The Functionalist Theory Of Social Stratification

“Some Principles of Stratification” by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore is a great instance of the structural functionalist theory. In the article, it views stratification through the lens of a functionalist and states that stratification doesn’t necessarily lead to conflict, rather we need it in order for society to function. Furthermore, it illustrates the functions of stratification,

The Davis-Moore thesis states that social stratification has good consequences for society. They argue societies may have different occupations or tasks that these jobs differ in their importance to society. They believed this encourages people to work harder and be more efficient in their jobs, ultimately benefiting society.

Althusser recognised that religion also plays a crucial role in communicating ruling class ideology to the masses. Relating back to Marx’s (1844) description of religion as ‘the opium of the people’. Acknowledging that the teachings of the church are imposed by the ruling class to allow for false consciousness as the church teaches the working-classes to comply with capitalism and provides measures to cope with hardship. Nonetheless, (Giddens, 1971. P: 7) claimed ‘the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’. However, ideology is necessary for social life. Regardless if a society has a class system the function of ideology allows for social cohesion (Rancière, 2011).

Social Stratification can be explained as members of a society being placed into a hierarchy where they are

The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology defines inequality as ‘the unequal distribution of opportunities, rewards, and power among and between individuals, households and groups’(1). It goes on to say that ‘the subfield of social stratification has as its main task the description and analysis of inequalities, or the makeup of the stratification system of any given society’.(1) From this one definition, we can already begin to see the strong links that lie between inequalities and social stratification. As we delve deeper into the topics, we can begin to see both the inevitability and the functionality of stratification

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.

“Unlike the structural functional theory, which views society as a peaceful unit, conflict theory interprets society as a struggle for power between groups engaging in conflict for limited resources. Karl Marx is the founder of conflict theory”. The social class most likely to implement or adopt the use of conflict theory are the capital class. As stated in class the social class has a minority called the “Bilderberg Group”; they hold incredible influence over government policies, Represent shared intra-class interests have large Economic power, political and social power, it is in theses hands that majority of the resources are held and controlled, while the majority are left remnants of whatever resource they are able to obtain. As said in class the, Max weber defined this social class as one composed of those who hold similar life chances, such as Income, Marketable abilities, Access to consumer goods and services,Ability to generate investment income, Power

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

Social Stratification is considered to be a hierarchy of positions concerning economic production which influences the social rewards to those in the positions (Social Stratification, Definition Social Stratification, n.d.). There are two commonly known theories when it comes to social stratification, the functional theory, and the conflict theory. The functionalist believes that stratification is needed for society to enhance stability and motivate members of the society to work hard. According to the functional theory, inequality ensures that the most functionally important jobs are filled by the individual who has the best skills for the job.

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

There are three main theories of sociology; functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. This paper will focus on two of those theories, functionalism and conflict theory. The objective is to delineate the assumptions of two out of the three theoretical perspectives and apply these assumptions to an analysis of social stratification. How this will be accomplished will be by comparing and contrasting their assumptions and by analyzing the two theories affect on social stratification. Then I will state my opinion on which of the two better fits my personal sociological views. Functionalism is many people's way to view the world sociologically. It states clearly that the

Even without being consciously aware of it, the use of some sort of scale when interacting with others is quintessential. This is because it represents a basic need of defining the self through the means of the others; knowing one’s place in society, as well as the positions of fellow individuals, ensures an orderly functioning of said system. For the sake of this essay, the definition of social stratification as a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power (Pearce, 2015), will be used.

Social stratification can be simply defined by stating that it is a system in which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy (Macionis, page 224). The concept of social stratification is based on four central principles, which are social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences, it carries over from one generation to the next, while it is universal, it is also variable, and social stratification involves not only inequality but beliefs as well (Macionis, pages 224-225). The first principle, that social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences, basically says that children born into wealthy families are more likely to be of good health, do well in school, succeed in a career, and live a long life (Macionis, pages 224-225). An example of this first principle can be seen in the what happened to the Titanic. The first-class passengers survived not because they were better swimmers than the second- and third-class passengers, but because of their privileged position (Macionis, page 224-225). The second principle states that the concept of social stratification is one that carries over from one generation to the next (Macionis, page 225). This concept is essentially stating that the social standing of a person is partially determined by their parents. Most people’s social standing remains constant throughout their lives (Macionis, page 225). While social stratification is

This paper will be discussing “Some Principles of Stratification” by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, “Classes in Capitalism and Pre- Capitalism” by Karl Marx, and “Who Rules America?” by G. William Domhoff. Davis and Moore examine stratification, social class, and positional rank and their effects on individuals and society. Marx examines inequality in society, the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed or the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and methods of production and their effects on society. Domhoff examines the roles of corporate communities and the upper class and how they impact America.

Social stratification defines any structure of inequality that persists in a society across generations. Social strata are groups of people — who belong to the same social class or have the same social level. Social strata are organised in a vertical hierarchy. In the early societies people shared a common social standing. In the hunting and gathering societies there was little stratification: men hunted for meat while women gathered edible plants. The general welfare of the society depended on the mutual sharing of goods between all members and no group emerged as better off than the others.