, described as “a Gentile of Syrophoenician origin” (7:24–30). She initially acts as Jesus' inferior—she bows at his feet and begs him for help. Jesus' response confirms her degraded place in society—he denies her request and draws an analogy between her and the Jews, portraying her as a little dog that scrambles for scraps under the table of the Jews who dine above her. The woman's inferiority does not persist in this parable, because she displays the intellectual acumen to respond to Jesus' ethnocentric challenge: “It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.” Her quick response: “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs,” earns her Jesus' respect, and her request is granted. In Mark, this is the only pericope in which Jesus does not win the argument and does not get the final word (Theissen: 68–72; Kwok Pui-lan: 109–10; Alonso; Miller; Levine & Blickenstaff). The point of the story in Mark is to challenge ethnocentrism; the fact that Jesus is the one who learned that lesson from a Syrophoenician woman only serves to enhance that challenge by the Markan community.
Patriarchy
The third example of social stratification in the Bible also arises from ascribed characteristics, but this segregation occurs across gender lines. The phenomenon of patriarchy is defined as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general” (Lerner: 239). Social scientists have a long history of debate about the origins of patriarchal systems, with few accepting the traditional view (e.g., across cultures and times, women have always been subordinate to men, thus the female sex is by nature inferior to the male sex). Those who reject this view seek the origins of patriarchal society, suggesting that women were subordinated either through biological differences (males are stronger, faster, more aggressive); or through a division of labor roles (women were more home-oriented because of child-bearing and rearing, whereas men roamed further from home in order to hunt and gather); or through the rise of agrarian societies when women, because of their reproductive capability, became reified, seen more as valuable commodities than as persons in their own right (Lerner: 36–53).
Societies that are structured around the activity and power of males are called androcentric—literally, with the male at the center. Although there are degrees of difference between the role and value of women in village versus urban settings, and in elite versus poor families, biblical scholars routinely describe the various cultures of the authors of the Bible as patriarchal. Women were subordinated to men and were generally viewed as morally and intellectually inferior to men.
Whether the Bible affirms or challenges the patriarchy that pervaded the ambient society has long been a matter of dispute for biblical scholarship. In particular, feminist scholars have challenged the underlying patriarchal assumptions of some of the biblical writings as contradictory to the overarching egalitarian themes of the teachings of Jesus and the early church (Schüssler Fiorenza; Hansen; Asano). However, there is no dispute regarding the patriarchal inclinations of the cultures that produced the biblical writings. Genealogies are patrilineal (Numbers 3–6); God is represented through the male ancestors: “God of Abraham” “Fear of Isaac,” “Strong One of Jacob,” “God of your father”; and the lists of Jesus' disciples (Matt 4:18–22; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16) include only men (Hamerton-Kelly: 20–51). In addition, even though there are only eleven instances in the Hebrew Bible in which the noun “father” is used for God, there are 170 instances in the Gospels in which Jesus refers to God as “father” (Hamerton-Kelly: 20).
Within these same Gospels, however, Jesus' teachings and actions frequently challenged the male-privileged position of the day. He includes women among his disciples (Mark 15:40–41); teaches women and engages them individually in public (John 4:27; Luke 10:39); associates with women rejected by society (Luke 7:36–38, Mark 5:21–36); and argues for the rights of women in the matter of divorce (Mark 10:1–12; Hamerton-Kelly: 60–61).
Similar evidence of challenges to patriarchal structures exists in the Pauline letters. Galatians 3:28 contains a baptismal creed for initiates into Paul's communities that envisions a society without stratification based upon ethnic difference—“there is no longer Jew or Greek”; class difference—“there is no longer slave or free”; and gender difference—“there is no longer male and female” (Schüssler Fiorenza; Wire). Paul also argues for reciprocity and equanimity for married couples in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7) that affords rights to the women over their husbands' bodies that is extraordinary in first-century Greco-Roman society. In addition, Paul bestows the title of “apostle” upon Junia (Rom 16:7; see Epp), writes a letter of recommendation for the deacon Phoebe, his patron and benefactor (Rom 16:1–2; see Campbell), and publicly acknowledges others such as Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:3), Aphia (Phm 2), and Priscilla (Rom 16:3, 5; 1 Cor 16:19; see Schottroff; Borg & Crossan).
Most of the explicitly patriarchal passages are contained in the disputed Pauline letters. Both Colossians and Ephesians contain household codes that encourage the communities to maintain the traditional social strata of Greco-Roman society (Hering; Balch). Women are to be subject to men, children are to be obedient to their fathers, and slaves to their masters (Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21–6:4). The Pastoral Epistles, dated in the first half of the second century are even more strident in their patriarchal positions. First Timothy 2:8–15 not only demands modesty, silent and submissive learning from the wives of the community, but the passage claims male authority from the derivative nature of women (Eve came after Adam, 1 Tim 2:13) and the moral failure of women (Eve was deceived and brought that deception to Adam, 1 Tim 2:14). Woman's only means of salvation comes from bearing and rearing obedient children (1 Tim 2:15). Many biblical scholars argue that the recurrence of these traditional societal codes in the early Christian writings is evidence that people within these communities were living in ways that challenged the social stratification in that era (Levine & Robbins; MacDonald).
Conclusion
This article has attempted both to explain the powerful impact that social strata have upon human existence and to shed light upon some of the societal forces at work within the biblical era. At times, it appears that voices from the Bible assume, and even uphold, the economic and cultural advantages that some individuals and groups enjoy through their ascribed place within the social strata. Conversely, biblical voices bring frequent challenges to that same social structure. In fact, that sort of challenge is the final and prevailing argument made by the crowd against Jesus as he appears before Pilate in John's Gospel—“If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor” (John 19:12)—that leads to his execution as an enemy of Rome. In this essay, only a few of the ways have been demonstrated in which the phenomenon of the social stratification of the biblical world emerges in the traditions, practices, and expectations of the society. As with all social science models, a basic understanding of social stratification is yet another path to bring meaning to writings from a society that is governed by dynamics both foreign and familiar to one's own.