• Class society, which was a product of modernity, is an invention of the modern spirit. It is therefore not a natural condition of the human being, but a consequence of the division of labour. The very idea of class is a modern concept, free from a rigid hereditary transmission, but based on the function practiced within the social context. Before the advent of modernity, the son of a barber was destined to have the same fate as his father with no chance of improvement. The environment in which he grew up, his circle of friends and level of education then contributed to amplify the initial difference and make the gap unbridgeable. On the other hand, the son of a gentleman or a nobleman remained such in spite of all kinds of adversity, misfortune or economic ruin.
• Modern principles, thus have opened up this concern, making it possible to have a place on the social ladder on the basis of aptitude, individual abilities, the quality of spirit, the nature of the work carried out, whilst abolishing the privileges of birth that had hitherto contained the right to belong to the aristocracy within narrow confines. In this way, it is work, not birth that determines class.

Sociologists have created four main categories of social stratification systems: class systems, caste systems, slavery, and meritocracy. Class consistency refers to the variability of one’s social status among many dimensions (such as education and wealth) during one’s lifetime. More open stratification systems tend to encourage lower class consistency than closed stratification systems. Social stratification can work along multiple dimensions, such as those of race, caste, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and so on. 

• Caste and class nexus implies observation of two as mutually inherent areas. Tension and contradiction between caste and class are not only recognizable but also bring their differential consequences on different castes and classes. This nexus between caste and class also implies going beyond caste and going beyond class in understanding social reality.
• A group of sociologists give their view that Indian society can be best studied from a caste model. They justify their opinion by saying that caste is an over-reaching ideological system encompassing all aspects of social life of Hindus, in particular, and the other communities, in general. The problem, however, is the fact that caste system is very complicated and complex.
• At the Lime of marriage, with all the rigid rules and regulations, a caste gives prime importance to the class. So the assumption is that class is taking the place of caste is incorrect. Both caste and class are inseparable parts of Indian social formation.
• The sociologists who feel that recent changes are giving way to class than to caste have nothing but a misapprehension. This is because there are studies in which it is observed that castes are also equally important as class. If caste is getting weak in one aspect it also gets strengthened in other aspects simultaneously with certain additions.
• In conclusion, we can sum up that both caste and class are inseparable and closely interlinked. Class like distinction within caste and caste life-style within the class are a part and parcel of the members of the society. Both caste and class are real, empirical, interactional and hierarchical.
• One incorporates the other. Common class consciousness among the members of a caste is mainly due to their common economic deprivations.
• Caste-class nexus applies observation of caste and class as mutually inherent phenomena. The caste-class nexus as a framework goes beyond micro-transaction and alternatively filters down the macro conceptualizations to the ground reality. Caste-class nexus implies going ‘beyond caste’ and also going ‘beyond class’ for a fuller comprehension of social reality. It would define ‘nexus’ as “a set of ties in terms of connection which becomes the basis of structural and cultural changes.

Similar is the case with Race and Ethinicity.