The theories of stratification are concerned with the inherent inequality on which social order is based. Keeping an eye on various dimensions of social stratification a number of explanations have been formulated by sociologists which led to the development of different theories. The theories of stratification are concerned with the inherent inequality on which social order is based. Keeping an eye on various dimensions of social stratification a number of explanations have been formulated by sociologists which led to the development of different theories.

Earlier Approaches

The problem of social inequality has plagued the minds of scholars since times immemorial.

In fact one can trace the study of inequality to the Greek Philosopher Plato conceptualized a society divided into classes, in which a person’s position was determined by his natural abilities, such as talent, intelligence and physical strength.

• Aristotle assumed that men were by nature unequal and there was a natural rank-order amongst them. However, Plato and Aristotle were referring not to social inequalities but to natural inequalities. As students of sociology we have to distinguish between inequalities of the natural category, like beauty, talent, strength, etc., and those of the social position.
• The first step in the direction of a sociological approach is witnessed when we shift our attention, from the inequalities inherent in the nature of human beings to those inherent in their conditions of existence, that is, to systematic differences between groups of people.
• The first sociological explanation of the origin of inequality was given by J.J. Rousseau when he argued that inequality came about with the notion of the emergence of ‘individual property ownership’. This explanation of the origin of inequality in terms of private property remained unchallenged from Rousseau to Karl Marx. Marx by explaining the origin of class in terms of ownership of property and lack of it has added a new dimension to the sociology of social stratification. Marx also mentions a second factor in addition to the property, namely the division of labour, as the basis of social stratification.
• Emile Durkheim, (1933) among others, has discussed at great length about ‘division of labour’, a subject on which he wrote his doctoral thesis. However, Durkheim considers division of labour as a positive dimension contributing to the solidarity of society in modern times. For Marx, division of labour is the basis of class formation and class conflict dividing the society into two broad classes of ‘bourgeoisie’ and proletariat’.
• But in the opinion of Durkheim, the increased rivalry and competition are reduced and controlled by the adaptation of specialized tasks, which make men more dependent on each other. In other words, division of labour emerges because it brings order where endless competition may otherwise destroy social life. Division of labour is thus functional for society.

Functional Approach

The functional theory of social stratification, which has been put forward by Parsons, and Davis and Moore, has in fact its roots in Durkheim’s functionalist stance in his studies of religion and division of labour. What these scholars have shown is that social stratification inevitably occurs in all societies because it serves “vital functions” for their survival and coherent functioning.

Talcott Parsons (1940)

The first contribution to the debate on stratification was made by Talcott Parsons (1940) in America. He observes that order, stability and co-operation in society emanate from value consensus, i.e., general agreement by members of a society concerning what is good and worthwhile. According to Parsons, the stratification system is a generalized aspect of the structure of society, and hence is guided by its value-system. Parsons shows that every society has certain specific norms and fundamental values, to which the members of that society have to conform. Men tend to evaluate themselves and others according to whether they conform to the norms or not. Given this process of evaluation, it serves to differentiate individual members and groups in a rank-order. In other words, those who perform well in terms of society’s value system are ranked higher with corresponding rewards and prestige. Others who do not come up to their level are ranked lower with less rewards and honour. Thus the manner in which their members are ranked varies along with rewards and prestige. According to Parsons, American society places a high premium on an individual’s achievement, efficiency and productivity , others may assign greater value to ascriptive criteria like age, sex, ethnicity, caste, etc. The traditional Hindu society granted considerable significance, to caste-based ascription in determining social ranking.

Parsons see social stratification as both inevitable and functional for society. It is inevitable because society requires different intent and ability for performing different tasks. It is functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society by ensuring them that they have been allocated different tasks as per their intent and ability. All this is essential for coordination, integration and efficient functioning of a complex modern society.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore

The immediate effect of Parsons view was to acquaint American sociologists, with the idea of a functional theory of social stratification. The argument was picked up by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore[1]. Davis and Moore have further elaborated this view, and also initiated an intense debate on social stratification in American sociology in particular. They are, of the view that no society is without ‘classes’ or ‘unstratified’. Social stratification is nothing but a system of performing different tasks with unequal rewards. Since, these different tasks are inevitably found in all societies, social stratification is indispensable for any complex society.

In every society there are different social positions. For its proper functioning a society must see to it that these positions are filled in such a way that it maximizes its efficiency and cohesiveness. But not all positions are equally functional nor the tasks attached to these positions involve equal intent and ability. In other words, these tasks required differential administrative, entrepreneurial, military or academic skills, which are considered vitally functional to the society. In a society where tasks are specialized some of these tasks require rare talent or are found abundantly in some individuals than others. While unskilled tasks can be performed by a large number of people, only the trained people can perform the specialized tasks. Therefore distribution of tasks become a part of the social order and thus gives rise to stratification.

A major function of any stratification system is to match the scarce and capable members with the positions corresponding to their skills. Rewards motivate people to undergo necessary training for these positions. Long periods of training for skilled tasks involve time, energy and money, which would not be required for unskilled task. Therefore, the rewards attached to these positions are a sort of incentive to the people to undertake the training. Secondly, they are also given with a view to compensate them for the ‘sacrifice’ made for receiving training.

Thus Davis and Moore tell us that stratification is a device by which societies see that the most important positions are filled by the most qualified persons. The question that now arises is: How do we know the positions, which are functionally more important? Davis and Moore suggest that the functional importance of a position can be measured in two ways:

1. By the degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being no other position which can perform the same function satisfactorily. In other words, those positions, which call for specific training, are those, which are functionally unique. Thus, in a hospital, the doctor’s position is more important and irreplaceable because he/she can carry out the nurse’s duties, even if it is done less efficiently but the nurse carry out the doctor’s duties.
2. By the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question. Thus it may be argued that managers are more important than ordinary office staff since the latter are dependent on the direction from the manager, in carrying out task of organising the work in a factory or office.

Davis and Moore, however, maintain that functional importance by itself is not a sufficient reason for high rank being accorded to a position. If a position is important for a society, but it can be easily filled, then the reward need not be very high. If on the other hand, an important position is hard to be filled on account of the skill and training required for such a position, then the reward must be high enough for the position.

In Brief

• Society is made up of different positions, some are functionally more important than the others.
• High rewards are attached to the positions of great importance to society, provided the talents needed for such positions are scarce.
• Important positions require skill and training. Those who undertake the training make certain sacrifices, and therefore, have to be compensated by way of more reward and prestige.
• Society ensures that these functions are properly performed by rewarding their incumbents.
• Davis and Moore’s theory implies that since important positions require skill and talent, they are filled on the basis of competition and merit.

Melvin Tumin’s criticisms

Like all social theories, the functionalist theory of Davis and Moore has also been criticized by several scholars. Melvin Tumin[2] has challenged the theory on many grounds. He begins by questioning whether social stratification of a system of unequal rewards is inevitable for proper functioning of a society. Tumin shows that Davis and Moore theory suffers from some false assumptions.

• He takes up the assumption of ‘functional importance of positions’ and observes that there is no way of judging their importance. For example, in a factory both engineers and unskilled labourers are important and equally indispensable.Differential judgment regarding the importance of the social positions, which are equally essential for the system, involves a value-preference. In other words, to consider lawyers, doctors as more important than munshis and nurses is simply a matter of opinion.
• Tumin also objects over the assumption that there is a scarcity of trained and talented personnel. Davis and Moore assume that only a limited number of individuals have the talent to acquire the skills necessary for the functionally most important positions. No society, according to Tumin, has yet devised an effective method of measuring talent and ability. For example, where education depends on the wealth and social background of patents, the children of poor parents have no chance of exhibiting their talents. Rewards can be considered functional, only if society provides equal opportunities for training and recruitment to all its members. Tumin questions the view that training for important positions requires sacrifices on the part of the trainees and therefore they have to be compensated by way of more rewards.
• Tumin observes that the trainees do not make any sacrifice except suspending earning during the training period and bearing the cost of training. Generally, the cost of training is borne by the parents who are financially well off and privileged in their society. If at all the trainees make any sacrifice, it is made by psychic gratification associated with the high prestige of the functionally important positions. For example, much higher prestige is enjoyed by students of engineering or medicine than manual workers.
• Davis-Moore approach is based on the premise that one cannot get people to undertake equally difficult or skilled tasks without distributing rewards unequally. The unequal compensation serves as the motivating force. But there are alternative motivational schemes, Tumin tells us, for recruiting persons for different positions. Tumin is of the view that if workers have greater identification with what they produce they have greater responsibility towards the tasks assigned to them, and this could be possible without institutionalizing the system of differential rewards.
• Lastly, Tumin questions the premise that social stratification brings about integration of society. An obvious fact about any system of social stratification is that it distributes highest rewards and privileges among those who occupy top positions. For the majority of those who do not rank high, rewards are barely enough to meet the basic requirements. As such social stratification actually hinders the process of integration in the society by generating hostility, distrust and suspicion between the privileged and the under privileged. Thus, the dysfunctional or negative aspect of social stratification is found in all societies.

Davis Observations

Tumin’s criticism has evoked an immediate reply from Davis in which he maintains his earlier position that social stratification serves a useful function, namely, it matches a right person with the relevant work.

• Davis observes that although it is difficult to ascertain the functional importance of positions, it is by no means impossible to do so. There is no doubt that in a factory both engineers and unskilled workers are important, but an engineer’s work can be considered more useful, since more money is spent on his training, and he can do the manual work but the unskilled workers cannot perform the technical tasks of an engineer.
• Secondly, Davis argues that although social stratification may at times hinder the discovery of talent, high rewards and prestige also motivate people to achieve these positions. Further, Davis maintains that trainees have to go through many hardships during their training, and if it were not for the rewards, then people would not feel encouraged to go through the expensive long duration trainings.
• Tumin’s suggestion regarding alternate motivational schemes for people occupying different positions is not acceptable to Davis-Moore because modern society cannot function, if people were left free to do what they want as this creates imbalances and gaps in its functioning. A society, therefore, requires a structure of rewards in order to get people to do what they would otherwise not do.
• Lastly, Davis points out that social stratification may be dysfunctional in some ways, but the very fact that it is universally found shows that it is functional and inevitable social reality.

Critique

• The Davis Moore approach is applicable to modern industrial societies but when applied to these societies, this approach contains certain false assumptions about human nature, and the structure of values. The motives behind human behaviour depend on the type of culture in which people are brought up. Cultures differ largely in terms of variation in value, apart from material advantages and prestige. People strive for education or authority depending on the dominant value system of the society.
• The Davis-Moore theory neglects the role of ‘authority’ at the expense of material benefits and prestige, which is more important element of social stratification. One of the functional necessities of social life is social organisation. But there can be no human organisation without super ordination and subordination. All societies have authority structures placing their members for ensuring proper functioning in super ordinate and subordinate positions rather than unequal material goods or prestige. Again complex social interaction is required for maintaining cohesion, and harmony. Systems will continue to be organised on hierarchical basis because the systems of authority and command are necessary for its survival.

W. Lloyd Warner and his associates (1949)

A considerable amount of research on social stratification by American sociologists has stemmed from the functional analysis. Perhaps the most extensive studies are included in the volumes brought out by W. Lloyd Warner and his associates (1949). Reporting on ‘Social Class’ (status) system of a number of American communities, Warner shows that class distinctions contribute to social stability. Various social strata are generally separated into relatively distinct segments that have a more or less balanced and integrated culture. Using the method of reputational analysis[3], that is, asking people in the community to rank others to find out who associate with whom as equals, Warner located six social classes ranging from upper-lower to lower-lower. Each stratum was found to possess a number of distinct class characteristics, such as intra-family behaviour, associational membership and attitudes on a variety of issues. Warmer shows that those in lower positions tend to respect those above them in the status hierarchy and emulate them in several respects.

However, while most sociologists agree with Warner concerning the prevalence of status-groupings described by him many would disagree with him concerning the degree of agreement or consensus regarding status-groupings and their placement. Warmer’s critics have also indicated at the tensions and conflicts that are inherent in any hierarchical order.

The Upper Class: The members are wealthy but they have been a member of this class because of their family background. The Lower Upper Class: They are wealthy but they are not from aristocratic background. They are newly rich. The Upper Middle Strata: They are well educated professionals with high income like the doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc. The Lower Middle Class: They are mainly the white collar workers, viz., the clerical staffs, secretaries bank teller etc. The Upper Lower Class : They are the blue collar workers viz., the factory workers etc. The Lower Lower Class: They are the poor and the outcast members of the community. Classes I and II belong to the upper class, III and IV to the middle class and V and VI to the low strata of the social structure. What is very significant here is that the middle class has emerged as social reality in the community life.

Theorists who approve the existing social order are generally labeled “equilibrium theorists”, “structural functionalists” or “integration theorists”. They emphasize the “order “within a society and how that “order” is maintained. Viewing society much as an organism and assuming that all organisms seek to perpetuate themselves, they assert that society seeks a balance, integration, a consensus, and a synthesis of its parts.

INDIAN EXPERIENCE-FUNCTIONAL VIEWPOINT

• The functional postulates have not only influenced the work of American sociologists but have also been used in the studies on caste stratification in India. Most of the early studies on caste stratification highlighting continuity and resilience of caste have found the functional approach quite helpful. Risley (1891), Hutton (1961) and Ghurye (1932) have analyzed caste mainly in terms of its functions for society as a whole. Their main emphasis is on cooperative relations between caste groups, inter-caste harmony and discipline.
• Hutton, mentions three types of functions of the caste system, namely, Functions for individual members: Community functions; and   Functions for the state, for society as a whole.
• Taking up the third function, Hutton tells us that it has helped to integrate Indian society together, lent stability to the Indian political system, and provided all the functions necessary for social life under the sanctions of a religious dogma. Similarly Ghurye refers to six features of caste system all of which have helped to bring about harmony in the society