Theories of Stratification

There are at least three theoretical perspectives on social stratification. The first is the functionalist
perspective which seeks to explain social stratification in terms of its contribution to the
maintenance of social order and stability in society. The second is the Marxist perspective which
differs from the functionalist perspective in focusing on divisive rather than integrative aspect of
social stratification. Marxists regard social stratification as a means through which the group in the
upper rungs exploits those in the lower rungs. The third is the Weberian perspective according to
which social stratification is based on class situation which corresponds with market situation.

Functional Approach

For understanding--------- (The functionalist theory tries to explain the reasons why a society is able
to survive. The underlying belief of this theory is that all societies want stability and peace. The
people in society do not want chaos and confusion because this will disrupt their day-to-day
activities. Hence all societies what order and some form of discipline. These are the means of
achieving stability in society.

The functionalists view society as some form of organism consisting of different parts. These parts
are integrated to the whole and they work in co-operation with each other. The human body is a
complex organism that comprises different parts of the body. Each of these parts is separate but
they form an integrated whole. Similarly, in society there are different parts that perform different
roles. If we look at the total picture of society, all these parts perform roles which contribute to the
stability of the entire society.

In other words, they contribute to the integration of society. For example, we find that people have
different types of occupations and people perform different types of activities. There are doctors,
lawyers, teachers, students, workers, industrialists, farmers, weavers etc. Though all these activities
are different they are all needed for the functioning of the society. Therefore, they can be viewed as
separate parts which work together in order to Integrate the society. Hence, functionalist approach
maintains that every component of the social structure performs specific functions which are
necessary for maintaining stability in that society. These functions are necessary for the survival of
that society. Hence the system of stratification in a society is also necessary for its integration and its
stability.)

Theory

The functionalists accept the fact that all societies are stratified. In other words, all the functions
carried out by the various members of society are functional for its survival but they are not equal in
status Some of the functions are superior to the others. They are ranked higher. The people who
perform these functions are also regarded as superior to others. The functionalist theories of
stratification attempt to explain how social inequalities occur and why they are necessary for society.

The functionalists presume that there are certain basic needs of every society. These needs have to
be met or else there will be instability in society. These needs are known as functional prerequisites.
Secondly, though these functional prerequisites are important, they are ranked according to the
importance that is granted to them in that society. For example, workers and managers are needed
to run a factory. No factory can exist with only workers and no managers or only managers and no
workers. Hence managers and workers are integral for running a factory. At the same time, it will be
wrong to assume that because both groups are necessary, both have equal status. The managers
enjoy higher status than the workers do. Hence integration does not mean equality. It means that all
the different groups together contribute towards stability but they do so because they are stratified
in a hierarchy.

Talcott Parson

Parsons further states that social values and norms arise out of the need for every society to
maintain order and stability. Values and norms will differ in each society because the needs of each
society are different. But the common factor in the value system of each society in the need for
stability. Hence each society devises its own values.

Parsons stressed that values do not arise out of the mind of an individual. Values are shared beliefs.
This means that all members of a society agree that the given values are the best means though
which stability can be maintained in their society. In this way values are not only shared beliefs but
they emerge out of consensus of the members of that society. This consensus emerges because all
members of a society want order and stability in their daily life. Therefore, order stability and co-
operation are based on the values consensus.

Parsons argues that it follows from the existence of values that individuals will be evaluated and
therefore placed in some form of rank order. Therefore, the different strata in a society are based on
a hierarchy which in reality forms its stratification system. Parsons stated that "Stratification is the
ranking of units in a social system in accordance with the common values system." Hence it is the
value system which creates stratification in a society. Moreover, differences in the strata are justified
by the values system.

In any society, those performing according to the social values are better rewarded. The type of
rewards, according to Parsons, depends on what the values of that society define as superior. For
example, traditionally among the Raiputs high value was placed on bravery and valour. Hence any
person displaying these qualities was better rewarded and given a higher rank. Among other
communities’ higher value may be placed on business acumen and the ability to trade profitably.
Hence those who prove themselves in these fields will be ranked high. Similarly in all societal
systems the value system places higher rewards on some qualities and lesser rewards for other
qualities. In case a person violates the social values he or she is punished. Hence in a society which
places greater values on bravery a person who shows traces of cowardice will lose rank.

Modem industrial societies, according to Parsons, places higher value on individual achievement.
Moreover, the emphasis of such societies is on producing goods and services. Hence Parsons noted
that in these societies (especially the USA) the value system places "primary emphasis on productive
activity within the economy." Thus, those who excel in these will be better rewarded. In such
societies it is possible for a worker to become a successful industrialist if he has the necessary
qualities. After he proves his merit, his status will rise in the social system and he will not only be
wealthy but also well respected. In companies the executives who are dynamic and successful get
higher rewards in terms of salaries and other benefits. This in turn elevates their position in the
stratification system.

Conclusion: Parsons placed emphasis on the differences that existed among people. These
differences, he explained, was in consonance with the value system of that society and hence was
necessary for the stability of the that society. In fact, since the value system justified the inequalities,
they were accepted by all, including those who were in the lower ranks. For example, industrial
organizations have elaborate stratification systems. There are differences among the workers on the
basis of their skills and experiences. Those who are skilled and show leadership qualities are
rewarded through promotions, higher wages etc. Similarly, though both labour and management are
needed to run an industrial organisation, the position of the management is superior to that of
workers. These differences may cause conflicts but since they are backed by the value system, there
are few instances of intensive conflict over these issues. Even a militant trade union accepts the fact
that management is superior. This is because the value system allows for these differences. Hence,
Parsons argued, the people by and large accept these differences and major conflict is prevented. All
people, whether they be workers or in management, believe that this system is the best. If these
values are challenged this would lead to instability in that society.

Therefore, we can summarise Parsons main points thus:

• Value consensus is an essential part of all societies for maintain order, stability and
cooperation.

• Social stratification is inevitable in all societies as it is derived from mutually accepted values.

• The stratification system is seen as being just, right and proper for maintaining order and
stability. This enables different people to get different rewards.

• Conflicts may occur between those who are rewarded and those who are not rewarded, but
this does not threaten the existing system because it is kept in check by the value system.

• Inequalities of power are based on shared values. Power is legitimate authority in that it is
generally accepted as just and proper by members of society as a whole. It is accepted because
those in positions of authority use power to pursue collective goals which derive from values.

• Power and prestige differentials are essential for coordination and integration of a
specialized division of labour.

Criticism:

It is divisive rather than integrative

Arrangement where some gain at the expense of other

DAVIS - MOORE THEORY

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore have further developed the functionalist theory of stratification
based on role allocation and performance. Both are eminent American sociologists and they were
students of Talcott Parsons. They elaborated their view in an article titled, "Some Principles of
Stratification". This article became very popular and controversial. They views have been supported
by functionalists and have been severely criticised by others. Their views are also referred as the
functionalist theory of inequality.

Parsons stressed on the need for stratification in society. Davis and Moore elaborated on this and
tried to examine how stratification becomes effective in any society.

Firstly, all roles in society must be filled. All societies have different types of occupations. These
occupations are necessary for their existence. Hence it is necessary to ensure that these occupations
are filled. At the same time, mere filled up occupations in not enough. If the wrong people (i.e.,
people who do not have the requisite skills) are selected for the tasks there will be instability in
society. This is especially true if these positions are important. For example, if a power generation
company employs a well-known novelist who has no idea of power generation, the work of the
company will suffer and there will be instability not only in the company but in the supply of
electricity. Therefore, the second factor is that the most competent people must fill in the positions.
Thirdly, in order the best people are selected for the job it is necessary to train them for it. Training
therefore is an effective means of ensuring that the best people are selected. Lastly, the roles must
be performed conscientiously. This is very important for ensuring effective performance in the roles.
As person may be trained and is the best in the field, but if he does not do his work with dedication-
the system will suffer, Hence all these four factors are necessary in order to meet the functional
prerequisites of a society. Major function of stratification is to match the most able people with the
functionally most important positions.

Davis and Moore state that all societies need some mechanism for ensuring that the best people are
selected for the most important positions and they perform well. According to them the most
effective means for ensuring this is social stratification. This system is effective because it offers
unequal rewards and privileges to the different positions in society. If all people are given the same
rewards, then there will be no motivation for people to work harder. There may also be a tendency
for people to avoid taking up positions of responsibility or challenging jobs. They know that no
matter how well they perform and no matter what position they occupy they will get the same
rewards. Therefore, stratification is necessary for the efficient functioning of the system.

Importance of a position can be measured in two ways. First, the degree to which a position is
functionally unique, there being no other positions that can perform the same function satisfactorily.
The second measure of importance is the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one
in question.

The main contributions of a system of unequal rewards are two-fold. Firstly, it motivates people to
fill certain positions. When positions carry higher rewards people put in greater efforts become
qualified for positions. For example, if the position of a lecturer carries higher rewards than other
professions bright students will strive to fulfil the qualifications for becoming lecturers. In this way
society will get better teachers. Secondly, the rewards must be unequal even after fulfilling the
position so that the persons who are appointed are motivated to improve their performance further.
If lecturers are rewarded for their teaching and research activities through promotions and increased
salaries, they will perform their duties better as they would like the higher rewards. In this manner
the system of stratification, based on unequal rewards, is beneficial for societies.

Davis and Moore explain that this system of stratification holds true for both modem societies based
on competition and for traditional societies that are based on ascription. In modern societies people
occupy positions according to their skills and qualifications. Those who are better qualified get better
rewards and they occupy positions of prestige In traditional societies positions are ascribed through
birth.

In traditional caste oriented Indian society people occupied their positions not due to their
competence but through the status they had by birth. The son of a labourer would become a
labourer even if he had the intelligence to do other type of superior work. Similarly, the son of a
landlord would become a landlord even if he were totally incompetent for the job. In such a system
the provision of unequal rewards would have no effect in improving the efficiency of the system.
However, Davis and Moore argue that in such societies the stress is on performance of duties
attached to the positions Thus even though the son of a labourer will remain a labour, if he performs
his duties well, he will be rewarded though other means.

Tumin (1953) summarises the central argument advanced by Davis and Moore in sequential
propositions stated in the following words:
1) “Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others, and require special
skills for their performance.

2) Only a certain number of individuals in any society have the talents which can be trained into the
skills appropriate to these positions.

3) The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind
or another are made by those undergoing the training.

4) In order to induce the talented persons to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their
future positions must carry an inducement value in the form of differential, i.e., privileged and
disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards which the society has to offer.

5) These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and perquisites attached to, or built into, the
positions, and can be classified into those things which contribute to a) sustenance and comfort, b)
humour or diversion, c) self-respect and expansion.

6) This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has a consequence the differentiation
of the prestige and esteem which the various strata acquire.

7) 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 or
inevitable in any society”.