Theories of social stratification - Structural functionalist theory, Marxist theory, Weberian theory.

Structural Functionalist Theories:

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

Talcott Parsons:

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 successfully will be ranked highly and rewarded.

Because different societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining high positions will vary from society to society. For example, bravery and generosity are valued among the Sioux Indians in North America, while modern USA values individual achievement and efficiency.

Stratification is seen as an inevitable part of all human societies and is considered just and proper because it is an expression of shared values. Parsons does not deny the presence of conflict but states that conflict is kept in check by the common value system, which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.

The specialized division of labor in 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 seen as legitimate, as those who occupy positions of authority use it to pursue collective goals based on shared societal values.

Critique:

Parsons' theory is 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 address what happens when people reject existing values (e.g., Naxals rejecting the value of the state) or when society itself changes (e.g., modernization of Indian tradition). Additionally, it ignores elite self-recruitment.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore:

They argue that all social systems share certain functional prerequisites that must be met for the system 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.

The mechanism for this role allocation and performance is social stratification, which they see as a system that attaches unequal rewards and privileges to different positions in society. People differ in terms of their innate ability and talent, and positions differ in terms of their importance for the survival and maintenance of society. A major function of stratification is to match the most able people with the most functionally important positions. It does this by attaching high rewards to those positions. 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 the 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 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.

Thus, stratification is a social necessity to place and motivate individuals and contribute to the maintenance and well-being of the social system.

Melvin M. Tumin:

Tumin offers a critique of Davis and Moore:

1. Functional Importance: There is no objective way of measuring the functional importance of positions. Many occupations that afford little prestige or economic reward can be seen as vital to society. For 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 most functionally important positions. This is a questionable assumption as:a. An effective method of measuring talent and ability has yet to be devised.b. The pool of talent in society may be 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 points to the rewards of being a student - leisure, freedom, and the opportunity for self-development. He also notes 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 acts as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. The hurdles that 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, thus 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: Tumin sees social stratification as a divisive force rather than an integrating force. He concludes by stating that functionalists have tended to ignore or downplay many of the dysfunctions of stratification.

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

Marxist Theory:

Marxist theory regards stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure.

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 slaveb. Feudal society - lord and serfc. Capitalist society - capitalist and wage laborerDuring these epochs, the labor power required for production was supplied by the subject class, who were the majority. Classes emerged when the productive capacity of a society expanded beyond the level required for subsistence, and when agriculture became the dominant mode of production. Increasingly, a more complex and specialized division of labor has occurred. Surplus wealth and private property form the basis of class societies.
3. Dependency and Conflict: While 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: 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 capitalist society by replacing private property with communally owned property.
6. Class Consciousness: Class consciousness will occur when 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 the obliteration of the differences in labor (homogenization of the working class), the pauperization of the proletariat, and the sinking of the petty bourgeoisie into the proletariat.

Marx believed that the process of polarization had begun in 19th century Britain, and soon the proletariat revolution and the dawn of a 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, such as multiple shareholders in 19th century Europe. However, he sees the 20th century as a decomposition of both capital (e.g., multiple shareholders) and labor (e.g., 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.

Weberian Theory:

Weber believed that social stratification results from the 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

He sees class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy and, by virtue

He views the class groupings as follows:

1. The propertied upper class
2. The propertyless 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 propertyless 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-

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 forming because their members share a similar status situation. Status refers to the 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. For example, nouveaux riches, homosexuals.

The presence of different status groups within a single class, and of status groups that cut across class divisions, can weaken class solidarity and reduce the potential for class consciousness. Furthermore, 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 society:

1. Control over investment or money
2. Control over physical means of production like land
3. Control over labor power

Members of the capitalist class have control over each one of them, while the working class has control over none. Between these two classes lies the group of managers, white-collar workers, who sell their skills.