Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Social stratification, the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in societies, is a pervasive feature of human organization. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, in their 1945 article “Some Basic Postulates of Social Stratification,” proposed a functionalist perspective arguing that stratification is not merely an inevitable consequence of limited resources, but a ‘functional necessity’ for the efficient operation of any society. They further posited that it operates as an ‘unconscious device’ to allocate individuals to socially necessary positions. This answer will delve into these two core components of their thesis, examining their implications and limitations within the broader sociological discourse.
The Functional Necessity of Social Stratification
Davis and Moore argued that societies require a system of differential rewards – stratification – to motivate individuals to fill roles that are both socially important and demanding in terms of skill and training. They identified three key criteria for determining the rank of a position: importance (functional importance to society), skill (the training required), and scarcity (the relative availability of individuals with the necessary skills). Positions high in these criteria receive greater rewards (income, prestige, power) to incentivize individuals to pursue them.
For example, neurosurgeons require extensive training and possess a rare skill set crucial for societal well-being. Consequently, they receive significantly higher rewards than, say, a manual laborer. This differential reward system, according to Davis and Moore, ensures that the most talented individuals are directed towards the most critical roles, maximizing societal efficiency. Without such a system, they argued, vital positions would remain unfilled, leading to societal dysfunction.
Social Stratification as an Unconscious Device
The ‘unconscious device’ aspect of the Davis-Moore thesis suggests that stratification isn’t consciously created or maintained by any particular group, but rather emerges organically as a consequence of the inherent needs of society. It’s not a deliberate plot to exploit or oppress, but a natural outcome of the need to allocate talent. This implies that stratification is a self-regulating mechanism, adjusting to societal needs over time.
This perspective suggests that even seemingly unfair aspects of stratification – like inherited wealth – can be understood as mechanisms for ensuring continuity and investment in skills. Families with wealth can afford to invest in the education and training of their children, perpetuating the cycle of stratification. However, Davis and Moore acknowledged that this process isn’t perfect and can lead to inequalities. They didn’t advocate for a static, rigid stratification system, but rather one that is flexible and responsive to changing societal needs.
Critiques and Limitations
The Davis-Moore thesis has faced significant criticism. Marxist perspectives argue that stratification is not functional but rather a tool of the ruling class to maintain power and exploit the labor of others. Functionalism, they contend, legitimizes inequality by portraying it as necessary. Furthermore, critics point to instances where high rewards don’t necessarily correlate with societal importance or skill. For example, the high salaries of some corporate executives or professional athletes are often questioned in terms of their contribution to societal well-being.
Another critique centers on the assumption of meritocracy. The thesis assumes that rewards are based solely on merit, ignoring the role of factors like social background, inherited privilege, and discrimination. Studies have consistently shown that social mobility is limited, and opportunities are not equally distributed. The persistence of poverty and inequality despite the availability of opportunities challenges the notion that stratification is solely a functional necessity.
| Aspect of Davis-Moore Thesis | Supporting Argument | Criticism |
|---|---|---|
| Functional Necessity | Incentivizes individuals to fill important and demanding roles. | Ignores power dynamics and exploitation; rewards don't always reflect societal contribution. |
| Unconscious Device | Stratification emerges organically from societal needs. | Downplays the role of conscious choices and deliberate policies in maintaining inequality. |
Conclusion
The Davis-Moore thesis remains a significant contribution to sociological thought, offering a functionalist explanation for the persistence of social stratification. While their argument that stratification serves a functional purpose by allocating talent is insightful, it is crucial to acknowledge its limitations. The thesis fails to adequately address the role of power, exploitation, and systemic inequalities in shaping stratification systems. A comprehensive understanding of social stratification requires integrating functionalist perspectives with conflict theory and recognizing the complex interplay of social, economic, and political factors.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.