Cultural Markers of Social Inequality in the Space of a Modern

Metropolis (Part I)

Elen Bilonda Tregubova

, D. Kazaryan

2,3

and R. Kazaryan

Department of Technologies and Organizations of Construction Production, Moscow State University of Civil

Engineering, 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russia

Lomonosov Moscow State University, GSP-1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation

MSU, Faculty of Sociology, 1,33 Leninskiye Gorye, 119234, Moscow, Russia

Keywords: Cultural markers, social inequality, modern metropolis, empirical research, mapping of cultural objects,

stratification, TRR.

Abstract: Goal: to identify objective and subjective (perceived) markers of social inequality in the space of a modern

metropolis using the example of Moscow. Research objectives: in connection with this goal, the following

tasks are set in part I of this work: 1. to determine the essence of social inequality as a social phenomenon and

its main manifestations; 2. to characterize cultural inequality as one of the forms of social inequality and its

substantiation; 3. to identify the specifics of cultural consumption as one of the markers of cultural inequality

in modern society. The subject of the research is cultural markers of social inequality in the space of a modern

metropolis, studied using the example of Moscow. Methods: The theories of social inequality by K. Marx, M.

Weber and T. Parsons, the theory of cultural consumption by P. Bourdieu, P. DiMaggio and R. Peterson, as

well as the urbanistic theories of sociologists of the Chicago School (R. Park and others) were the pivotal

theories for this study. The research method is based on qualitative methods, namely: in-depth interviews, as

well as a method for mapping the urban space of the studied metropolis. Results: the results of an empirical

study by the authors were compiled, which included a series of in-depth interviews with residents of Moscow

of two different age categories (students aged 18 to 25 and married couples aged 35 to 55; the number of

respondents from each group - 4 people, in total - 8 interviewees). Mapping of cultural sites of Moscow was

performed on the basis of 2GIS electronic maps of Moscow, and analysis of secondary data taken from open

sources (to be discussed in detail in Part II) was conducted. Conclusions: the main factor and cultural marker

of social inequality in Moscow in the perception of the citizens is the uneven distribution of cultural sites

across the city districts and unequal access to them.

1 INTRODUCTION

The modern metropolis is a variety of different areas,

where, along with elite new buildings and fashionable

shops and business centers, there are architectural

structures that have a century of history and are

ranked among the monuments of urban culture. In

every metropolis, there are also disadvantaged areas,

where life is fundamentally different from what we

see in the city center. Like the districts themselves,

the people inhabiting them are noticeably different

from each other: they belong to different strata of

society, have different levels of income and status in

society, and also have different levels of cultural

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0971-4301

development. In sociological science, there are many

studies devoted to the study of the dependence of the

place of residence and the cultural level of an

individual on his income. However, the question of

the dependence of the cultural level on the place of

residence is almost not studied by sociologists. The

study examines many parameters of this problem, and

also puts a hypothesis, which is partially proved and

partially refuted empirically (during in-depth

interviews with residents of different districts of

Moscow), thus expanding the sociological view of the

stereotypes established in the public consciousness on

this issue and partly dispelling some of them. This

work includes two areas that have repeatedly become

Bilonda Tregubova, E., Kazaryan, D. and Kazaryan, R.

Cultural Markers of Social Inequality in the Space of a Modern Metropolis (Part I).

DOI: 10.5220/0010683600003169

In Proceedings of the International Scientiﬁc-Practical Conference "Ensuring the Stability and Security of Socio-Economic Systems: Overcoming the Threats of the Crisis Space" (SES 2021),

pages 82-87

ISBN: 978-989-758-546-3

the subject of study of sociological science: social

inequality and urban studies. Among the main

representatives who have studied social inequality are

the following sociologists: E.B. Atkinson, N.L.

Polyakova, N. Smelser, G. Therborn and others. The

main representatives of the global urban theory are

the founders of classical sociological theory, among

whom are M. Weber and G. Simmel, as well as

representatives of the Chicago School of Sociology,

such as R. Park, E. Burgess, H. Zorbaugh, L. Wirth,

A. Lefebvre, N. Hayner, P.G. Cressey, N. Anderson,

R. Cavan and others. An important contribution to the

study of the problems of the sociology of the city was

made by sociologists of the Los Angeles School: M.

Davis, E. Soya [1-17]. Inequality is an integral

characteristic of any society, it is everywhere: one

glance at others will be enough to understand that all

people are different. Differences between people can

be observed in many ways, such as gender, age,

height, skin color, intelligence level, character traits,

and so on. Some members of our society are born

prettier, others smarter or stronger. Such differences

are considered to be natural, since they are

determined by the individual physiological and

psychological characteristics of each individual

person. Natural inequalities, although they are

directly independent of the individual himself,

nevertheless, can provoke the emergence of unequal

relations with other members of society. The

inequality that appears between people on the basis of

their natural differences is considered to be the first

form of inequality. However, in the context of

considering human society, the key type of inequality

is social inequality, which includes social differences

between people in society. It is this type of inequality

that is one of the most important aspects studied by

sociologists and will serve as the foundation on which

this study will be based.

2 METHODS

1. Cultural markers of social inequality in the

space of a modern metropolis can be studied

through the analysis of objective parameters

and people's perception of cultural inequality,

as well as the specifics of cultural consumption,

which is a mechanism of social stratification

that helps individuals to self-define, form their

identity and influence their social status.

2. Areas of a metropolis are characterized by

varying degrees of “culture”, which can be

determined by the following parameters: the

appearance of the area, the development of the

infrastructure of the area and the average

“portrait” of the population living in the area,

as well as the presence of cultural and leisure

facilities, which also include secondary schools

and higher educational institutions. These

characteristics are objective cultural markers of

social inequality.

3. Despite the rather wide spread of cultural

objects throughout the city of Moscow, the

overwhelming majority of the most famous

cultural institutions of the capital are

concentrated in the central districts of the city,

located within the Boulevard, Garden and

Third Ring Roads (TRR), and partly in outside

areas, but in close proximity to the TRR. Thus,

we can talk about the presence of objective

cultural markers of social inequality in the

space of Moscow.

4. The subjective cultural markers of social

inequality perceived by the inhabitants of the

metropolis include a person's perception of the

urban environment in which he lives, as well as

the influence that this environment has on the

formation of his personality and cultural level,

what feelings and associations it evokes, and to

what actions does the district, city and the

surrounding society, with which he interacts,

induce an individual.

3 RESULTS

The various levels of social development of people

are the foundation for the formation of social

inequality and the stratification of society (a stratum

denotes a part of society to which people with equal

levels of income, education, power and social prestige

belong). Let us consider in more detail what exactly

each of the listed parameters of social stratification

means: income in this case means not only the

monetary state that a person has, but also his property

and labor, which can also “work” for him and

influence the amount of cash receipts that he receives

over a certain period of time; power is considered to

be that a person has the ability to force other people

to take any action, regardless of their immediate

desire, in other words, the ability to literally “impose”

their will on someone; education should be

understood as a complex of knowledge that a person

acquired in educational institutions, and it is possible

to measure inequality in the educational aspect, first

of all, by the number of years of education of an

individual; and finally, the last parameter of social

stratification - prestige determines the position of a

Cultural Markers of Social Inequality in the Space of a Modern Metropolis (Part I)

person in society, and the assessment of possessing a

greater or lesser degree of prestige is formed through

an established public opinion, which can vary in

different countries, societies and social groups.

The problem of social inequality has always been

one of the central topics studied by sociologists.

Social inequality is a structured system of social

relations, which is based on a hierarchical order that

determines the place of social actors in society. Even

the great philosophers of Ancient Greece, Plato and

Aristotle, stated the fact of the division of society into

rich and poor, but at the same time they pointed out

the inadmissibility of “extreme wealth” and “extreme

poverty”, because they believed that this would lead

society to instability. Plato explained the inequality of

people in society by the inequality of their souls, on

the basis of which, he believed that different functions

are assigned to everyone, which are different in their

complexity and significance. The French philosopher

J.J. Rousseau believed that the division of society into

rich and poor is the result of the emergence of private

property, and the English thinker T. Hobbes

considered the imperfection of some people in front

of others to be the main reason for social

stratification. In sociological science, the concept of

social inequality, as a rule, is understood either as the

structure and relations between classes, which differ

from each other in certain characteristics, or as the

structure and relations of status groups or strata,

which also have a number of their characteristics. The

relations between these classes, strata or status groups

were based either on their unequal possession of

power in any sphere of public life (political,

economic, military or religious power), or were

determined by a system of functional and professional

division of labor. The basis for this understanding of

social inequality was laid by K. Marx, M. Weber and

T. Parsons. Accordingly, sociology distinguishes

three different approaches to the study of the

phenomenon of social inequality: Marxist, Weberian

and T. Parsons structural functionalism theory. It is

worth considering the fact that, in addition to

methodological differences, the approaches were

formulated in different time periods: for example, the

Weberian approach to the analysis of social inequality

arose already half a century after Karl Marx's class

theory, and there is a “historical abyss” lasting a

century between the approaches of T. Parsons and

Karl Marx.

Let's take a closer look at each of these

approaches. The key concept for describing social

inequalities in Marxist theory is the analysis of these

inequalities through “class”. Classes constitute the

structure of the hierarchy in the system of social

inequality, they differ in the methods of obtaining and

the amount of income, the relation to ownership of the

means of production, as well as their place in the

general system of labor organization. These

parameters are determining their place both in the

general production system and directly in the

hierarchical system on which social inequality is

based. In the theory formulated by Karl Marx, classes

are considered mainly in an economic and political

vein, and the relations between these classes,

respectively, can be characterized as relations of

ownership and control. They, in general, have a

production character, and the main essence of these

class relations is exploitation. According to Karl

Marx, any society in which there is private ownership

of the means of production is divided into

antagonistic classes: ruling and oppressed, exploiters

and exploited. Thus, in the theory proposed by Karl

Marx, the main and, in fact, the only factor having a

direct impact on the emergence and formation of

socially unequal strata or “classes” in society is the

state of the economic situation in a given society.

That is why Marxism cannot be regarded as a

reference point for conducting a full analysis of the

phenomenon of social inequality, since in the

sociological aspect, the Marxist approach does not

fully cover all the multifaceted nature of this concept

and is a rather “one-sided” theory of social inequality.

Marxist theory gave rise to the formation of other

conflictological theories of social inequality, which

also considered stratification as a result of interclass

struggle. So, for example, according to the German

sociologist R. Darendorf, the basis of social

inequality was the unequal distribution of power. M.

Weber considers social inequality from a different

angle: social inequality, according to the sociologist,

serves as the basis for the existence in society of a

social order and the distribution of power between

members of society, which, in turn, is realized with

the help of “status groups”, “classes” and “parties”.

Despite the fact that in both approaches – the Marxist

and the Weberian - there is such a concept as “class”,

it is interpreted by the authors in different ways. So,

if K. Marx considered class to be the key and only

component of social inequality, then according to M.

Weber, classes are only a reflection of the economic

situation in society and are formed through the

economic interests of people. In Weberian theory,

along with classes in which relations are of a market

nature, there are also “status groups”, which, in turn,

on the contrary, are opposed to the dominance of

exclusively the market principle. The “status

situation” described by M. Weber means “the

assessment of social recognition”. Unlike Karl Marx,

SES 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE "ENSURING THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF

SOCIO - ECONOMIC SYSTEMS: OVERCOMING THE THREATS OF THE CRISIS SPACE"

M. Weber does not share the opinion that the presence

or absence of private property is a determining factor

in a person's position in society. However, he does not

deny that property refers to indicators of the status

and prestige of an individual in the event that he owns

it for a long time on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless,

the status of a person in society, according to M.

Weber, consists not only in the ownership of private

property and financial resources: first of all, status

implies the maintenance of a certain way of life by an

individual or a social group for a long period, as well

as the maintenance of those social interactions and

relationships corresponding to a similar lifestyle.

Achievement of financial well-being and any other

goals of a “functional” nature is not a key indicator of

prestige for the author. The confirmation of M.

Weber's theory that money and property are not

indicators of status and prestige can be illustrated by

many examples from life, as well as books and

cinema.

For example, in the movie “The Help” (a drama

directed by Tate Taylor, released in 2011. A screen

version of the novel of the same name by Kathryn

Stockett. The action of the movie takes place in the

60s, in the USA, Mississippi. Racial conflicts and

cruel behavior of the owners of the house in relation

to black servants have become commonplace. The

main character returns home after graduation. Most of

all she wants to become a writer and escape from a

small town into the big world. The girl decides to

write a book called “The Help”. The basis for the

work was the stories of the maids about their difficult

life and the powerless position), which shows the

period of the Black Civil Rights Movement in the

United States in the 1960s. A vivid example of a

wealthy lady, but nevertheless, “not a member of

secular society” is a woman named Celia Foote. A

“rootless” girl from a simple family who was lucky

enough to marry a successful businessman, she lives

in a luxurious house, next to all the “cream of

society”, and although officially, mainly due to the

status of her husband, who comes from an “elite”

family, this woman has the opportunity to attend all

the events held by ladies from high society, she never

succeeds in becoming a part of this society.

Moreover, marrying Celia negatively affects the

“status situation” of her husband and his entire

family. It is important to note that the economic

situation of this family does not change at the same

time: people can afford to have at their disposal a

considerable amount of private property and the

previous level of income. This situation is quite

common not only in the cinematographic art and the

United States of America in the sixties - it can be

observed in almost any state and at any time period.

A real life example can be the situation with

immigrants who come to Russia, the United States

and European countries from various cities and

countries of the world in search of work, which is

often quite difficult for these people to find in their

homeland. In fact, after a certain period of stay in a

particular state, as well as upon fulfillment of a

number of requirements established by this state, each

immigrant has the right to obtain the citizenship of

this country. In addition, there are many examples

when “newcomers” and immigrants achieve even

more impressive career results that provide them with

a decent financial position than most of the natives of

the country. But, nevertheless, no impressive amount

of income can automatically make these people more

prestigious and influence their “entry into the elite”.

For a more vivid illustration of the absence of a

direct relationship between the status situation of an

individual and his monetary income, we can conduct

a small comparative analysis of two people belonging

to different social strata and having different monthly

income. For example, we can compare two girls

living and working in the city of Moscow, both girls

are about 25 years old, while one of them is a native

Muscovite, recently graduated from a prestigious

capital university and works in a large international

company at one of the starting positions, for example,

“junior assistant in the personnel department” or

“junior specialist in the PR department”, and her

monthly salary varies from 50 to 60 thousand rubles

(the data is based on an analysis of existing vacancies

in such companies as advertising holdings Group M

and ADV group, consulting companies like PwC, as

well as large global FMCG companies, such as

Nespresso, L'Oreal, Estee Lauder, and Russian oil

and gas companies - Gazprom, Rosneft and many

others.

The given data were systematized on the basis of

data posted on the largest website optimizing job

search in the Russian Federation and the CIS

countries - hh.ru, as well as on the basis of

information from the personal experience of the

authors of this work); the other girl comes from one

of the CIS countries, for example, from Moldova or

Azerbaijan, where she graduated from college and

received a secondary specialized education in legal

specialty. However, she could not get a job in her

specialty in her native country due to the lack of

suitable vacancies and decided to graduate courses in

the rather popular but non-intellectual profession

“nail service master”. After graduating from the

courses, the girl went to Moscow in order to have a

Cultural Markers of Social Inequality in the Space of a Modern Metropolis (Part I)

decent monthly salary, and at the moment her salary

is on average from 70 to 100 thousand rubles per

month (data on the wages of nail service masters is

taken from the information portal The Village.

[Electronic resource]: https://www.the-

village.ru/village/business/schet/294054-

manikyurschitsy). Thus, if we consider only the

economic side of this situation, then the expatriate girl

who works in a beauty salon is noticeably in the lead

in comparison with the one who begins to build a

career in a large corporation. Therefore, when

analyzing her position on the social ladder based on

the theory of Karl Marx, it can be stated that she

occupies a higher position in society. However,

turning to the approach proposed by M. Weber, which

focuses our attention, first of all, on the “status

situation” of a person in the social hierarchy and his

social prestige, we come to a diametrically opposite

conclusion after conducting a comparative analysis of

two girls. Since the concept of a person's “status” in

society is made up of the level of education,

environment, as well as the presence of power in a

particular area of public life, and the level of prestige

is primarily determined by maintaining a certain way

of life, we can without hesitation come to the

conclusion that the “status situation” in which a girl

who received a higher education at a prestigious

Moscow University and is building a career in a large

company with the possibility of further career

prospects in this company and personal growth

through constant communication in circles of

successful people is on several orders of magnitude

higher than the status of a beauty salon employee who

currently has a higher monthly income.

Thus, the above example is a clear proof of the

concept of M. Weber, who repeatedly emphasizes in

his works that high financial position and private

property do not determine the degree of prestige and

status of an individual in society, but only serves as a

kind of bonus for the image of its owner, provided

that the person has an initial prestige status.

M. Weber's approach to the analysis of the

phenomenon of social inequality was further

developed in the theory of social stratification by T.

Parsons. According to him, in order for social

inequality to become legitimate, it must, first of all,

be fair. The status of an individual, according to T.

Parsons, can be determined based on the following six

parameters: an individual's belonging to a certain

affined system of relations, personal achievements,

personal qualities, authority, property and power. The

status situation of a person, therefore, is the sum, the

result of all the above “terms”, its components.

Among other criteria that make up the status of a

person in society, T. Parsons also pays special

attention to the presence of family ties and builds his

“analytical approach to the theory of social

stratification”, based on R. Linton's concept of

moving from inherited status to acquired status.

According to T. Parsons, the class status of an

individual in the system of social stratification, in

general, consists of two main elements: a system of

professional division of labor and a system of family

ties. The professional labor system implies that class

status is largely determined by a person's

achievements in the professional sphere, and the

kinship system means the fact that despite the

widespread ideology of “equality of opportunity” in

society, “there is a strong emphasis on the family

ties”. This means that the phenomenon when the

presence of family ties can contribute to the growth

of vertical social mobility of an individual in a

professional environment can be quite frequent and

widespread. In addition, T. Parsons explains the

presence of status and economic inequality with a

certain system of values that is unique for each

society. For example, in the United States, the main

value in society is considered to be the achievement

of high results in business and building a successful

career. Therefore, the highest status and income are

held there by the heads of large corporations, owners

of their own businesses, leading scientists and

developers, mainly in the field of medicine and

information technology. For most European

countries, culture is the greatest value, therefore

society honors and gives special prestige to people of

humanitarian and creative professions.

We analyzed three main methodological

approaches that laid the foundation in sociological

science for the study and construction of further

theories about the nature of social inequalities. It can

be noted that each approach in some way

complements the previous one and develops the

previously stated thoughts on this problem

(Polyakova, N. L., 2014; Soya, E. “Postmetropolis;

Romanova, N. P.; Marx, K., Engels, F., 1968.;

Darendorf, R., 1994; Weber, M., 1992; Parsons, T.,

1992; Sorokin, P. A., 1992).

4 DISCUSSIONS

Inequality is an integral characteristic of any society,

it is everywhere: one glance at others will be enough

to understand that all people are different. Differences

between people can be observed in many ways, such

as gender, age, height, skin color, intelligence level,

character traits, and so on. Some members of our

SES 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE "ENSURING THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF

SOCIO - ECONOMIC SYSTEMS: OVERCOMING THE THREATS OF THE CRISIS SPACE"

society are born prettier, others smarter or stronger.

Such differences are considered to be natural, since

they are determined by the individual physiological

and psychological characteristics of each individual

person. Natural inequalities, although they are

directly independent of the individual himself,

nevertheless, can provoke the emergence of unequal

relations with other members of society. The

inequality that appears between people on the basis of

their natural differences is considered to be the first

form of inequality. However, in the context of

considering human society, the key type of inequality

is social inequality, which includes social differences

between people in society. It is this type of inequality

that is one of the most important aspects studied by

sociologists, and will serve as the foundation on

which this study is based.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Social differences arise under the influence of social

factors, which include the way of life (rural or urban)

of a particular individual or social group, the presence

of a division of types of labor in society (mental or

physical labor), as well as the social roles of people

(brother, student, actor, civil servant, etc.). Social

factors determine the differences between people in

terms of education and income received by them,

property ownership, the presence of power, and, as a

consequence, the achievement of a certain social

status and prestige. Karl Marx became the founder of

the class approach to the study of social inequality

and actually defined one of its most significant types

and parameters of social stratification - income (a

type of social inequality - income inequality). M.

Weber, without denying the importance of the

Marxist concept, supplemented it with another

equally important component of the unequal position

of members of society in a socio-hierarchical order -

the “status situation”, and also partially refuted the

theory of Karl Marx that status is determined only by

the amount of income and the presence of private

property. The third and last fundamental

methodological approach to the study of the

phenomenon of social inequality considered in this

work was proposed by the sociologist T. Parsons,

who, taking the Weberian concept as a basis,

supplemented it with the idea that the “status

situation” of an individual in society is determined

not only by the corresponding lifestyle, education and

environment, but also his professional merits and,

which is no less significant, the presence of family

ties that contribute to his social mobility.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, E. B. What is “inequality”, and can we overcome

it? In Economic sociology. 18(2).

Polyakova, N. L., 2014. Theories of social inequality in

sociology of the twentieth century. Transformation of

the classics. In Vestnik of the Moscow State University.

Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. N4.

Smelser, N., 1994. Sociology. In Ethnic and racial

inequality. 10.

Therborn, G., 2006. Inequalities of the World: New

Theoretical Frameworks, Multiple Empirical

Approaches. LONDON: VERSO.

Weber, M., 1992. Class, status and party. In Social

stratification. 1.

Simmel, G., 2018. Big cities and spiritual life. M.:

STRELKA PRESS.

Park, R. E., 2008. City as a social laboratory. In

Sociological theory: History, modernity, prospects:

Almanac of the journal “Sociological Review”. SPB.:

VLADIMIR DAL.

Burgess, E., 2000. “City growth: an introduction to the

research project”. In Social and Human Sciences

Abroad. 4.

Zorbaugh, H., 2004. “The Gold Coast and the Slums”. In

Social Sciences and Humanities Abroad. Ser. 11.

Sociology. 3.

Wirth, L., 2005. Urbanism as a way of life. In Wirth L.

Selected works on sociology. M: INION RAS.

Lefebvre, A., 2002. Ideas for the concept of new urbanism.

In Sociological Review. 2(3).

Hayner, N., 1936. Hotel life. CHAPEL HILL:

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS.

Cressey, P. G., 1932. The taxi-dance hall. CHICAGO (IL):

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS.

Anderson, N., 1932. The hobo: The sociology of the

homeless man. CHICAGO (IL): UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO PRESS.

Cavan, R. S., 1928. Suicide. CHICAGO (IL):

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS.

Davis, M., 2000. Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the

U.S. Big City.

Soya, E. “Postmetropolis. Critical studies of cities and

regions”. http://www.ruthenia.ru

Romanova, N. P. Social inequality: methodological aspect.

In Vestnik of ChitGU. N4(49).

Marx, K., Engels, F., 1968. Works. 2nd ed. 46(1). M.:

POLITIZDAT.

Darendorf, R., 1994. Elements of the theory of social

conflict. In Sociological research. 5. pp. 142-147.

Weber, M., 1992. Class, status and party. In Social

stratification. 1. pp. 19-38.

Parsons, T., 1992. An analytical approach to the theory of

social stratification. In Social stratification. 1. pp. 114-

137.

Sorokin, P. A., 1992. Social stratification and social

mobility. In Pitirim Sorokin. Human. Civilization.

Society. (Series “Thinkers of the XX century”). pp. 302-

373.

Cultural Markers of Social Inequality in the Space of a Modern Metropolis (Part I)