Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification PDF

BSO-1/OSOU 15.3 FUNCTIONALIST THEORY OF SOCIAL STARTIFICATION Besides Karl Marx and Max Weber, social stratification has also been dealt with by functionalists such as Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, W.E. Moore, Tumin, Durkheim, R.K. Merton and many others. These scholars have considered the fu...

BSO-1/OSOU 15.3 FUNCTIONALIST THEORY OF SOCIAL STARTIFICATION Besides Karl Marx and Max Weber, social stratification has also been dealt with by functionalists such as Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, W.E. Moore, Tumin, Durkheim, R.K. Merton and many others. These scholars have considered the functional importance of the role in society and gave their own ideas on social stratification. Functionalists consider the system of stratification as a functional necessity of society. They argue that if a system has to survive, there must be a mechanism to ensure effective role allocation and role performance. The stratification system performs this function. Functionalist gives stress on prestige dimension and opined that society has been stratified on the basis of socially ascribed prestige attached to the occupational structure in social hierarchy. They opine that the effective functioning of society depends on the successful performance of roles or functions. There are many set of roles/ functions in society which require to be performed by most able persons. Views of some of the functional theorists are discussed below. 15.3.1 Talcott Parsons: His contribution is unique in developing the structural functional theory. Giving stress on the positive role of stratification, Parsons argue that social stratification is derived from common values of society. Those who conform to the values of society are ranked high and are rewarded properly. Different societies have different value systems; hence we find difference in stratification system from one society to another. Since social stratification is derived from the common values of society and it is essentially an expression of shared values; it is considered as just and legitimate. The degree of respect society attaches to certain individuals is coterminous with the degree of value and functional importance their corresponding positions carry. Positions carrying the highest respect/ power are usually rare and correspondingly there is always a high degree of competition among individuals to occupy those positions. People are ranked higher to lower on the basis of the value society attaches to their corresponding positions. The conflict between highly and lowly rewarded is checked by the common value which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards. Parsons claims that it is functional and inevitable aspect of society. Role of stratification is functional in managing social order smoothly. Parsons believes that the functionalist theory of stratification is universal because all societies have a system of evaluating the individual qualities and performance. Besides the functional significance parsons have also highlighted some other aspects of social stratification. To him status groups are ranked in the society in accordance with the possession, qualities and performances. 108  BSO-1/OSOU 15.3.2 Kingsley Davis and W. E. Moore: Davis and Moore consider social stratification as natural expression of the demands of society. They opine that effective role allocation and role performance is done by the system of stratification in every society. That some positions of society are functionally important which call for special skill and training. Some people are more intelligent than others. The systems of stratification match the functionally important position to the most intelligent person. They present two measures of the importance of a particular position. The first is measured by the degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being no other positions that can performs the same function satisfactorily. The second measure of importance is the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question. They further maintain that relative importance of functional positions and intelligent persons justifies the unequal distribution of rewards. Besides, the system provides motivation to the other members of society to work with all efficiency in anticipation of higher position and rewards. 15.3.4 Melvin M. Tumin: Tumin presents a critical reply to Davis and Moore’s view on social stratification. His view can be summarized in the following: 1. How to measure the functional importance of a position is a matter of opinion that may differ from person to person and from group to group. 2. He claims that power affects reward distribution rather than functional importance. 3. It is not true to believe that only a few people have intelligence to perform the functionally important roles. 4. The unequal distribution of rewards does not always motivate the talented person. 5. The system of stratification is not essentially integrative. It may be dysfunctional in case of hostility and division among the members of society over the distribution of rewards. The functionalist theory of stratification is open to many criticisms. First, its claim of universality is questioned. Secondly, Marxist accused the functionalist theory for giving validity to social inequality. 109  BSO-1/OSOU 15.4 MARXIST THEORIES OF SOCIAL STARTIFICATION Karl Marx’s ideas of stratification are based on social conflict. His theory is the product of industrial capitalism. Marx analyzed social stratification from economic angle. He emphasized the basic importance of the individual or the group in the economic structure. Marx holds that the system of stratification derives from the relationships of social groups to the forces of production. It has three main elements such as system of production, class structure and class struggle. He opines that class structure is the main basis of social stratification. He explains the system in terms of class relations. He defines class as a social group whose members share the same relationship to the forces of production. He opines, criteria other than this relation are not important. He rejects income, occupations and education etc. as the defining basis of a class. Marx opines that in all societies there exists two major classes i.e. a ruling class and a subject class. The power of the ruling class derives from its ownership and control of the forces of production. The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result, there is a basic contradiction between these two classes which can be resolved by the common ownership of the means of production. The various institutions of society serve the interests of the ruling class. Marx opined that western society has developed through four main epochs, primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society. All the above societies, except primitive communism, are divided into two major classes such as masters and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society and capitalist and wage workers in capitalist society. The masters, lords and capitalists have been exploiting the slaves, serfs and wage earners in their respective epochs. Marx opines that classes emerge due to the existence of the institution of private property and specialized division of labour. Marxist theory of stratification can be understood through the system of production. The main aim of production is profit. The relationships in the system of production create classes. Marx’s ideas about social stratification can be understood by the relationships developed under the system of production and classes. Social relationships and classes determine the individual ideas and action. He cannot escape influence of class. The struggle between the capitalist and wage earner class will give rise to an equalitarian system. The capitalist era differs from other with regard to the exploitation of labour. Alienation, pauperization and polarization became the defining feature of capitalist society which ultimately results in the establishment of classless society due to the violent struggle of proletariat class. But Marxist theory of social stratification has been subjected to several criticisms. He did not provide an actual account of the structural 110  BSO-1/OSOU differentiations in the modern society. His theory also ignores a number of socio- cultural factors that are very important in the analysis of stratification i.e. lineage, kinship and ethnicity. Marx stratified society into only two classes- the bourgeois and proletariat but many other classes are existed in the society. He placed too much emphasis on economic factors as determinant of class. 15.5 WEBER’S THEORY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber was considered as the main critique of Karl Marx. Weber is critical of economic determinism. Both studied the stratification in industrial capitalist societies. Like Marx, Weber also explains capitalism and class structure. His thought is greatly influenced by Marx. In the course of analyzing Marx’s theory of stratification, Weber points out its shortcomings and presents his own views as an alternative. But Weber differs from Marx in his approach to social stratification. While Marx gave a unilateral model of stratification by emphasizing the economic factors in the society, Weber also agreed with Marx on some points relating to economic criteria of social stratification. However, Weber argues that social realities are so complex that we can not reduce all the realities of society to economic interests. Weber opined that unequal distribution of power is the basis of social stratification. Power has three aspects i.e. economic, political and social. These three aspects are manifested in the form of class, status and party. He further opines that these three orders are interrelated. The economic aspect refers to the ways in which goods and services are distributed, whereas political order is concerned with the ways in which power is distributed among the individuals and groups. The social order includes the structure and process of distribution of social prestige. Social prestige is based on mode of livelihood, birth, education, occupation and these are related to social status. In Weber’s analysis, class is associated with the economic aspect; status with community and caste system; and power with politics. In order to fully understand the concept of power, it is required to understand its relationship with class and status. The concept of power is associated with both class and status. Weber opines that power is the capacity to influence others. Weber defines 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. A person’s class situation is basically his market situation. Those who share a similar class situation also share a similar life chances. Weber rejects dichotomous division of class as suggested by Marx. He identifies four important classes in capitalist society: 111  BSO-1/OSOU (1) The propertied upper class (2) The property less white collar workers (3) The petty bourgeoisie (4) The manual working class. Weber recognizes the importance of criteria other than the ownership or no ownership of property in the formation of classes. He also rejects the Marxian view of polarization of classes and the inevitability of proletarian revolution. He further opines that political power is not necessarily derived from economic power. The economic power is only one possible basis for political power. Other bases of power are status group and parties derived from social and political order. These play important role in the system of social stratification. 15.6 LET US SUM UP  The functionalist and the dialectical perspectives have influenced to a large extent the studies of social stratification, particularly caste and class, and these two approaches have also resulted in certain field-work traditions in India. For example, the synchronic analyses have been rooted into the functionalists’ perspective giving primacy to equilibrium or harmony of social structures at different levels of stratification. On the other hand social change, replacement/ alteration of social structure is the prime concern of the dialectical approach. Social stratification is viewed according to this perspective moving from closed to open or from harmonic to disharmonic system of social relations. 'Integration' is inevitably existent in 'conflict' and vice-versa. 'Harmony' or 'unity' sustains the system, and the process change rekindles the static arrangements of social relations. Social stratification is multidimensional and a 'composite' phenomenon. Structural changes attack established hierarchies and bring about both downward and upward mobility. Differentiated evaluation at the group, family, and individual levels occurs due to basic structural transformation of society.  Karl Marx’s ideas of stratification are based on social conflict. His theory is the product of industrial capitalism. Marx analyzed social stratification from economic angle. He emphasized the basic importance of the individual or the group in the economic structure.  Weber argues that social realities are so complex that we can not reduce all the realities of society to economic interests. Weber opined that unequal distribution of power is the basis of social stratification. Power has three aspects i.e. economic, political and social. These three aspects are manifested in the form of class, status and party. 112