Social Stratification in the United States - Functionalism

Social Stratification in the United States SOCI 1306 Functionalism The functionalist viewpoint in sociology offers a framework for comprehending how different societal elements collaborate to uphold stability and order. Functionalism holds that many facets of society exist because they fulfil necessary functions that support the general smooth operation of the social structure. A system that arranges people and groups in a hierarchy according to several criteria, including wealth, income, education, occupation, and social standing, is known as social stratification. According to functionalist thinkers, the purpose of social stratification is to guarantee that the most competent people occupy the positions that are most essential to the survival and effectiveness of society. Through their Davis-Moore thesis, sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore promoted this viewpoint in 1945. They maintained that incentives for social roles should increase in proportion to their functional relevance. According to their idea, social stratification is a reflection of how various kinds of work are valued differently within a community. Some activities are intrinsically more important than others, according to Davis and Moore, since they demand higher levels of expertise, education, and training and have a greater influence on how society functions. For example, occupations like medicine, law, and engineering are highly valued since they require sophisticated knowledge and abilities necessary for the advancement and well-being of society. According to the Davis-Moore theory, society must provide more rewards—such as better wealth, reputation, and power—in order to encourage people to get the training they need and to carry out these important duties. These rewards guarantee that people will put in the time and effort needed to acquire the requisite knowledge. For instance, because firefighting entails high dangers, specialised training, and the preservation of public safety, firefighters' jobs are seen more important than grocery store cashiers'. People might not be prepared to accept the risks and duties involved in such a post if they are not offered the incentive of greater compensation, better benefits, and enhanced respect. People wouldn't be as inclined to select high-risk or high-skill occupations over simpler, less demanding ones if salaries and benefits were the same for all positions. Additionally, Davis and Moore emphasised that a job's value and compensation are frequently based on the amount of expertise necessary for it. Fewer people are qualified to do jobs that need a higher level of ability and training. Because there aren't as many eligible candidates, the position is worth more, and the benefits that come with it are also more. For example, jobs like answering phones and cleaning corridors don't require a lot of training or specialised knowledge, so a wider range of people may apply for these roles. On the other hand, positions requiring a high degree of training and experience, like building a highway system or giving birth, make it harder for people to fill them with competence. Nonetheless, a number of academics have seriously criticised the Davis-Moore thesis. Sociologist Melvin Tumin was one of the main opponents, refuting the theory on a number of reasons in 1953. According to Tumin, the Davis-Moore theory falls short in explaining social inequality when it comes to factors other than skill level or functional significance. He made the point that social stratification frequently serves to maintain disparities in opportunities and positions that are not commensurate with an individual's talents since it does so on the basis of racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds. According to Tumin, societal stratification may impede equitable opportunity and social mobility. He made the case that people from underprivileged origins might not have the same access to resources and knowledge as those from more fortunate backgrounds, which would restrict their capacity to be considered for jobs of greater prestige. This restriction suggests that social stratification can prohibit society from fully using the skills and capacities of all of its members, undermining the meritocratic foundation of the Davis-Moore theory. Furthermore, Tumin questioned the notion that people are constantly motivated by benefits connected with high-status professions. He proposed that intrinsic incentives, such a sense of obligation and personal fulfilment, might also inspire people to seek and succeed in challenging careers. Furthermore, Tumin contended that social conflict and instability might result from the concentration of money and power in the hands of a small number of people, defying the functionalist theory that stratification promotes social cohesiveness and stability. The Davis-Moore theory is also criticised for ignoring the ways in which social stratification contributes to the continuation of structural injustices and inequities. For instance, institutional impediments like discrimination, selective hiring procedures, and unequal access to training and education might keep competent people from reaching positions that are a good fit for them. Because of these obstacles, social stratification can develop from ingrained societal inequities rather than necessarily reflecting individual talent or functional value. The theory has also drawn criticism for having an unduly deterministic perspective on social roles and incentives. Opponents contend that the functionalist approach ignores how complicated and dynamic contemporary societies are, how various labour kinds have varying values throughout time, and how a person's chances of success are influenced by a variety of circumstances. Technological developments and changes in the global economy, for instance, have the potential to modify the demand for particular professions and skill sets, casting doubt on the idea that some occupations are intrinsically more important than others. In conclusion, the Davis-Moore thesis has been heavily criticised for oversimplifying social dynamics and failing to address the structural inequalities that affect access to opportunities, even though it offers a functionalist explanation for social stratification and emphasises the role of rewards in motivating people to fill crucial societal roles. As a system of rewarding and rating people, social stratification plays a complicated function in society, striking a balance between the problems of guaranteeing equitable access and correcting systemic disparities and the necessity for qualified persons in crucial professions. The continuous discussions around this subject emphasise the necessity for a sophisticated comprehension of the ways in which social stratification affects people's lives as well as the operation of society.