Stratification systems necessarily create social and spatial distance mechanisms

Evidence

In 1960, van den Berghe published an influential paper in sociology on “Distance Mechanisms of Stratification,” in which he argued that all systems of stratification devise mechanisms to differentiate subordinates from dominants and to maintain status boundaries between them. Instead of depicting segregation as an intermediate step in the expression of intergroup hostility, he saw it as one of two possible types of distance mechanisms that would necessarily be employed by dominant groups to serve their unequal relations with subordinates. To create an impermeable status barrier between themselves and subordinates, he argued that dominants rely primarily on either social distance mechanisms that dictate group-specific social roles (e.g., restricting the occupations subordinates can pursue) and an intergroup etiquette of dominance and deference, or spatial distance mechanisms (such as de jure or de facto segregation) that separate the two groups in their use of physical space. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 654

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces van den Berghe’s useful distinction between social and spatial distance mechanisms.
• XREF: Echoes the immodesty article’s theme of dress/etiquette as class-marker infrastructure; etiquette of dominance is the same mechanism in a different domain. — connects to: Spatial practices cannot be read apart from social context — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 1402