Functionalist Perspective on Stratification

Part II: The Critique

Melvin Tumin

Introduction

- The second part of the section is a critical analysis of David and

Moore's principles of stratification. From your first engagement with
the text, you would have figured out that the authors are preparing
the ground for principles of stratification and its functions in society.
Davis and Moore also attempted to explain the systematic
relationship between divisions, aspirations and mobility in structures
of social stratification.

- Now as soon as Davis and Moore put out their theory, the work
invited a series of debates and critical analysis. One of these was a
conflict perspective that questioned functionalist analysis of
stratification. One of the key issues, as you would notice, was related
to how to stratification is necessary to maintain the desire for
excellence, productivity and efficiency in society, so that people
continue to work hard to achieve specific roles and

- The Davis-Moore thesis, though open for debate, was an early

attempt to explain why stratification exists. The thesis states that
social stratification is necessary to promote excellence, productivity,
and efficiency, thus giving people something to strive for. Davis and
Moore believed that the system serves society as a whole because it
allows everyone to benefit to a certain extent. This aspect eventually
invited immense criticism from conflict theorists.

- It was almost seven years later in 1953, Melvin Tumin wrote a critical
analysis of David and Moore's theories of stratification. Tumin's
primary concern is with understanding the unequal division of
resources and hierarchies in social organisation. You would notice

1
 that these concerns begin to appear in the first few paragraphs of the
text. Particularly the first two pages of the text are devoted to putting
together a point wise illustration of David and Moore's arguments. It is
after this that Tumin takes up a detailed analysis of his critical
perspectives towards the principles of stratification.

- Tumin's perspective is also emerging from the ways in which

American academic spheres had received David and Moore's
principles of stratification. Tumin, as you will notice through his
explanations page no. 388 onwards, goes on to explain inequalities in
the education system and the 'importance' given to some jobs over
others. Tumin points towards the lack of clarity in giving functional
importance to some jobs over others. The criteria on the grounds of
which one job is considered better over the other is a faulty scale. For
this, Tumin also uses an example of engineers and unskilled factory
workers as important (PG 388, second column, 1st para).

- The limitations over skills and training: Tumin's next critique is based
on the limitations imposed on the appropriate talent and training
deemed fit to let people occupy certain positions. These limitations,
Tumin notes, are resulted from the stratification system that makes it
challenging to discover talent eligible for skill training. On page 389,
Tumin covers the challenges of a dysfunctional stratification system
that poses obstacles for exploring and giving space to 'talents of
members'. Tumin asserts an important aspect in noting that the elites
tend to control positions of privilege and authority.

- Sacrifices involved in the conversion of talent to skills through

training: on page 389, last paragraph, Tumin begins his argument on
the critique of the concept of sacrifice. In answering the question
about sacrifices undergone by people undergoing training to
transform talent into skills, tumin notes that there is already a system
of privilege prevailing that let's parents pay the price of training of
their children. It is a debt on society rather than let's certain parents
pay for their children's better future. Furthermore, what cannot be

2
 ignored is that it is not only about an economic cost, but a psychic
and spiritual cost that makes certain children suffer more than their
peers in order to become a part of the labour force. This argument is
also built on understanding the question of privilege that allows some
children to focus on their self development while others have to join
the workforce to support family and sustain living. The faults, Tumin
notes, lie with the American system of rewards that David and
Moore's theories are largely based on. The system of rewards
ignored the possibility of anything other than material outcomes and
gains thought to be recovered through training.

- Tumin also notes that David and Moore's theories of stratification rely
on sustaining the idea that sticking to the normative order will be the
way to earn greater prestige as compared to being a deviant.
However, this division is complex and demands an estimation of
differences in reward and prestige on the basis of social strata.

- It is important to pay attention to the eight pointers mentioned on

page 393 as they put together a succinct background and of the
critique. And finally, a summary of the critique at the end to cover all
the major arguments made by Tumin.

Reply by Kingsley Davis

● In 1953, Davis published a reply to Tumin's critique where he takes

up a series of considerations made by Tumin. As you would notice in
the starting paragraphs of the response to the critique, Davis clears
that his and Moore's work is not mere justification of stratification or
inequality in society. Their attempt has been to theorise and not
generalise. They express that their theory has been misinterpreted by
Tumin. Davis I'd particularly convened with Tumin's usage of the
word 'stratification' in his critique. They take the same order of
arguments as taken by tumin while explaining their position.

3
● While Tumin started his critique by pointing out the problem with
giving functional importance to some jobs over others, Davis takes up
the point again. He points out that the functional importance of
positions is actually created by the scarcity of personnel in some jobs.
He returns to the same engineer and factory worker example that
tumin took (Page 395, First column). The investment in training for a
certain job will only take place is the job is considered important.
Davis notes that tumin actually agrees with their position on functional
differentiation of roles, but cannot deny it completely..

● Stratification limits discovery of talent: Davis notes that before posting

this theory, one must consider the extension of his and Moore's
arguments on inheritance of status and mobility. He notes that while
not everybody can receive the same kind of training to convert talent
into skill, the scope for vertical mobility must be taken into account

● Sacrifices: Davis says that not offering the rewards will instead cause
greater harm to those aspiring to move ahead. While Tumin's
argument about parents incurring the cost of training, the necessity of
this sacrifice is considered a reward and motivation for many who find
study hard. Davis justifies the aspect of parents paying for training as
the modern state is thought to be not completely equipped for
undertaking the full cost of training.

● Motivational Schemes and rewards: Davis again takes up the critique

of rewards as solely material, noting that rewards as motivation are
important and not all rewards are economic. These include self
satisfaction, expectations, and good opinion (page 396, last
paragraph). There are different types of rewards and esteem must be
understood as part of the fulfillment of duties expected from a
position.

● Lastly, Davis explains that their theory was not about doing away with
inequality and asking for a utopian future, but to suggest ways of
understanding institutionalised inequality that divides society.

4
5