6.2 Theories of Stratification & Social Mobility

Theoretical Perspectives on Stratification

Sociologists use different major theoretical frameworks to analyze and explain why social stratification exists and how it functions.

Structural Functionalism: The Davis-Moore Thesis

The most prominent functionalist explanation of stratification is the Davis-Moore thesis, formulated by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in 1945. They argued that some degree of social stratification is a universal necessity for the smooth operation of society.

According to the thesis, every society has complex tasks that must be accomplished and various positions that must be filled. Some of these positions are more critical to the survival of the society than others, and they require highly specialized skills, extensive training, or innate talent (for example, neurosurgeons, engineers, or top executives).

Because acquiring these skills requires time, effort, and sacrifice (like years of difficult schooling), society must offer unequal rewards to motivate the most qualified and capable individuals to fill these demanding roles. Therefore, the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and prestige is functional—it serves a purpose by ensuring that the most important roles are filled by the most competent people. This view essentially posits that stratification creates a meritocracy, a system where advancement is based entirely on individual ability and achievement.

Critiques of the Davis-Moore Thesis: Critics, such as Melvin Tumin, argue that the thesis is deeply flawed. Tumin pointed out that it is often difficult to objectively determine the functional importance of a job (e.g., is a highly paid professional athlete more functionally important than an underpaid garbage collector, whose work prevents disease?). Furthermore, stratification often restricts the discovery of talent by denying lower-class individuals equal access to education and opportunities, thereby undermining the idea of a true meritocracy.

Conflict Theory: Marx and Weber

Conflict theorists view stratification not as a functional necessity, but as a system created by the powerful to maintain their dominance and exploit the less powerful.

Karl Marx: Class Conflict Karl Marx argued that the core of stratification lies in the economic system, specifically one's relationship to the means of production. In industrial capitalist societies, Marx identified two primary, opposing classes:

1. The Bourgeoisie (Capitalists): Those who own the means of production (factories, land, corporations).
2. The Proletariat (Workers): Those who own nothing but their own labor power, which they must sell to the bourgeoisie to survive.

Marx believed the bourgeoisie extract surplus value (profit) by paying the proletariat less than the true value of their labor. This inherent exploitation creates deep class conflict. Marx predicted that the proletariat would eventually develop "class consciousness" (an awareness of their shared exploitation) and rise up to overthrow the capitalist system, leading to a classless society.

Max Weber: A Multidimensional Approach Max Weber agreed with Marx that stratification caused conflict, but he argued that Marx's view of class as solely an economic binary was too simplistic. Weber introduced a multidimensional view of stratification, identifying three distinct but interrelated components:

1. Class (Wealth): A person's economic position and market situation, similar to Marx's concept but broader.
2. Status (Prestige): The degree of social honor or prestige a person's lifestyle, education, or occupation commands. Someone can have high status but low wealth (like a highly respected but poorly paid poet or priest).
3. Power (Party): The ability to exert one's will over others, even in the face of resistance. Power is often exercised through political organizations or bureaucracies.

Weber's multidimensional approach allows sociologists to understand complex scenarios, such as how political leaders might have immense power without vast personal wealth, or how individuals of different economic classes might unite over shared status characteristics.

Social Mobility

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. In an open class system, mobility is theoretically possible for everyone, though in reality, significant barriers exist.

Sociologists study several specific types of social mobility:

• Intergenerational Mobility: This refers to changes in social status between different generations within the same family. For example, if a garbage collector's daughter becomes a neurosurgeon, she has experienced upward intergenerational mobility. If a CEO's son drops out of school and works a minimum-wage job, he has experienced downward intergenerational mobility.
• Intragenerational Mobility: This refers to changes in a person's social position during their own lifetime or career. For example, an individual starting in the mailroom and eventually becoming the vice president of the company has experienced upward intragenerational mobility.
• Structural Mobility: This is a crucial concept. Structural mobility occurs when societal changes enable a whole group of people to move up or down the social class ladder at the same time, irrespective of individual effort. For example, the post-World War II economic boom and the GI Bill led to massive upward structural mobility for millions of Americans, expanding the middle class. Conversely, the decline of manufacturing jobs due to globalization has caused downward structural mobility for many working-class families.
• Exchange Mobility: This theoretical concept suggests that society is made up of a fixed number of class positions. If a certain number of people move upward from the lower classes, an equal number of people must move downward from the upper classes to maintain the balance. In reality, structural changes often alter the overall shape of the class system.

Factors Influencing Social Mobility

Social mobility is influenced by a complex interplay of individual and structural factors. Individual factors include education, hard work, and specialized talents. However, structural factors often play a dominant role. These include:

• Economic conditions: Periods of economic expansion facilitate upward mobility, while recessions hinder it.
• Race and Gender: Systemic racism and sexism create significant barriers to upward mobility, resulting in persistent wage gaps and occupational segregation.
• Family background: Wealth, social networks (social capital), and cultural knowledge (cultural capital) passed down from parents give enormous advantages to children born into higher classes.