Functionalism And Social Inequality

Davis and More state that this is fair as everyone finds their place in a society which offers different levels of rewards, thus inequality is legitimate. They state that since there is value consensus on the relative merit of certain occupations and the salaries they command, inequality does not cause conflict, but is seen as legitimate by all and is an accepted part of society. Talcott Parsons agreed with this and stated that inequality is inevitable, legitimate and functional for everyone. The strength of this theory is that it allows inequality to be linked to talent which is unequally distributed.

Social inequality is a problematic phenomenon that occurs all around the world and affects both the developed and developing nations. It is defined as “the unequal distribution of social, political and economic resources within a social collective” (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 205). Inequality is closely connected with social stratification, a system of social hierarchy that positions individuals and groups into categories according to social variables such as class or ethnicity (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 485). This stratification has a significant impact on the opportunity that an individual may have to move up the hierarchy of inequality (Gill 2017a).

One sociological explanation for the unequal distribution of wealth and income in contemporary Britain is because it is necessary for the maintenance of society. This is argued by functionalists such as Davis and Moore who suggest that inequality in wealth and income is very significant due to the fact that some jobs are seen as more functionally important than others. As well as this, they believe that meritocratic

The Functionalist theory believes that society functions so that each individual plays a specific role. Their perspective of social inequality is the belief that "inequality is not only inevitable but also necessary for the smooth functioning of society."

One argument made by Structural Functionalists is that society should be a meritocracy. People should be rewarded based on their abilities. (Class notes, SOCI 201, Winter 2010)

When the resources in a society are distributed unevenly it leads to social inequality. Often inequality is understood as being socio-economic and it is now closely associated with social inequality. “Social inequalities are differences in income, resources, power and status within and between societies. Such inequalities are maintained by those in powerful positions via institutions and social processes.” (Warwick-Booth, 2013 p.2)

Continuing with the idea of people believing that it is unfair how the upper class has more advantages in life, this bring us to the “meritocratic model” which is the model that “recognizes inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages” says Arora (Arora 87). This is the system that is related with the United States (Arora 87) and the reason that most people believe that this model is fair is because people with low incomes or with fewer benefits are offered programs such as the Headstart program and subsidized healthcare. Doing this would help out the needy and put everyone at somewhat of an equal place in life. However thinking deeply into the idea of these programs, they are not entirely fair from everyone’s point of view. For example, some people are born with something that Arora refers to as the “natural lottery” which is described as “people who are born with certain talents and attributes- for instance, oratory, musical acumen, physical beauty and health, athleticism, good memory and

Higher social position doesn't make you superior to those of a lower social position. Those of a higher class are consumed by their money and power, convincing them that they are godlike, when they will in fact never be as happy or rewarded for their hard work. Hard work and motivation defines happiness, not shortcuts.

Social Inequality refers to any difference between groups or individuals in society which results in one having inferior life chances than the other. Functionalists believe these inequalities are the result of the meritocracy we live in. This is a system based on the idea that social stratification is necessary and desirable for the society. Functionalists argue that inequalities have a purpose; they are functional for society. Functionalism is a structural theory based on the notion that society is based on shared values. This consensus means that society will be in a state of equilibrium and there is harmony, as a result of which there will be social solidarity.

Functionalist argue that stratification is "necessary and beneficial" to a society to ensure the highest qualified individuals will fill the best societal positions. Inequality in the

Inequality has been a topic of discussion in the United States—as well as the vast majority of the world—for a significant period of time now. While there is no denying that inequality exists, I believe that it has become assumed to be the underlying problem in a lot of cases where it doesn’t necessarily apply. There are a number of problems in society that can’t be fixed because the solution is designed around the idea that inequality is the issue, and if people were to identify the true underlying problem in a lot of cases—social class—then we can create a solution to address the problem. A particular event

It forms a legitimate engagement with a system that promises “the American dream” but is in fact much more negative and exploitive in practise(Stiglitz,2011).Injustice is here shaped via an economic redistribution and exchanges equality with the promise of efficiency/individual freedom. The state becomes a negative instrument as it interferes while markets become justified because of its ability to reward individuals (Hayek,1976).These rewards are however not fairly distributed and are often defined only by what the market is valuing as skilful. Drawing from patriarchy, racist and class structures one could suppose that certain groups will be excluded from equality of opportunity as they are viewed as less “skilful” due to prejudices(Hayek,1976).Just because equality exists under the law, does not mean it exist in practise. This concept denies full equal recognition and misses the fact that human actions are in fact connected to socialization rather than human nature which is a crucial for more optimistic outcome(Fraser,1995). Hayek(1976) draws the problem toward individual capabilities to coordinate(or not coordinate) their actions as inequality is neither deliberate or an undeliberate process and therefore individuals cannot

For example, a person’s position in life determines his or her income. Approximately 50 percent of total income is earned by richest 20% people. In 2010 the wealthiest 20% of families owned 87.7% of America’s wealth. Another factor is debt and stocks. The poor have little to no marketable assets and have a sizeable amount of debt. The top 10% also own 88% of all stock. The bottom 40% own less than 1% of total stock holdings. These examples clearly explain the inequality within society and that the amount of power that you have all depends on your social status and income. Some advantages to social stratification is that if you are a part of a wealthy family or you worked your way up the social stratification ranks, then you are granted more opportunities, money, and are more likely to get the job. I do like this part in social stratification because I do believe that If you work hard enough to get a high paying job, then you should be rewarded for your persistence and determination to better a life for yourself. Therefore, I conclude that social stratification has its pros and cons by producing both discrimination and opportunity to society though I firmly believe each person should be compensated equally based on level of education and

This is therefore seen as a weakness of functionalism as society does have many inequalities which functionalism fails to acknowledge.

In our world, inequality among men is considered an aspect of social organization, not a divinely ordained attribute of the human condition. Few still believe in transcendental justifications of inequality. Goodness and talent too often go unrewarded and those who carry the burden of poverty too often also suffer the stigma of social discrimination. Inequalities have changed over time, and we can infer that particular inequalities are alterable.