THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Structural Functionalist Theories:

Functionalist theories assume that society has certain basic needs or functional prerequisites that must be
met if it is to survive. They assume that the parts of society form an integrated whole, whose stability and
order needs to be maintained. They are concerned with the role of social stratification in integration and
continuance of society. Social stratification is viewed as a dynamic system characterized by social mobility
and continual restructuring of the rules of consensus building. They recognize the role of competition and
conflict but also postulates existence of institutional mechanism like socialization, education,
empowerment by democratic participation, etc. through which aspirations of social mobility may be
realized. These theories postulate analogy between social order and organism - both have internal
mechanisms for self-regulation and self-correction.

Talcott Parsons:
“Every society is based upon consensus in terms of norms and values”
“Stratification is inevitable as value consensus is an integral part of all types of societies”
Parsons believes that order, stability and cooperation in society are based on its value consensus. He
argues that stratification systems derive from such common values. If values exist, then it follows that
individuals will be evaluated and placed in some form of rank order and those who perform in greater
conformity of norms will be ranked highly and rewarded.
Because different societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining high position will vary from
society to society. Example: bravery and generosity are valued among the Sioux Indians in North America,
while modern USA values individual achievement and efficiency.
Stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies, and is just and proper because it is an expression
of the shared values. He does not deny the presence of inequality & conflict, but states that conflict is kept
in check by the common value system which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards. Deemed as
legitimate.
The specialized division of labour in the complex industrial societies necessitates cooperation,
interdependence and reciprocity between social groups. For example: Each class needs and cooperates
with the other, since any large-scale task requires both organization and execution. Thus, some members
will specialize in organization and planning, while others will follow their directives. Parsons argues that
this inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and prestige.
This power inequality is also legitimate as those who occupy positions of authority use it to pursue
collective goals based on shared societal values.
Critique:
Applicable only to societies where opportunities are equal and stratification is open and achievement
based. It may not apply to a caste-based society like India. Also, it does not speak about what happens
when people reject the existing values (example: Naxals rejecting the value of state) or when society itself
changes (example: modernization of Indian tradition). Also ignores elite self-recruitment.
KINSLEY DAVIS AND WILBERT MOORE
They discussed the issues of functional necessity of stratification, determinants of positional rank, societal
functions and stratification, and variation in stratified system at length. They explained that unequal
distribution rights and perquisites making for social inequality provides the motivation to people to
perform duties associated with a given position and to achieve position that affords more prestige and
esteem.
They argue that all social systems share certain functional prerequisites which must be met if the system is
to survive and operate efficiently. One such prerequisite is effective role allocation and performance. This
means that:
1. All roles must be filled.
2. They must be filled by those best able to perform them.
3. The necessary training for them must be undertaken.
4. The roles must be performed conscientiously.
All societies need some mechanism for ensuring effective role and performance. This mechanism is social
stratification, which they saw as a system that attaches unequal rewards and privileges to the different
positions in society. People differ in terms of their innate ability and talent, and positions differ in terms of
their importance for survival and maintenance of society. A major function of stratification is to match the
most able people with the functionally most important positions. It does this by attaching high rewards to
those positions. The positions that carry the best reward and highest rank are those that are excessively
important for society, and require greatest training or talent. The desire for such rewards motivates people
to compete for them, and in theory the most talented will win through. Such positions usually require long
periods of training that involve certain sacrifices, such as loss of income. The promise of high rewards is
necessary to provide an incentive to encourage people to undergo this training and to compensate them
for the sacrifice involved. The high rewards also provide the necessary inducement and generate the
required motivation for a diligent and conscientious role performance.
The functional importance of any position can be measured in two ways:
1. The degree to which a position is functionally unique.
2. The degree to which other positions are dependent on it.
Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods, and the
amounts of prestige and esteem which they receive, is both positively functional and inevitable in any
society”.

Melvin Tumin Criticises the functional proposition of Davis and Moore

1. Functional importance - there is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of positions.
Many occupations which afford little prestige or economic reward can be seen as vital to the society.
Example: garbage collectors.
2. Power and rewards - Davis and Moore ignored the influence of power on the unequal distribution of
rewards. Differences in pay and prestige between occupational groups may be due to differences in
their power rather than their functional importance.
3. The pool of talent - Davis and Moore assumed that only a limited number of individuals have the talent
to acquire the skills necessary for the functionally most important positions. This is a questionable
assumption as:
I. An effective method of measuring talent and ability has yet to be devised.
II. The pool of talent in society maybe considerably larger than assumed. As a result, unequal rewards
may not be necessary to harness it.

4. Training - Tumin rejects the view that the training required for important positions should be regarded
as a sacrifice and therefore in need of compensation. He pointed to the rewards of being a student -
leisure, freedom and the opportunity for self-development. He also noted that any loss of earnings can
usually be made up during the first ten years of work and continuing high pay after that may not be
justified.
5. Motivation - he argues that social stratification does not serve the function of motivating talented
individuals, but rather it acts as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. The hurdles
which people from lower strata need to overcome in order to succeed can be daunting and can
discourage rather than motivate people. Davis and Moore also failed to consider the possibility that
those who occupy highly rewarded positions erect barriers to recruitment. Occupational groups often
use their power to restrict access to their positions, so creating a high demand for their services and
increasing the rewards they receive.
6. Inequality of opportunity - those born into the lower strata can never have the same opportunities for
realizing their talents as those born into the higher strata.
7. Social divisions her than an integrating force. He concludes by stating that functionalists have tended
to ignore or downplay many of the dysfunctions of stratification.

Davis and Moore’s Argument:

1. Tumin seeks to demolish the concept of institutionalized inequality but he offers no explanation of the
universality of stratified inequality.
2. Their interest lies in understanding why stratification exists in society, while Tumin argues that
stratification does not have to exist.
3. He underestimates the importance of the specialized division of labour that is essential for a complex
industrial society.

Critique to Structural-Functional Theory of Stratification:

Tumin proposed the following critique:
• “Social stratification systems function to limit the possibility of discovery of the full range of talent
available in a society. This results from the fact of unequal access to appropriate motivation.
• In foreshortening the range of available talent, social stratification systems function to set limits upon the
possibility of expanding the productive resources of the society
• Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure
acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalizes the status quo, whatever it may be as
“logical”, “natural”, and “morally right”.

 Dahrendorf observes that stratification originates from the closely related trinity of norms,
sanction, and power.
 Elite recruitment theories prove that elite gobble up all the rewards and perpetuate the elite rule.
 Back and Baudrillard also visualise that such functional strat. Is no longer valid as inequalities are
now individualised and no clear strata exists today.
 Gouldner says that stratification is not inevitable as Davis and Moore predicted and he criticises
them for providing a justi9fication for social inequalities.

THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE

The Marxist perspective differs from the functionalist perspective in focusing on divisive rather than
integrative aspect of social stratification. Marxist’s regard social stratification as a means through which
the group in the upper rungs exploits those in the lower rungs. Here the system of stratification is based on
the relationship of social groups to the forces of production.
1. Classes - A class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of
production. In all stratified societies, there are two major social groups: a ruling class (bourgeoisie) and a
subject class (proletariat). The power of the ruling class comes from its ownership and control of the
means of production.
2. Classes and historical epochs - Marx believed that western society had developed through four main
epochs. Primitive communism is the first epoch and the only example of a classless society, while the other
epochs all saw two major classes:
a. ancient society - master and slave
b. feudal society - lord and serf
c. capitalist society - capitalist and wage labourer

During these epochs, the labour power required for production was supplied by the subject class who were
in majority. Classes emerged when the productive capacity of a society expanded beyond the level
required for subsistence, when agriculture became the dominant mode of production. Increasingly, more
complex and specialized division of labour has occurred. Surplus wealth and private property form the
basis of class societies.
3. Dependency and conflict - while the classes are mutually dependent, it is not a relationship of equal
reciprocity. Instead, it is a relationship of exploiter and exploited. The ruling class gains at the expense of
the subject class and there is therefore a conflict of interest between them.
4. Power and the superstructure - political power comes from economic power. The superstructure of
society - the major institutions, values and belief systems - is seen to be shaped by the economic
infrastructure. The various parts of the superstructure are hence seen as instruments of ruling-class
domination and oppression of the subject class.
5. Class struggle - is the driving force of social change. The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie
and seize the means of production, the source of power. It would transform the capitalist society by
replacing private property with communally owned property.
Class consciousness - will occur when the false consciousness is replaced by a full awareness of the true
nature of exploitation and contradictions. This will transform the proletariat from a class in itself to a class
for itself.
7. Polarization of the classes - the gap between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will widen and hasten the
downfall of the capitalist economy. This will be caused by obliteration of the differences in labour
(homogenization of working class), the pauperization of the proletariat and sinking of the petty bourgeoisie
into the proletariat.
Marx had believed that the process of polarization had begun in the 19h century Britain and soon the
proletariat revolution and dawn of communist utopia would occur. Critique: Weber argued against
economic determinism and proposed the trinitarian model consisting of class, status and party. He also
states that there could be numerous divisions within the two classes, depending upon the market situation
of individuals.

Ralf Dahrendorf in’ Class and conflict in Industrial society’ views Marx’s ideas as relevant in the 19th
century Europe. However, he sees the 20th century as ‘post capitalist’ societies, where there occurs a
decomposition of both - capital (example: multiple shareholders) and labour (example: even managers do
not own capital, but neither are they working-class as they hold substantial authority). He also sees
increasing social mobility and a widening middle class. Gramsci argues that the ruling class could not
depend on false consciousness and instead will need to make real concessions to other groups in society in
order to win their support.

THE WEBERIAN PERSPECTIVE

Weber believed that social stratification results from struggle for scarce resources in society. Although he
saw this struggle as being primarily concerned with economic resources, it can also involve struggles
for prestige and for political power. It affects the ‘life chances’ and ‘lifestyles’ of their members.

He sees class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy, and by virtue of
that fact, receive similar economic rewards. Thus, a person’s class situation is basically their market
situation. He views the class groupings as follows:
1. The propertied upper class
2. The property less white-collar workers
3. The petty bourgeoisie
4. The manual working class

Factors other than ownership of property are significant in the formation of classes. The market value of
the skills of the property less group varies, and the resulting differences in economic return are sufficient to
produce different social classes.
Weber saw no evidence to support the idea of polarization of classes. He argues that the petty bourgeoisie
instead of sinking into the manual working class, will enter the white-collar working class. This white-collar
‘middle class’ expands rather than contracts as capitalism develops.
He saw no reason why those sharing a similar class situation should necessarily develop a common
identity, recognize shared interests and take collective action to further those interests. For example: he
suggests that individual manual workers may grumble, work to rule or sabotage industrial machinery
instead of organizing strikes or organizing others to overthrow capitalism.
He also sees groups form because their members share a similar status situation. Status refers to the
unequal distribution of ‘social honour’. Occupations, ethnic and religious groups, lifestyles are accorded
different degrees of esteem by members of a society. Unlike classes, members of a status group are aware
of their common status situation and social closure is practiced to exclude others from such status groups.
However, class and status situations may not always be closely linked. Example: nouveaux rich,
homosexuals.
The presence of different status groups within a single class, and of status groups which cut across class
divisions, can weaken class solidarity and reduce the potential for class consciousness. And further,
political parties are found cutting across both class and status groups.
Thus, Weber provides a more complex and diversified picture of social stratification.
Erik Olin Wright combines aspects of Marxian and Weberian theory. He states that there are three
dimensions of control over economic resources in modern capitalist production, and this helps to identify
different classes in the society:
1. Control over investment or money
2. Control over physical means of production like land
3. Control over labour power
Members of the capitalist class have control over each one of them, while working class have control over
none. Between these two classes lies the group of managers, white collared workers, who sell their skills
and expertise, and whose positions are ambiguous and Wright calls them ‘contradictory class locations’.
They are able to obtain more privileges through their relation to the owner of the means of production and
hence are closer to the interests of their bosses than to other workers.

Is social stratification universal?

Sociologists point out that simple societies of hunters and food gatherers usually do not have groups,
which are ranked one above the other. Differences of power, wealth, and prestige do not exist at the level
of groups. All clans are equally placed. No ranking exists between them. All members of these communities
have equal access to resources. As a result, there are no rich or poor people among them. Whatever
inequality exists between them is at the level of sex and age. Women (or men) may have more or less
prestige in different societies. Elders may be respected. The solutions they offer in of conflict may not be
binding on the individuals involved, yet they are respected and followed. From this we may conclude that
although social inequality may be found in all societies, social stratification may not be universal.