Theories of Social Stratification | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification

Functionalist theories of social stratification analyze social hierarchy within the context of broader theories that aim to explain how society operates as a whole. These theories presume that for society to continue functioning, it must meet certain fundamental needs or requirements. As a result, functionalists study social stratification to determine how well it fulfills these essential functions.

Functionalist theorists believe that various components of society are interconnected, and they explore how social stratification systems interact with other aspects of society. They argue that a certain level of order and stability is critical for the proper functioning of social systems. Therefore, functionalist theories of social stratification focus on examining how hierarchical structures contribute to maintaining societal order and stability.

Talcott Parsons- Stratification and Values

• Talcott Parsons, a functionalist, believed that society's stability and order are based on a shared agreement about what is good and valuable. He argued that stratification systems, or the ranking of individuals, are a result of these shared values. When individuals perform well according to society's values, they are ranked highly and are likely to receive various rewards, such as prestige and power.
• For example, in the Sioux Indian society, bravery and generosity were highly valued. Those who excelled in these qualities would be ranked highly and receive rewards, such as positions of power and prestige. In this way, excellence in terms of Sioux values was rewarded.
• Parsons noted that different societies have different value systems, which means that the ways of attaining a high position will vary between societies. In American society, for instance, individual achievement and efficiency are highly valued, leading to successful business executives being rewarded with high positions and wealth.
• Parsons' argument implies that stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies, as shared values will always lead to some form of ranking. Moreover, he believed that people generally accept stratification systems as fair and justified because they are an expression of shared values. For example, American business executives are seen as deserving their rewards because society values their skills and achievements.
• Parsons acknowledged that there might be conflict between the highly rewarded and those with fewer rewards, but he believed that this conflict was kept in check by the shared value system that justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.

Organisation and Planning

Functionalists view the relationship between social groups in society as cooperative and interdependent. In complex industrial societies, various groups specialize in specific activities, and since no single group can fulfill all its members' needs, it must exchange goods and services with other groups. This creates a relationship of reciprocity (mutual give and take) between different social groups, including those in a stratification system. For example, many occupational groups within the middle class in Western society are responsible for planning, organizing, and coordinating the activities of the working class. Each class relies on and cooperates with the other, as large-scale tasks require both organization and execution. In societies with a highly specialized division of labor, some individuals will focus on organization and planning, while others will follow their directives. According to Parsons, this inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and prestige.

• The organization in industrial societies requires centralization and differentiation of leadership and authority, resulting in those who coordinate the actions of others having a different status compared to those who carry out the specifications laid down by others. Hence, individuals with the power to organize and coordinate the activities of others will have a higher social status than those they direct.
• Parsons argued that inequalities of power and prestige are based on shared values, with power being seen as legitimate authority because it is accepted as just and proper by society as a whole. This acceptance is due to the fact that those in positions of authority use their power to pursue collective goals that derive from society's central values.
• For instance, the power of the American business executive is seen as legitimate authority because it is used to further productivity, a goal shared by all members of society. This use of power, therefore, serves the interests of society as a whole.
• In summary, Parsons viewed social stratification as both inevitable and functional for society. It is inevitable because it derives from shared values that are a necessary part of all social systems, and functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society. Inequalities of power and prestige are essential for the coordination and integration of a specialized division of labor, and they benefit all members of society since they serve to further collective goals based on shared values.
• However, Parsons' perspective has faced strong criticism, with some sociologists arguing that stratification is a divisive force rather than an integrating one. Critics claim that stratification benefits some at the expense of others and challenge the notion that stratification systems ultimately derive from shared values. These criticisms will be explored in more detail in later sections.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore

The functionalist theory of stratification by sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, presented in their 1945 article "Some Principles of Stratification," has been widely recognized for its explanation of social stratification in human societies. This theory emphasizes the importance of effective role allocation and performance for the survival and efficiency of social systems.

• Effective Role Allocation and Performance: According to Davis and Moore, all social systems have certain functional prerequisites that must be met for their survival and efficiency. One of these prerequisites is effective role allocation and performance, which involves ensuring that all roles in a society are filled by those who are best suited to perform them, and that these roles are performed conscientiously.
• The Mechanism of Social Stratification: Davis and Moore argue that social stratification is the mechanism through which effective role allocation and performance are achieved. Stratification is a system that assigns unequal rewards and privileges to different positions in society to ensure that the most talented individuals are matched with the most functionally important positions.
• The Importance of High Rewards: In order to motivate individuals to compete for the most important positions and to undergo the necessary training, high rewards are attached to these positions. These rewards not only provide an incentive for people to pursue these roles, but also compensate them for the sacrifices they make during training. Furthermore, high rewards generate the motivation for individuals to perform their roles diligently and conscientiously, contributing to the well-being of society.

Determining Functional Importance

One challenge in applying the functional theory of stratification is determining the functional importance of different positions in society. Davis and Moore suggest two ways to measure this importance:

• Functional uniqueness: A position's importance can be assessed by the extent to which it is unique and cannot be performed satisfactorily by any other position. For example, doctors are considered more important than nurses because their skills are more specialized and cannot be replicated by nurses.
• Positional dependency: A position's importance can also be measured by the degree to which other positions depend on it. For example, managers are more important than routine office staff because the latter rely on direction and organization from management.

Melvin M. Tumin’s Critique of Davis and Moore

• Functional Importance : Tumin questioned the adequacy of Davis and Moore's measurement of the functional importance of positions. He argued that some low-paying and low-prestige occupations are vital to society, and that there is no objective way to measure the importance of positions.
• Power and Rewards: Tumin argued that Davis and Moore ignored the influence of power on the unequal distribution of rewards. He claimed that differences in pay and prestige between occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional importance.
• The Pool of Talent: Tumin challenged Davis and Moore's assumption that only a limited number of individuals have the talent to acquire the skills necessary for the most important positions. He pointed out that there is no effective method of measuring talent and ability, and that the pool of talent in society may be larger than they assumed.
• Training and Sacrifice: Tumin questioned the view that the training required for important positions should be regarded as a sacrifice and therefore in need of compensation. He highlighted the rewards of being a student and argued that any loss of earnings can usually be made up during the first ten years of work.
• Motivation and Recruitment: Tumin rejected Davis and Moore's view that the main function of unequal rewards is to motivate talented individuals and allocate them to the most important positions. He argued that social stratification can act as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent, and that occupational groups often restrict access to their positions to maintain high demand and rewards.
• Inequality of Opportunity: Tumin concluded that stratification systems can never adequately perform the functions assigned to it by Davis and Moore. He argued that those born into lower strata can never have the same opportunities for realizing their talents as those born into higher strata, and that stratification systems are inherently antagonistic to the development of full equality of opportunity.
• Social Divisions and Integration: Finally, Tumin questioned the view that social stratification functions to integrate the social system. He argued that differential rewards can encourage hostility, suspicion, and distrust among the various segments of a society, making stratification a divisive rather than an integrating force. In summary, Tumin criticized functionalists for ignoring or downplaying the many dysfunctions of stratification.

Marxist Theory of Social Stratification

Marxist theories of social stratification offer a critical alternative to functionalist perspectives, which view stratification as an integrative mechanism for fulfilling collective goals. In contrast, Marxists argue that stratification is a divisive structure wherein some individuals exploit others. This theory focuses on social classes and their relationships to the means of production, forming the basis for understanding social stratification in capitalist societies.

• Social Classes in Stratified Societies: In all stratified societies, there are two primary social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class derives its power from ownership and control of the means of production, while the subject class is exploited and oppressed by the ruling class. This relationship results in a fundamental conflict between the two classes, with institutions such as legal and political systems acting as instruments of ruling class domination.
• Classes and Historical Epochs: Marx identified four main historical epochs: primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society, and capitalist society. Primitive communism represents the only example of a classless society, while all other epochs are divided into two major classes. These classes are determined by their relationship to the means of production, with masters and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society, and capitalists and wage laborers in capitalist society.

• Dependency and Conflict Between Classes: From a Marxist perspective, the relationship between the major social classes is characterized by mutual dependence and conflict. In capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie and proletariat depend on each other, with wage laborers needing to sell their labor power to survive and capitalists relying on labor power for production. However, this dependency is marked by exploitation and oppression, as the ruling class gains at the expense of the subject class.
• Exploitation in the Capitalist Economy: Capitalism involves the investment of capital in the production of commodities for private gain. In a capitalist economy, the bourgeoisie privately owns capital and derives profits from the exploitation of the working class. Marx argued that only labor produces wealth, yet workers are paid wages far below the value of the commodities they produce. The difference between wages and commodity values, known as surplus value, is appropriated by capitalists as profit.
• Power and the Superstructure: In Marxist theory, political power stems from economic power, with the dominance of the ruling class in the relations of production being reflected in the superstructure of society. This includes the political and legal systems, which serve ruling-class interests and protect their ownership rights. Additionally, ruling-class ideology perpetuates false class consciousness, leading members of both classes to accept the status quo as normal and natural. This disguises the true nature of exploitation and oppression, maintaining social stability while leaving the fundamental conflicts of class societies unresolved.

Class and social change

Karl Marx's theory of class struggle and class consciousness has been a significant force in shaping the study of sociology of stratification. Marx believed that the class struggle was the driving force of social change and that history is marked by the conflict between the ruling class and the oppressed. This essay will discuss the role of class struggle and class consciousness in the transformation of society, focusing on the development of capitalism, the working class's experience of alienation, and the factors leading to the polarization of classes.

Class Struggle: The Driving Force of Social Change

• Marx argued that the development of superior forces of production by a new social group creates a new historical epoch. He believed that the rise of capitalism during the feudal era was due to the accumulation of capital by merchants and industrialists, who laid the foundations for industrial manufacture, factory production, and the system of wage labor. The superiority of the capitalist mode of production led to a rapid transformation of the structure of society, with the capitalist class becoming dominant and the feudal aristocracy gradually losing power.
• The class struggles of history have involved the replacement of one form of private property by another and one type of production technique by another. However, Marx believed that the class struggle that would transform capitalist society would involve the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a minority versus a majority. The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie, seize the means of production, and create a classless society.

Alienation of the Working Class in Capitalist Society
According to Marx, the working class in capitalist society suffers from alienation due to the exploitative nature of the capitalist system. Workers are alienated from the products of their labor, the process of production, their own human potential, and from their fellow workers. This alienation leads to a lack of class consciousness and solidarity among the working class, making it difficult for them to recognize their shared interests and unite against the bourgeoisie.

Class Consciousness and Class Solidarity
Marx believed that a social group only fully becomes a class when its members develop class consciousness and class solidarity. Class consciousness involves recognizing the true nature of exploitation and developing a common identity, while class solidarity refers to the unity and collective struggle of the working class against the ruling class.

Factors Leading to the Polarization of Classes

Marx identified several factors in the natural development of a capitalist economy that would lead to the polarization of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat:

• Increasing use of machinery: The use of machinery in production leads to a homogeneous working class, as it eliminates differences in labor and skill levels among workers.
• Pauperisation: As the accumulation of capital continues, the wealth gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat increases, resulting in the relative impoverishment of the working class.
• Concentration of capital: The competitive nature of capitalism leads to the survival and growth of only the largest and wealthiest companies, while smaller businesses and the petty bourgeoisie are pushed into the proletariat.

Weberian Theory of Social Stratification

The German sociologist Max Weber's theory of social stratification focuses on the struggle for scarce resources in society, such as economic resources, prestige, and political power. His theory distinguishes between class, status, and party as different aspects of social stratification. This article will discuss these aspects in detail, and provide a comparative analysis between Weber's theory and the Marxist perspective on social stratification.

1. Class and Market Situation
Weber defined a class as a group of individuals sharing a similar position in a market economy, resulting in similar economic rewards. Unlike Marx, who focused on the ownership of the means of production as the primary determinant of class, Weber considered other factors, such as the market value of skills and services offered by different occupations.
Weber identified the following class groupings in capitalist society:

• The propertied upper class
• The propertyless white-collar workers
• The petty bourgeoisie
• The manual working class

Weber disagreed with Marx on several key issues related to class:

• He argued that the market value of skills and services plays a significant role in forming classes.
• He saw no evidence of the polarisation of classes in the development of capitalism, suggesting instead an expansion of the white-collar middle class.
• He rejected the idea of the inevitable proletarian revolution, believing that a common class situation does not necessarily lead to collective action.

2. Status Situation and Social Closure

• Weber argued that groups form not only based on class but also on status, referring to the unequal distribution of social honor. Status groups are made up of individuals who are awarded a similar amount of social honor and share a similar lifestyle. These groups are generally aware of their shared status and often place restrictions on interactions with outsiders.
• Social closure involves the exclusion of some people from membership in a status group. Examples of social closure include the caste system in India and the apartheid system in South Africa.

3. Parties and the Acquisition of Social Power
Weber defined parties as groups specifically concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in the interests of their membership. Parties can represent the interests of classes, status groups, or a combination of both. They can divide and cut across both classes and status groups, leading to a complex relationship between political groups and social stratification.

Comparing Weber's Theory with the Marxist Perspective
Weber's theory provides a more complex and diversified picture of social stratification than the Marxist perspective, which primarily focuses on social class. Weber's analysis of classes, status groups, and parties suggests that the formation of social groups is influenced by multiple factors and must be examined in specific societal contexts. In conclusion, Weber's theory of social stratification offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex interplay of class, status, and power in society.

Conclusion

Functionalist, Marxist, and Weberian theories of social stratification offer distinct perspectives on the organization and dynamics of social hierarchy. Functionalist theories emphasize the integration and stability of society, attributing social stratification to shared values and the need for specialized roles. Marxist theories focus on the conflict and exploitation inherent in class-based societies, with social change driven by class struggle. Weberian theories provide a more nuanced approach, considering class, status, and party as interrelated aspects of social stratification. Each theory contributes valuable insights into the complex nature of social stratification and its impact on individuals and society as a whole.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of Theories of Social Stratification

What is the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification, and how does it differ from Marxist theories?

The Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification posits that social hierarchy and inequality are necessary for maintaining order and stability in society. It focuses on how social stratification systems interact with other aspects of society and contribute to societal order. Marxist theories, on the other hand, argue that social stratification is a divisive structure wherein some individuals exploit others, focusing on social classes and their relationships to the means of production.

What are the key components of Talcott Parsons' theory of social stratification?

Talcott Parsons' theory is based on the idea that society's stability and order are based on shared values, and that stratification systems are a result of these shared values. He believed that when individuals perform well according to society's values, they are ranked highly and likely to receive various rewards such as prestige and power.

How did Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore explain social stratification in their functionalist theory?

Davis and Moore argued that social stratification is the mechanism through which effective role allocation and performance are achieved. They believed that stratification assigns unequal rewards and privileges to different positions in society to ensure that the most talented individuals are matched with the most functionally important positions.

What are some critiques of the functionalist theory of social stratification, as presented by Melvin M. Tumin?

Tumin criticized the functionalist theory on several grounds, including questioning the measurement of functional importance, the influence of power on the unequal distribution of rewards, the assumption of a limited pool of talent, the view of training as a sacrifice, and the effectiveness of social stratification in motivating and recruiting talent. He also highlighted the inequality of opportunity and the divisive nature of social stratification.

How does Max Weber's theory of social stratification differ from Marxist theories?

Weber's theory of social stratification focuses on the struggle for scarce resources in society, such as economic resources, prestige, and political power. It distinguishes between class, status, and party as different aspects of social stratification. In contrast, Marxist theories focus on social classes and their relationships to the means of production as the basis for understanding social stratification in capitalist societies.