Driven by modernization and the market economy, the degree of social differentiation and integration in society is increasing, and accordingly, there are more frequent interactions among various social strata. Positive interaction among all social strata is essential. This raises a question: What kind of rules should be followed in order to form mutual trust between all social strata and ensure the stable operation and healthy development of society? Clearly, we must follow the fundamental rules of social justice. As Rawls says: “A conception of justice must incorporate an ideal form for the basic structure in the light of which the accumulated results of ongoing social processes are to be limited and adjusted” (Rawls 1999a). What social justice rules should be included in the field of social stratification? What factors in reality are damaging or misinterpreting the social justice rules in social stratification? These are the issues to be discussed in this chapter.

1 The Meaning and Possibilities of Social Justice in the Field of Social Stratification

Due to the existence of social specialization and the division of labor, different social components, the people’s differing possessions of various resources, and their diversified orientations, a society is bound to form a certain social stratification system. Therefore, people in different states and statuses form different social strata, and those in the same state and status fall into the same stratum. It is in this sense that social stratification is accompanied by civilized society. As modernization and the market economy advance, the structure of social stratification has greatly changed. For example, unequal factors such as original privilege in social stratification will gradually decrease, the equal factors will increase, and the professional factors will play an increasingly important role. However, social stratification itself is hard to get rid of. When Fukuyama compared hierarchies (not the hierarchical system in traditional society) that are closely associated with social stratification and the network (an intermediate form of organization between hierarchies and traditional markets), he believed that “it is highly doubtful that formal hierarchies are about to go away anytime soon. To the extent that networks become important, they will exist in conjunction with formal hierarchies… One answer has to do with the problems of coordination through hierarchies under conditions of increasing economic complexity” (Fukuyama 1999).

Since society is in a stratified state, it inevitably implies that there are different levels among all social classes and that the social stratification structure contains elements of inequality. “Inequality refers to the distribution of people in terms of a status dimension – how widely they differ in power or wealth, education or income. Social status assumes a variety of forms, and so does inequality, since every analytical dimension of status is also one of inequality, though empirically various status distributions are often correlated” (Blau 1977). It should be noted that not all inequalities are unjust, although there are indeed many inequalities that are unjust and play a detrimental role to society. When Rawls talks about economic and social inequalities, he says: “When those two kinds of inequalities are large, they tend to support political inequality… This power allows a few, in virtue of their control over the machinery of state, to enact a system of law and property that ensures their dominant position in the economy as a whole. Insofar as this domination is experienced as a bad thing, as making many peoples’ lives less good than they might otherwise be, we are again concerned with the effects of economic and social inequality. Significant political and economic inequalities are often associated with inequalities of social status that encourage those of lower status to be viewed both by themselves and by others as inferior” (Rawls 2001). And inequalities that violate the principle of justice are bound to have many negative effects on the stable operation and healthy development of society. “The generally accepted sociological assumption that individuals seek to maximize the esteem in which they are held implies that those who are in low-valued positions experience such disesteem as punishment. Consequently, there is an inherent tension (contradiction) between the need to maximize esteem and the requirements of a stratified system” (Lipset 1985). Only in a developed modern society it is possible to realize social justice in the field of social stratification. This can be understood from the following aspects:

First, the prerequisite for social justice is eliminating scarcity and the shortage of wealth resources. When material wealth is in short supply, it is impossible to realize justice in the real sense of social stratification. Even if it is forcibly realized, it will only be a pseudo-just society similar to a utopia. “The postulate of scarcity has underlain the dismal view of society held by many philosophers…Because men begin in an environment of scarcity, each man takes his needs as the starting point for the social image of society; scarcity pits men against each other in the competitive struggle for survival. Each man sees in his fellow man the other who is a constant threat to him. Scarcity is ‘the negation within man of man by matter,’ the ‘negative unity’ imposed by matter on society through labor and social conflict” (Bell 1973). We have noticed that classical Marxist writers, whether Marx, Engels, or Deng Xiaoping, always regard highly developed material conditions as the most important prerequisite when they talk about a just society. Only on the basis of highly developed productive forces and a mature market economy can a society have the corresponding social and economic resources to provide the necessary conditions and means for the realization of social justice. A well-developed material base and a mature market economy make the supporting framework of a modern just society. The reason why modern developed countries are able to carry out large-scale social adjustment is that their economies have developed rapidly, and the total wealth of their society has been greatly increased.

Second, the negative effects of private property rights have weakened and the positive effects have increased. Compared to the past, in many developed countries at present, the specific situation of private ownership and its effects on social structure have undergone great changes. New forms of economy such as the joint-stock system and cooperatives, as well as the separation of ownership and the management of the means of production, have reduced the influence of private ownership on society as a whole, and its importance has relatively weakened. “Looked at both in value terms and in organizational terms, the differences between the ‘public’ and ‘private’ modes of structuring an economy are secondary in the sense that preference between them becomes a question of relative economic efficiency… In organizational terms… property rights no longer matter” (Parsons 1965). More importantly, through income tax, inheritance tax, and other taxes, society can appropriately reduce the excessive income and property of high-income earners, so as to effectively adjust or alleviate the disparity between the rich and the poor in the society and ensure the necessary integration and stability of the society. Therefore, as long as the tax policy is effectively implemented, the very wealthy individuals or families at present are often rich for only a few generations, and the “complete transfer” of private property is no longer possible. Furthermore, from point of view of the affluent class or the powerful group, “a willingness to make concessions may also be encouraged by the principle of marginal utility. This principle serves as a reminder that the first million dollars normally has greater value to a man than any subsequent million he may acquire. In societies with very productive economies, many members of the elite may be prepared to make some economic concessions in order to maximize other kinds of rewards, such as safety, respect, and leisure… because elites have multiple goals, and are not concerned with maximizing material rewards alone, they may be willing to make certain economic concessions in a highly productive and expanding economy” (Lenski 1966).

Third, the remarkable progress of social civilization. Under the influence of socialism, driven by various undertakings of social progress such as human rights and democratization, and with the rapid increase of public components in the social power system, the social civilization of developed countries has made remarkable progress. This progress is manifested in many aspects, especially in the formulation and effective implementation of social policies. The social policies of developed countries can be divided into two types. Social policies in the narrow sense mainly solve or alleviate existing social problems, aiming at the life and work of members of society who are at economic and social disadvantage. Social policies in the broad sense entail laws, regulations, and measures aiming at improving the quality of life of the society as a whole, promoting its progress, and preventing a large number of social problems. In short, the former focuses on protecting the people’s rights of “survival” and “dignity,” while the latter focuses on guaranteeing their “development.” Today, social policy has a far-reaching impact on developed countries, directly guaranteeing justice in the sphere of social stratification, and it has become an integral part of these countries. It is no longer conceivable that developed countries can survive in the absence of social policy.

In order to ensure a just social stratification structure, it is necessary to create corresponding institutional arrangements and policy formulations at the macro level. And we should stick to a certain value orientation when we design and formulate these fundamental social institutions and policies. Clearly, the institutional arrangements and policymaking should be oriented toward social justice. Rawls says, “For us the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. By major institutions I understand the political constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements” (Rawls 1999b).

What needs to be mentioned here is that many people are oriented toward the concept of “equality” or “social equality” in social stratification. Strictly speaking, it is not comprehensive and accurate enough to adopt the idea in the context. In fact, justice and equality are two different concepts. Equality includes both just equality and some “unjust equality.” In Equality and Efficiency, Arthur Okun argues: “Social decisions that permit economic inequality must be justified as promoting economic efficiency” (Okun 1975). This shows that equality does not exactly equal justice, and sometimes inequalities may conform to the principle of justice. Even Rawls, who highly values equality, points out: “Any modern society, even a well-ordered one, must rely on some inequalities to be well-designed and effectively organized” (Rawls 2001). The idea of equality mainly applies to emphasizing the equality of the people’s social identity and basic rights, the equality of opportunities, the rationality of social adjustment, and so on. In these respects, equality and justice overlap. However, placing an excessive emphasis on equality will lead to an idealized situation, making it difficult to apply and realize the idea. “Writers on the subject of equality are eloquent and persuasive in voicing a cahier de doléances when denouncing the evils of inequality. But their arguments become thinner and less convincing as they tackle the question of how the ideal of equality is to be realized” (Sartori 1987). Overemphasizing the idea of equality by elevating it to an extremely high level may adversely affect the idea of liberty, which despises or even denies the differences between individuals and their free choices, denies the reasonable differences between social classes, causes egalitarianism, and emphasizes the similarity of the people’s living conditions, thus damaging the principle of justice to varying degrees and inhibiting the vitality of society. To conclude, when discussing the orientation of social stratification, it is much more accurate and reasonable to use the idea of “justice” rather than “equality.”

What is the conceptual basis of social justice rules between social strata? Only by clarifying this question can we determine the basic content of social justice rules between social strata. As mentioned earlier, the rules of social justice between social strata are to be based on the idea of equality, the idea of liberty, and the idea of social cooperation. (1) The idea of equality. The idea takes classes’ basic contributions and dignity into account, confirms their basic rights, guarantees their opportunities for development, and defines the minimum requirements of the principle of justice. Thus, equality is an important conceptual basis of social justice. Clearly, the objective of equality is to safeguard the basic dignity of each class—to provide fundamental protections for their survival and development. (2) The idea of liberty. Liberty and equality are closely related to one another but also inseparable from one another. Liberty without equality, just as equality without liberty, is unthinkable. If there has to be a distinction between the two, it is that equality focuses on the recognition and protection of the basic human species, while liberty focuses on respecting and protecting individual differences. The idea of liberty requires that different individual endowments, abilities, and concrete contributions be respected, the individual development and choice also be respected, and that different treatment be given according to the different contributions of each class to society. (3) The idea of social cooperation. Only when classes cooperate effectively in society can their respective values be realized, thus acquiring a united social strength that is greater than the sum of its parts. The necessity of the idea of social cooperation is to provide what the rules of justice based on equality and freedom cannot, and to reflect the spirit of a reasonable society as a whole (Wu 2000). We should also note that these three bases should be considered as an integral part, and ignoring any of these components will lead to a biased understanding of the fundamental rules of social justice between social strata. For example, if the idea is based only on equality, it will result in an egalitarian rule; conversely, if the idea is based only on freedom, it will lead to a situation where the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide, thus undermining social solidarity and the safe operation of society.

For all social strata, what needs to be distributed, arranged, and guaranteed by just institutions and policies? Many people think that the distribution of income is the most important, to the point where the status of income distribution has almost become synonymous with whether a society is just or not. It should be noted that it is extremely important whether the income distribution is fair or not, as it also involves many other aspects of society, but if it is regarded as the fundamental problem of social justice, it is a very one-sided and narrow view. This view merely classifies the problem between social classes as an economic problem, and it is only one aspect of the economic field, although it may be the most prominent one. In addition to income distribution, all social strata are faced with a series of problems such as social equality, social dignity, basic rights of members of society, their basic development opportunities, and the rest. In order to avoid this one-sided view, can we use social and economic resources in a broad sense and positive social and economic resources (hereafter shortened to “resources”) to refer to things that need to be distributed, arranged, and guaranteed by just institutions and policies? Naturally, the resources mentioned here need to be further refined into concrete content before they have a definite significance. As for the concrete content of resources, we might as well enrich it with Rawls’s “primary goods.” “These are various social conditions and all-purpose means… These goods are things citizens need as free and equal persons living a complete life.” Rawls distinguishes five kinds of primary goods: “(1) The basic rights and liberties: freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, and the rest. (2) Freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a background of diverse opportunities, which opportunities allow the pursuit of a variety of ends and give effect to decisions to revise and alter them. (3) Powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of authority and responsibility. (4) Income and wealth, understood as all-purpose means (having an exchange value) generally needed to achieve a wide range of ends whatever they may be. (5) The social bases of self-respect, understood as those aspects of basic institutions normally essential if citizens are to have a lively sense of their worth as persons and to be able to advance their ends with self-confidence” (Rawls 2001).

2 The Basic Rules of Social Justice in Social Stratification

Amartya Sen pointed out: “The basic ideas of justice are not alien to social beings, who worry about their own interests but are also able to think about family members, neighbors, fellow citizens and about other people in the world… Space does not have to be artificially created in the human mind for the idea of justice or fairness – through moral bombardment or ethical haranguing. That space already exists, and it is a question of making systematic, cogent and effective use of the general concerns that people do have” (Sen 2000). As for the rules of justice in social stratification, there is the problem of how to sort them out. The basis used for sorting can only be the concepts of equality, freedom, and social cooperation that people are most concerned about in modern society. According to the concept of equality, freedom, and social cooperation, the basic rules of social justice in social strata should include three important parts: mutual opening and equal access, different and appropriate rewards (distribution) for different strata, and reciprocity and mutuality.

2.1 Mutual Openness and Equal Access Between Social Strata

This is the most important social justice rule that should be followed in the stratification of modern society, and it is also the most important standard by which to judge whether the social stratification system is fair or not.

In modern society, every member of society should enjoy an equal basic right as a citizen—that is, “everyone should have an equal right to a similar freedom system compatible with the most extensive and equal basic freedom system owned by all” (Rawls 1999b). Based on this basic right of equality, no class, especially a class with a higher social position, should artificially set up obstacles for any reason to exclude members of other classes from entering this class, so as to safeguard their unique interests. Moreover, as long as a person has a certain ability, he/she should have the opportunity to obtain the corresponding social position as they wish. “Those with similar abilities and skills should have similar life chances. More specifically, assuming that there is a distribution of natural assets, those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system. In all sectors of society there should be roughly equal prospects of culture and achievement for everyone similarly motivated and endowed. The expectations of those with the same abilities and aspirations should not be affected by their social class… and at the same time, positions of authority and responsibility must be accessible to all” (Rawls 1999b).

In traditional society, there were strict hierarchies. Members in such a hierarchical society fell into either the “privileged” class or the “commoner” class. For most people, there were no equal rights. There was an insurmountable boundary between those of higher statuses and those of lower statuses. Clearly, it is extremely unfair to use ascriptive factors as a reason to divide classes or exclude others from entering higher statuses. The problem is that “to make such properties the basis of discrimination between individuals in the distribution of social benefits would be ‘to treat people differently in ways that profoundly affect their lives because of differences for which they have no responsibility’” (Feinberg 1973).

Under the condition of modern society, the ascribed social statuses should be eliminated; otherwise, social justice between different classes cannot be realized. However, we should also see that there are actually two categories of ascriptive factors: one is social factors, such as birth, status, and rank, and the other is natural factors, such as natural endowments. Fukuyama believes that “social inequality falls into two categories, the sort that is traceable to human convention, and that attributable to nature or natural necessity. In the first category are legal barriers to equality – the division of society into closed estates, apartheid, Jim Crow Laws, property qualifications for voting, and the like… Natural barriers to equality begin with the unequal distribution of natural abilities or attributes within a population” (Fukuyama 1992). It is not appropriate to confuse these two categories. The social factors are unreasonable and unfair from the beginning, so they should be eliminated. However, natural factors are somewhat rational and legitimate. This is because everyone is not only born equal, but also born different. If the natural predisposing factors are restricted in general, it will violate the principle that people are born different and free. In a sense, it will limit some people’s independent development and self-motivated efforts. An important manifestation of injustice is that the differences between individuals are excessively restricted. However, if these “differences” are allowed to develop naturally, there will be too wide a gap in income and social status among members of society. In this case, we can only deal with inequalities from the perspective of the entire society through social adjustment. In addition, some members of the society are affected by both social and natural factors, which further complicate the problem. Rawls believed that citizens’ life-prospects are affected by three kinds of contingencies, including “their native endowments (as opposed to their realized endowments); and their opportunities to develop these endowments as affected by their social class of origin” (Rawls 2001). This makes it more difficult for society to solve any related problems of social injustice.

To a great extent, the people’s pursuits of equal rights and freedom are realized and guaranteed through a social mobility mechanism. Although not all social mobility is just, it does have a significant impact on social justice in social stratification. Its situation will reflect how social justice is in social stratification. In a certain sense, social mobility is not only an important precondition to realizing social justice rules, but it is also an important part of social justice in social stratification. The important function of social mobility is that it can provide the disadvantaged groups in lower social positions with equal opportunities for their improvement and, at the same time, it can provide effective ways for the self-motivated winners. Generally speaking, the higher the degree of mobility in a society, the more opportunities and hopes that society can provide for its members. On the contrary, if the mobility is too low and all social strata are isolated from each other, then the injustice of this society will be aggravated. “The insulation of a group from others increases its chances of being exploited and its chances of actively resisting the exploitation. Groups whose geographical insolation, ethnic differences, or distinctive beliefs set them apart from the rest of the community can more easily be exploited by dominant powers, because lack of identification of the majority with these groups has the result that their exploitation is not discouraged by general social disapproval” (Blau 1964, 1977).

During the transition from traditional society to modern society, due to rapid economic development and the continuous upgrading of industrial structure, a wealth of new types of occupations appeared; thus the upward movement keeps increasing, compared to the past. “The dominant pattern of mobility in agrarian societies was downward. In industrial societies the volume of upward movement is so much greater that a balance is usually achieved, and, in most cases, the amount of upward movement exceeds the downward” (Lenski 1966). Clearly, under such circumstances, maintaining a fair state of mutual openness and equal access between social classes is not only in line with the historical development trend but also conducive to beneficial social mobility. Therefore, a society should ensure openness and equal access among social strata through necessary institutional arrangements and policy formulations. From another point of view, a society must prevent unfair situations such as the higher stratum stopping and restricting members of the lower stratum from upward movement by formulating their own favorable systems and policies, setting all kinds of artificial obstacles for other strata, and adopting differential conditions such as privileges or identities.

2.2 All Classes Should Receive Differential and Appropriate Rewards

This is another important social justice rule that should be followed in the social stratification system.

How do we realize the fair distribution of resources? This is the most straightforward problem that all social strata face.

The first question involved here is what the basis for distribution should be. In this regard, there are only three possible choices: absolute average distribution according to the number of people, distribution according to actual needs, and distribution according to contribution. The first choice denies that people, as “Homo oeconomicus,” are reasonably interest-driven, and it also denies their differences and diversity. Moreover, this practice will inevitably deny that different people have different contributions to society, so that some can occupy the reasonable interests of others for free. “Particular distributions cannot be judged at all apart from the claims (entitlements) of individuals earned by their efforts within the fair system of cooperation from which those distributions result” (Rawls 2001). History has repeatedly proved the absurdity of this “utopian” approach. Distribution according to actual needs does take into account the people’s differences and various needs, but this practice implies a prerequisite, which is that the resources available for distribution in society must reach infinity. However, this prerequisite does not exist—at least for a very long period in history it did not. Therefore, it cannot be practiced. Obviously, in modern society, distribution can only be made according to contribution. The “contribution” mentioned here is not only limited to the people’s contribution to “economic benefits,” but also includes their contribution to various fields of social economy.

The fair rule of distribution according to contribution reflects the direct contributions of all social strata (indirect contributions are reflected by social adjustment) and recognizes legitimate and reasonable differences among social strata and industries. It should be noted that different industries and occupations have different requirements for laborers in terms of labor complexity, specific work skills, and difficulty. Moreover, the market has different demands for different products, and employees in different industries make different contributions to the society. Furthermore, contributions of different degrees are often positively related to different costs and energies. In the process of acquiring necessary labor skills, employees from all walks of life and industries often invest different economic costs and levels of energy. In this sense, it is reasonable to keep a balance between costs and benefits. In other words, even from the perspective of the relationship between costs and benefits, it should be distributed according to contribution. Different energy inputs and costs should bring different returns. “It should authorize the social and economic inequalities necessary, or else highly effective, in running an industrial economy in a modern state. Such inequalities cover the costs of training and education, act as incentives, and the like” (Rawls 2001).

For all social strata, the social justice rule of distribution according to contribution can act as very effective incentives. “Underlying much of economic analysis is the basic assumption of rational choice: that is, people weigh the costs and benefits of each possibility whenever they must make a choice… In the case of individuals, the rationality assumption is taken into mean that they make choices and decisions in pursuit of their own self-interest” (Stiglitz and Walsh 2011). From this point of view, the principle of distribution according to contribution is in line with a nature driven by the people’s interests, meaning it can fully stimulate the potential of all social strata, arouse the enthusiasm of all social strata, and then create a positive state of interaction, competition, and progress among all social strata, ensuring a normal social differentiation process that is compatible with modern society and the market economy. This situation is also of indispensable significance for promoting social integration, because only by stimulating the vitality of the society it is possible to increase the total amount of social wealth. Only then can we make reasonable and effective social redistribution (social adjustment).

It should be noted that if absolute egalitarianism appears in a society as a whole, then it is most likely to occur in the field of primary distribution and will cause the worst harm. Once this happens and we confuse primary distribution with redistribution, it will fundamentally shake the just foundation of a society. As a result, the potential and vitality of all social strata will be suppressed, and social redistribution will not be carried out effectively due to the lack of preconditions. Accordingly, it will become meaningless to talk about social justice.

2.3 Reciprocity and Mutuality Should Be Maintained Among All Social Strata.

This is the third important social justice rule that should be followed among social strata.

What we must see is that society is an organic whole composed of all classes. As modernization and the market economy advance, the specialization, high efficiency, and ever-expanding scale of modern production require society to fully explore and utilize social resources. To achieve this, it is necessary to change the functions of the social organism originally undertaken by a few units to be undertaken by multiple units. Under the condition of the market economy system, the original few units in the social organism can naturally develop into multiple complex units, so as to undertake the social functions originally undertaken by a few simple units. In this way, the social division of labor becomes more complicated and various trades and professions in the social organism increase day by day, as are various components of different natures. Because of the phenomenon of social differentiation, any class or group cannot exist independently without other classes or groups, and each class plays an important and indispensable role in the whole of the social organism. Additionally, the social organism is not a simple adding together of various social sub-units but has its own unique overall function. Therefore, each sub-unit of the social organism also needs to provide indispensable support and coordination for the whole social organism. These put forward objective requirements for the continuous improvement of social unity and social integration. The higher the degree of social differentiation, the higher the requirements for social unity and integration. “There is no alternative to social cooperation except unwilling and resentful compliance, or resistance and civil war” (Rawls 1999a).

For a united and integrated society as a whole, it is necessary to maintain a kind of cooperation and positive interaction among all social strata. Only in this way can the potential of social organism be fully and positively released. On the contrary, if there is too much friction and conflict among various strata in a society, it means that there are serious faults in this society; the potential of the social organism will be wasted for no reason, and the society itself will even suffer different degrees of damage. In short, all social strata should cooperate to achieve a “win-win” rather than a “total loss” state. “The interdependence of its parts makes the modern order much more sensitive than a simpler form of economic organization. Indeed, the more minutely the individual parts of a large mechanism fit into one another, and the more closely the single elements are bound up together, the more serious are the repercussions of even the slightest disturbance”. What is more serious, “the political insanity of one country determines the fate of others, and the brutal, impulsive, emotional outbursts of the masses in action signify a catastrophe for a whole society and even for the entire world, since the interdependence of the modern social organism transmits the effects of every maladjustment with increased intensity” (Mannheim 1923).

In order to ensure unity and integration among all social strata, it is necessary to realize mutually beneficial social justice rules among them. According to Rawls, the idea of reciprocity and mutuality means that “all who cooperate must benefit, or share in common burdens, in some appropriate fashion judged by a suitable benchmark of comparison… Whereas the notion of fair terms of cooperation is shared, participants’ conceptions of their own rational advantage in general differ” (Rawls 1999a). Fukuyama defined it in more detail, and distinguished the two meanings of reciprocal altruism: “In the case of reciprocal altruism, the exchange is time-shifted; one party can give a benefit without expecting any immediate return and does not expect to be exactly compensated. Reciprocal altruism is much closer to what we understand as moral exchange within a community, and as such is invested with a very different emotional content from market exchange… almost all behavior we understand to be moral involves two-way exchange of some sort and ultimately confers mutual benefits on the parties participating in it” (Fukuyama 1999).

Reciprocity and mutuality between social strata should first be shown as follows: the interests of the higher strata cannot be improved at the expense of the interests of the lower strata. On the contrary, when the interests of the higher strata are improved, the situation of the lower strata should be improved. A phenomenon that appears relatively easily is that, because the higher strata have obvious advantages in various resources, these strata correspondingly have greater influence in the institutional design and policy arrangements related to their interests, and then they may make use of the advantages to create a situation that damages the lower strata and benefits themselves. Once this happens, it is very unfair to the other party—that is, the lower class—and it will certainly lead to situations such as dissatisfaction, conflict, and even resistance among the lower class, resulting in vicious interaction among all social classes. This will be very detrimental for effective social cooperation, especially sustained cooperation, and even to the stable operation of society. In order to avoid this, we must do as follows, “the difference principle requires that however great the inequalities in wealth and income may be, and however willing people are to work to earn their greater shares of output, existing inequalities must contribute effectively to the benefit of the least advantaged. Otherwise the inequalities are not permissible” (Rawls 2001).

Reciprocity and mutuality between social strata should also be manifested as follows: social strata in similar positions should maintain a state of coordination. There will be resistances, frictions, and conflicts not only between the upper class and the lower class but also between social classes in similar positions. For example, limited resources such as the shortage of job opportunities increase competition among low-income groups in similar positions, and thus easily lead to friction and conflict. “Gunnar Myrdal, in his investigation of the Negro problem in America, pointed out that class antagonisms are strongest between ‘adjacent’ classes rather than between the very bottom and the top. Thus, in the South, the deepest emotional resentment of the Negro has come from the poor whites, and particularly from those once-poor whites who, having risen, sought more than ever to emphasize their distance from those below them” (Bell 1988). Coincidentally, in Chinese cities, some members of low-income groups have a similar resistance or rejection psychology toward migrant workers, even among different groups of migrant workers. This only leads to loss on both sides. Therefore, we must formulate and follow corresponding fair rules, and negotiate and compromise through some organizations to prevent vicious competition and conflicts between classes in similar positions.

The specific situation of reciprocity and mutuality is mainly reflected in whether the resource possession of social strata is just—that is, whether the gap in resource possession among social strata is kept within a reasonable limit. A healthy modern society should have a resource allocation structure that is olive-shaped (tapered at the top and the bottom, and wide in the middle). The numbers of both the upper class with more resources and the lower class with less resources should be small, while the number of the middle classes should be large, as it includes the vast majority of society. (Lu 2002)

For society as a whole, it should have the responsibility and obligation to carry out necessary social adjustments—that is, social redistribution—in order to effectively assist the poor. There is a prerequisite for reciprocity and mutuality among social strata, which is that all strata should be able to survive and develop—otherwise social cooperation will be impossible. However, due to various reasons such as poverty, some groups have lost these necessary abilities to varying degrees. “Poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as lowness of incomes, which is the standard criterion of identification of poverty. The perspective of capability-poverty does not involve any denial of the sensible view that low income is clearly one of the major causes of poverty, since lack of income can be a principal reason for a person’s capability deprivation” (Sen 2000). Therefore, society has the responsibility to actively assist the disadvantaged in getting rid of poverty and restoring their ability in social cooperation. Furthermore, in order to guard against threats posed by uncertain factors and risks to most members of society, and to jointly improve the cooperation ability of all social strata, it is necessary for society to establish positive social welfare schemes. “Schemes of positive welfare, oriented to manufactured rather than external risk, would be directed to fostering the autotelic self… It refers to a person able to translate potential treats into rewarding challenges, someone who is able to turn entropy into a consistent flow of experience” (Giddens 2007). The ‘Welfare State’ attempts to manage class chances without modifying basic class structure; in its several meanings and types, it favors economic policies designed to redistribute life-risks and life-chances in favor of those in the more exposed class situations, who have the power or threaten to accumulate the power to do something about their case” (Mills 1951).

Social adjustment is undoubtedly realized by powers of public sectors (mainly government systems). In this regard, their main responsibility lies in: creating a fair social environment, eliminating privileged factors in society, formulating corresponding social policies, etc., so as to provide an external condition for all social strata to be treated fairly. They must also provide necessary help to the vulnerable social groups directly, pay attention to the basic living conditions of members of society, and attach importance to the development conditions that these members should generally have. It is in this sense that “class and status situations have been removed from free market forces and the persistence of tradition, and been subject to more formal rules. A government management of the class structure has become a major means of alleviating inequalities and insuring the risks of those in lower-income classes” (Mills 1951).

To summarize, the above-mentioned three just rules between social classes are a unified whole and indispensable. The rules of mutual opening and equal access between social strata are mainly to solve the problem of an equal starting point and equal conditions within all social strata. The rule that different classes receive different and corresponding rewards is mainly to solve the problem of how to treat the contributions of different classes, while the rule of reciprocity and mutuality is mainly to solve the problem of how to carry out effective and sustained social cooperation among different classes in society. Only on the basis of these three just rules can we establish a just social stratum structure.

3 The Main Factors Hindering the Implementation of Social Justice Rules in Social Stratification

In real society, there are often many unfavorable factors for social justice rules in social stratification. These unfavorable factors either hinder the implementation of social justice rules or distort them.

3.1 The Misunderstanding of a Meritocratic Society

Objectively speaking, as far as the influence of ability, power and position is concerned, there are obvious differences among all social strata. According to Vilfredo Pareto, the pioneer social scientist who propounded the elite theory of power, all members of society are divided into two classes: the lower class and the upper class (the elite). The class of elite is further sub-divided into a governing elite and a non-governing elite. The “governing elite” comprises of individuals who obviously play some considerable part in society.

The basic development trend of modern society is that the social organism becomes more complicated, and the social division of labor becomes more specialized and intricate. In line with it, the number of people in social management and technology is bound to increase continuously, and because society has higher requirements for their “capacity,” a unique and large-scale group is formed. For example, “there are two reasons for the expansion of office. The first has to do with the political control of activities and employments vital to the well-being of the community; the second has to do with ‘fair equality of opportunity.’ The inevitable tendency of all efforts to achieve political control and equality of opportunity is to reinforce and enhance centralized power” (Walzer 1984). This group has a wide and significant influence on the whole of society because, in the social stratum system, this stratum occupies a high position and enjoys a good reputation. At the same time, we should also note that the elite is a relatively closed and homogeneous circle in terms of its specific composition and living state. “They (elites) are self-recruiting; their members have similar biographies; most of them have degrees from the same select group of colleges or universities and studied the same subjects; they know each other and speak a common language in more ways than one” (Dahrendorf 2009).

It should be acknowledged that the elite class is indispensable to a society, whether from the perspective of efficiency or justice. The complexity of modern society and the existence of various uncertain factors require an elite class with professional skills to manage daily affairs, design long-term plans, and formulate and implement policies. Moreover, as long as the just rule of equal opportunity is followed—that is, the “principle of achievement”—members of the lower class can also become the elite through their efforts.

The problem is that if the elite becomes a force that influences the social fundamentals, they would cause a series of negative social effects. First, a meritocracy will distort the rules of equality between social classes, especially the rule of equal opportunities. Equality of opportunity is not the only social justice rule. The rule of social justice is an organic system, and the rule of equal opportunity must be organically combined with the guarantee of the people’s basic rights, which is distribution according to contribution and social adjustment, so that its positive function can be effectively exerted. If we break away from the guarantee of the people’s basic rights and the social justice rules of social adjustment, we will lose the prerequisite of equal opportunities—that is, the starting point and environment of equal competition—and lose the possibility of making many members of society that are in a weak state recover their abilities. It can be seen that social justice rules that only emphasize equal opportunities will surely lose their proper meaning. “This form of social order follows the principle of careers open to talents and uses equality of opportunity as a way of releasing men’s energies in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political dominion. There exists a marked disparity between the upper and lower classes in both means of life and the rights and privileges of organizational authority”. Under such circumstances, “equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position” (Rawls 1999b).

Second, a meritocracy will create new hierarchy. As mentioned before, in order to achieve effective and sustained social cooperation, social strata should follow the rules of reciprocity and mutuality and avoid situations of excessive gap. However, in a society, if the elite is in an overwhelming position, then a new hierarchical system with excessive gap between classes will be formed. As Giddens says: “a radically meritocratic society would create deep inequalities of outcome, which would threaten social cohesion… a full meritocracy would create an extreme example of such a class, a class of untouchables. For not only would groups of people be at the bottom, but they would know their lack of ability made this right and proper: it is hard to imagine anything more dispiriting” (Giddens 2008).

Third, the expansion of the meritocracy and the decline of its positive effect. If the elites in a society become excessively strong, then that society has less restriction on them. Under such circumstances, the elite class, especially the “governing elite,” will inevitably expand, and at the same time its positive role will be correspondingly weakened. “The more elites there are in a society the more each individual elite tends to lose its function and influence as a leader, for they cancel each other out. In a democratic mass society, especially one with great social mobility, no group can succeed in deeply influencing the whole of society” (Mannheim 1923).

Fourth, a meritocracy will encroach on the interests of other classes. The excessive expansion of elite classes means that they have great influence on institutional arrangements and policy making. Under such conditions, it is inevitable that there will be a “winner takes all” situation—that is, taking the formulation of public policies as an excuse to protect or even expand their own unique class interests. For example, some scholars have found that, during the transition period from a planned economy to a market economy, because the government has played the role of directly promoting the establishment of the market economy, “the income return of redistribution occupation has increased year by year” (Bian 1988). When this situation is not contained and allowed to fully develop, when it reaches a certain point, it will cause serious consequences: the normal order of the market economy will be disrupted, the interests of other classes will be encroached, and the whole society will experience serious social injustice until it leads to serious social conflicts.

3.2 The Blurring Boundaries Between the Upper Classes

As opposed to traditional society, in modern society, the boundaries between social classes are not only open but also clear. This situation is determined by the characteristics of the social division of labor in modern society. In modern society, the degree of occupational differentiation becomes higher and the specified responsibilities become clearer, which results in the boundaries between social strata becoming clearer. The complicated occupational differentiation and various boundaries between social strata are supported and guaranteed by various rules and systems. The rules and systems “have institutionalized firm patterns of rights and obligations which, within politically organized units of society, have cut across the lines drawn by the traditional ‘primary’ bases of social solidarity, and hence have become in certain respects independent of them.” According to Parsons, “these legal systems have embodied principles of universalism and of specificity.” By universalism he means “that rules have been formulated and held to apply to categories of persons or collectivities on the basis of generally defined characteristics independent of their statuses in these ‘lower-order’ particularistic solidarities” (Parsons 1965). By specificity he means “the definition of legal rules in such a way that the rights and obligations thereby created could be abstracted from the status and expectations of certain particularistic solidary memberships, without destroying that membership. The primary solidary structure would therefore be ‘insulated’ from the cross-cutting relationship.” This kind of situation not only ensures the efficiency of a society but also effectively prevents the exchange of interests between higher strata and the spread of kinship, thus ensuring social justice in an important aspect and effectively preventing the infringement of public interests by one or some higher strata to a great extent.

Once the boundary between classes in a higher social position is blurred, it often means that the public interests are encroached upon by upper classes—that is, some special interest groups. In this regard, the public management field of society is most easily encroached on by the public management class and the “wealth” class. In a certain sense, the external performance of public management is the production and distribution of public goods. “A pure public goods has two salient characteristics: jointness of supply and the impossibility or inefficiency of excluding others from its consumption, once it has been supplied to some members of the community… For such a good, the addition of more consumers (viewers) does not detract from the benefits enjoyed by others” (Mueller 2003). Originally, the public management class and the “wealth” class have different divisions of labor. The main task of the public management class is to manage public goods, formulate corresponding rules, and provide public services, so as to ensure the integrity and maximization of the utility of public goods and public services to all members of society, while the “wealth” class is mainly engaged in production and operation. However, it must be noted that these two classes have their own interest pursuits of differing degrees. If both the public management class and the “wealth” class cross the boundaries of their specific classes, professions, or industries and make alliances, then it is inevitable that the public management class will exploit public resources to expand the interests of its own class, its own group, and its own people in various “rent-seeking” ways. Meanwhile, the “wealth” class will rapidly increase the value of their assets through non-market and non-competitive means. Together, these two situations constitute “money politics.” On the one hand, the class that was originally in charge of public management would lose its “public” character. On the other hand, the “wealth” class would lose its “marketing” character. “When money carries with it the control, not of things only but of people, too, it ceases to be a private resource. It no longer buys goods and services on the market; it buys something else, somewhere else, where (given our democratic understanding of politics) buying and selling is ruled out. If we can’t block the purchase, then we have to socialize the money, which is only to recognize that it has taken on a political character” (Walzer 1984). The severity of this “money politics” is positively correlated with the blurring of the boundary between these two classes.

The blurring boundaries between social strata of higher social positions almost pose an all-around harm to the social justice rules among social strata. This phenomenon will inevitably make social public goods and services shrink, thus seriously weakening the guarantee of basic rights of members of society, especially members of vulnerable groups, and the provision of basic equality conditions; the social justice rules that make the social strata distribute according to their contributions cannot be effectively implemented, which aggravates the situation of obtaining benefits by unfair or even illegal means; the social justice rules of mutual benefit between social strata cannot be fulfilled, and the public resources needed for social adjustment are either in a shrinking state or are jointly occupied by many powerful groups to varying degrees, making it possible for the benefits of one stratum to be based on the damages of the other stratum. This may be the main reason why at the present stage of China, an isolated and closed group at the “Vbottom of society” has emerged (Sun 2002). The seriousness of the problem lies in the fact that the blurring of boundaries between classes of a higher social position will certainly aggravate social instability. “The deprivation arising from violating the norms of fair exchange are viewed as translated, under specified conditions, into retaliation against the violators” (Turner 1974).

3.3 The Imbalance Between Horizontal Differentiation and Vertical Differentiation

With the advancement of modernization and the market economy, social differentiation is an inevitable historical trend. Social differentiation includes two types: horizontal differentiation and vertical differentiation.

Horizontal differentiation reflects the complexity and diversity of social structure and social components and also reflects the diversity of the people’s orientations, whether group or individual. Horizontal differentiation is compatible with modern society. Generally speaking, the higher the degree of modernization of a society, the higher the degree of its horizontal differentiation. On an economic level, horizontal differentiation brings about the improvement of efficiency; as far as the social level is concerned, horizontal differentiation brings about the improvement of social communication and social integration. As Peter Blau said, “increases in heterogeneity, by making intergroup relations less rare, weaken ingroup pressures that inhibit sociable interaction with members of outgroups and thus lessen discrimination against outgroups. As social practices in a group increase in frequency, group pressures that discourage them subside” (Blau 1977). Thus, for horizontal differentiation, there is no such thing as society restricts it, from the perspective of efficiency or justice.

Compared to horizontal differentiation, vertical differentiation is more complicated. The so-called vertical differentiation (also known as “inequality” by many people) “refers to the distribution of people in terms of a status dimension – how widely they differ in power or wealth, education or income” (Blau 1977). As mentioned earlier, inequality includes two types: reasonable inequality that conforms to just rules and unreasonable inequality that does not conform to just rules. It is worth noting that many kinds of differentiation may cause new inequalities, especially occupational differentiation. For example, new occupations related to emerging industries often contain new skills, so they often become scarce resources, and this new occupation and new skill obtain higher returns relatively easily. Especially in the period of the large-scale upgrading of industrial structure, when structural social mobility became the mainstream of social mobility, the aforementioned situation becomes a more prominent social phenomenon. Under such circumstances, if the corresponding social adjustment fails to keep up, it will very likely cause substantial inequalities that do not conform to the social justice rules.

Once vertical differentiation is in excess, it will inevitably lead to the imbalance between horizontal differentiation and vertical differentiation. In a “normal” modern society, horizontal differentiation and vertical differentiation should be in a relatively balanced state, so that the social differentiation as a whole maintains a moderate state. However, once the degree of vertical differentiation is too high, it will cause an unfair inequality, which will have many negative effects on the horizontal differentiation and overall social differentiation. Originally, horizontal differentiation made social integration and social solidarity necessary for all social strata. As Marx points out, “The social division of labor causes his labor to be as one-sided as his wants are many-sided” (Marx 1975). The “many-sided” wants can only be achieved through social cooperation, and effective social cooperation depends on social integration and social unity. It can be seen that the continuous improvement of the level differentiation makes the just rules of reciprocity and mutuality between social strata more and more important. However, excessive vertical differentiation will definitely have a negative impact on the guarantee of equal conditions among social strata and the just rules of reciprocity and mutuality. Unfair inequality, such as the excessive gap between the rich and the poor, will not only seriously suppress the development of the potential of the main social strata but also lead to various barriers, resistances, and even conflicts among various social strata, thus reducing social integration in various aspects. “A highly unequal society is harming itself by not making the best use of the talents and capacities of its citizens. Moreover, inequalities can threaten social cohesion and can have other socially undesirable consequences (such as provoking high rates of crime)” (Giddens 2007). In view of this, it is necessary to impose necessary and strong restrictions on vertical differentiation through social adjustment.

3.4 The Disappearance of the Integrity of Individual Members of Society in Different Degrees Within the Stratum

When analyzing social justice among social strata, especially when analyzing the social strata’s justice in the period of social transformation, we should pay special attention to its precondition—that is, the meaning of the individual as a member of the stratum, or in other words, whether the integrity of the individual is reflected. The integrity of an individual has an important influence on social justice for social classes and among social classes. However, this problem is often easily overlooked by people.

There is no doubt that there is an inseparable relationship between the specific situation of individuals who are members of the class and the entire class. For society as a whole, the individual has a prerequisite significance. “Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not on the ‘pure’ individual in the sense of the ideologists” (Marx and Engels 1960). At the same time, individuals cannot live without society. Because of this, whether a class member can have complete individual meaning will have a far-reaching impact on this class and then on the specific situation of social justice between classes.

The basic characteristics of the individual are the attainment of “self-consciousness” and the possession of basic rights. Individual self-consciousness is mainly manifested in independent self-choice consciousness and self-responsibility ability. The basic rights of the individual are manifested in equal citizenship and other aspects. The “homogeneity” of a class refers to the similarity of a certain class of individuals in terms of occupation, wealth, prestige, power, etc. The “homogeneity” of a class does not exclude individual differences, free choices, autonomy, etc., and members of each class have the same basic rights as members of any other class. This situation is an important sign that modern society is different from traditional society. However, in a society with more traditional components, a society in the process of modernization, or an abnormal modern society, it is easy for the stronger social groups to suppress the “self-awareness” and basic rights of individuals in various ways, carry out a universal and wide-ranging infringement, and compulsorily “integrate” most classes and even most members of this class according to the low-level principle of “homogeneity” (wherein the boundaries of the individuals are unclear). Once this happens, the complete meaning of the individual person will cease to exist.

It is impossible to achieve real social justice within the same class and between different classes that are composed of members who do not exist as an individual. First, it lacks the basic premise of social justice. Ignoring the meaning of the individual person is not in line with human nature, so it can only be a kind of superficial justice, or pseudo-justice. It has become an indisputable problem that society should be people-oriented. However, this statement is somewhat general—to be exact, society should be based on countless individuals. Only when the basic rules of social justice are implemented by individuals can they have real significance. The justice of social class structure is of great significance because it can enable every individual to receive fair treatment. On the contrary, if a society is geared toward social class, takes social class as the ultimate goal of social justice, and only treats individual justice as an incidental, secondary, and subsidiary thing, then such social justice can only be “abstract” and superficial, which goes against its original intention and thus cannot have practical significance. The situation in the 30 years before China’s reform and opening-up is very telling of this. In that era of “taking class struggle as the key link,” due to the neglect of the people as individuals, the disregard of their rights to equal citizenship (basic rights of a natural person), and the emphasis on the strong personal attachment of each member to their class, each member of society belonged to a different class. However, in the era when people placed an excessive emphasis on class struggle, there was no equality between classes. Therefore, it was impossible to distribute universal, equal, and fair treatment to all members of society and every individual in Chinese society at that time. In the first 30 years after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China had not been able to formulate a complete Civil Code (civil law system) that is closely related to every member of society, which is proof of its ignorance of the individual. In this case, as citizens, many basic rights and interests of the members of society could not be effectively protected by law, not to mention their fair treatment as well. Secondly, it misinterprets the social justice rules between different classes. Neglecting people as individuals means the restriction of diversity, autonomy, and equality. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to allow normal mobility between social classes. Even if there is “social mobility,” it is a “scale shift” of members of society that is forcibly arranged and implemented by the office. Neglecting people as individuals also leads to rigid interaction between social classes—that is, in order to achieve some distorted justice (such as egalitarianism), the interaction of class structure can easily evolve into a simple situation in which one class is used to squeeze another class, or one class in a relatively strong state is used to destroy another class in a weak state. Here, it is easy for the majority to dominate everything and sacrifice the reasonable interests of the minority at the expense of the interests of the majority. “Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” Then, “anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger” (Accessed Sept 1 2022). In this respect, the Jacobin dictatorship during the French Revolution and China’s “Cultural Revolution” are typical examples of this.