Theories of Social Stratification

It is often argued that some forms of inequalities are present in every society.
Understanding the pattern of inequalities, has been the concern of intellectuals since
ancient times . Apart from the academic text, the socio religious writings often contain
views on these patterns. With the emergence of sociology as a distinct discipline, this
subject came within the purview of sociological investigations.

Ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, theorized about the patterns of inequalities.
According to Plato, Social inequalities exist in every society in terms of natural differences
i.e people are born unequal. Some people are naturally equipped for performing certain
functions in society. Plato envisioned 3 classes i.e guardians, auxiliaries & workers .

Similarly , According to Aristotle, the inequalities are natural, and there is a natural rank
order among them. These theories thus consider the pattern of inequalities as natural,
permanent & inevitable.

During Renaissance period, an alternative approach towards understanding the pattern

started. St. Thomas & St. Augustine for the first time attempted to understand the
hierarchical order in society in terms of power, property & prestige. With this, an
intellectual tradition favouring understanding of inequalities in social terms started. Apart
from the naturalist explanation of inequality, a new school of thought emerged, which
favoured the understanding of inequalities as socially created.

Later philosophers like Locke, Benthem, Rosseau & Hegel , were aware of emergence of
the social classes based on either inherent differences , or acquired differences or some
combination of both.

Rosseau talked of social inequalities as created by the system of private property. Marx
further added a dimension of division of labour in the understanding of social inequality.
According to him, social stratification or inequality emerged because of contradictions and
these inequalities generate conflict. He even conceptualised a society which is free from
such inequalities & termed it as communist society.

After the middle of the 19th century, sociological understanding of inequalities started.
Max Weber proposed a Trinitarian model highlighting 3 important dimensions i.e class ,
status & power and emphasized on understanding the multi-dimensionality of the
patterns.

In the 1st half of 20th century, a new set of theories favouring a structural functional
+approach towards understanding patterns of inequalities emerged in the writings of
famous American sociologist like Talcott Parsons, Davis & Moore and W.L Warner.

According to this approach, inequalities were seen as fulfilling some vital functions in the
proper organization of society.

During 1950-60’s attempts were made to combine Marxian & Weberian approach in the
writings & Eric, Ohlin & Wright. Wright further added new dimensions in understanding
stratification by talking of “contradictory class locations”.

By the end of 1980’s, post- modern understanding of social stratification, conceptualized a

society in which stratas are diffusing & inequalities are confined to individual or the group
level. These theorists proposed the end of theories of social stratification itself. This
approach is highlighted in the writings of Baudrillard & Back.

Theories of Social Stratification

Structural Functional Theory

Structural functional theory of social stratification are based on the assumption that it fulfils
some vital functions in the context of structure and is both inevitable & necessary.
Importance of stratification is emphasised on account of existence in all societies. Talcott
parsons formulated an initial theory of stratification, which is considered as very simple &
broad. More detailed theories of stratification is found in the writings of Davis & Moore and
W.L Warner.

1. Talcott Parsons Theory

According to Talcott Parsons, every society is based on consensus in terms of norms &
values. The conformity to these norms & values is considered desirable & is often rewarded.
People tend to evaluate themselves in terms of their ability to confirm to these norms. Thus
social stratification is a mechanism of ensuring people that they have been given a particular
position asper their intent and ability. e themselves also tend to follow social norms and
compare their performance vis-à-vis these norms. Those who perform in greater conformity
to these norms get bigger rewards and are ranked higher. Another argument of Parsons is
that society has certain functional pre-requisites which need to be fulfilled. Social
stratification helps in fulfillment of these functional prerequisites. According to Parsons,
stratification is inevitable as value-consensus is an integral part of all types of societies.
Parsons acknowledges that there is inequality in society, but this is deemed as legitimate as
per values and norms as a measure of differential achievement. Some wield more power
and this is considered legitimate as it is deemed to be in welfare of all. Critics argue that
which values are more important is not clear, but Parson argues that it vary from society to
society, for example – in a traditional society, religious values may be more important. In a
developing country like India, integration is the main focus as there is an emphasis on
preservation of traditional values and solidarity.

2. Davis & Moore Theory

This theory is formulated in the famous book titled ‘Some principles of social
stratification,1942’ in terms of no. of propositions explaining systematically the differential
distribution of rewards in society. According to them different distribution of rewards is a
reflection of a stratified society & helps in perpetuating it. The proposition includes:

 Society is made up of different positions, some of which are functionally important

than others. These positions develop a view of stratified society.
 High rewards are attached to the positions of great importance in order to attract
talented people needed for such position.
 Important positions require skill & training. Those who undertake this training make
certain sacrifices & therefore have to be compensated by the way of more rewards.
 Social stratification is a mechanism of distribution of rewards, in order to fill
functionally more important positions with talented people.

Thus, stratified positions which are witnessed in every society are important for the proper
organisation of society. Moreover there is no society which is based on un stratified social
position.
In reaction to this theory, Melvin Tumin raised certain objection.

 How to judge the relative importance of a position.(it involves a value preference )

 Rewards can be considered functional only if society provides equal opportunities to
all.
 There is no effective method for measuring talent of people.
 Trainees do not make any sacrifices except suspended earnings during training
period. (Generally the cost of training is taken care by the parents.)
 There can be alternative motivational schemes instead of differential rewards.
 Social stratification actually hinders the process of integration of society, by
generating hostility & distrust b/w privileged & under privileged.

Davis &Moore, further clarified their theory of social stratification in the light of objection
raised by Tumin. The further arguments given by Davis & Moore are –

 It is difficult to but not impossible to judge the functional importance of a position.

A particular position can be evaluated using two criteria:
1. By the degree to which, the position is functionally unique.
2. By the degree to which other positions are dependent upon, the one in
question.
 Rewards are necessary to motivate people to undergo training as it involves time,
energy& money, which is not required for an unskilled task. Moreover trainees have
to undergo a lot of hardships during training.

 Regarding alternative motivational schemes, Davis argues that modern society

cannot function if people were left to do whatever they wish. It will create imbalance
in society.

Social stratification may be dysfunctional in certain aspects but the fact that it is universally
present, shows that it must be fulfilling certain functions & is an inevitable social reality.
Although this theory has been acknowledged as a valid sociological theory of stratification ,
still it suffers from a no. of logical errors. They include :

 This theory is more suitable for understanding class stratification. Other forms of
social inequalities cannot be explained with this theory. Eg: Gender stratification, is
not based on functional importance of position ,rather the gender inequalities are
imposed by culture.
 This theory applies more on open stratification system. The rigidity of caste system
cannot be explained with the help of this theory.
 This theory is based on an unrealistic assumptions of equal opportunities, whereas in
reality a no. of factors like parental background ,infrastructure, culture e.t.c hinders
equality of opportunity.
 Davis & Moore theory cannot justify inherent exploitation generated by distribution
of rewards. According to Marx & later Marxists, the distribution of rewards are
controlled & managed by the dominant classes to satisfy their own interests. Thus,
stratification is not fulfilling the interest of society; rather it satisfies interest of few.
This view also has been supported by ‘Elite Self-Recruitment Theory’.
 This theory is little relevant in post- modern society as the strata based inequalities
seemed to be disappearing. Post-modernist claim that the existence of individualised
inequalities rather than strata based inequalities.

3. W.L Warner
W L Warner in his ‘The Social Life of a Modern Community, 1941’
emphasizes on ‘social status’ instead of economic class. He considers three
variables – education, occupation and income – as determinants of status.
Other criteria which determine status are – friendship, membership of
voluntary groups, leisure activities. He gives similar explanation as that of
Parsons in doling out an explanation for differential status. Warner in his
famous book “Yankee City,1949” while reporting social classes based on
status or lifestyle in few American communities, developed a different
justification for existence of social stratification. According to him, various
social stratas are generally separated into relatively distinct segments that
have more or less balanced & integrated culture. Thus, these stratas ensure
cultural stability in society by compartmentalising people on the basis of
different culture. This reduces the chance of intergroup conflict.