Discuss Is Socila Stratification Functional Essays

Discuss Is Socila Stratification Functional Essays Discuss Is Socila Stratification Functional Essay Discuss Is Socila Stratification Functional Essay Sociology gives us an in depth insight into social stratification and how it effects our lives. We as individuals are social beings who are ranked in categories within the hierarchy of society, but within our society we have the means to progress up the hierarchy and become part of the elite. Social inequalities are functional for the elite as they are the ones with the power and control over us as we are socially controlled. Social stratification affects the way we think about life. If were born in Ethiopia you would be illiterate and you would expect the same from your children. You would not be surprised when your children died young. Social stratification is a system in which groups of people are divided into layers according to their relative power, property, and prestige. It is a way of ranking large groups of people into a hierarchy according to their relative privileges. Every society stratifies its members. Some societies have greater inequality than others, but social stratification is universal and can vary due to gender, age and ability When we look at the social stratification system we must take into consideration the five key features: Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not just a reflection of individual differences. Social stratification persists over generations. Social stratification is universal but variable. Beliefs are central to social stratification. Social stratification engenders shared identities. We will also need to explore ‘Open and Closed’ stratification. In describing social stratification in particular societies sociologists (Tumin, 1985) often stress degrees of social closure and mobility that is allowed in the society ‘Closed’ systems allow little change in social position, while ‘Open’ systems permits some mobility. ‘Open stratification social class gives us some degree of social mobility Saunders (1990) believes that Britain is a true meritoracrcy because rewards naturally go to the most able. Saunders uses data from the National Child Development study to show that children who are bright and hard working will succeed regardless of social advantages they experience some misunderstanding. ‘Closed’ stratification refers to systems where social position is ascribed at birth and various social institutes reinforce the stratification system and there is little opportunity to change position ie: The Caste system (Giddens) is extremely elaborate and varies in its structure from area to area, so much so that it does not really constitute diversity of varying beliefs and practices. Through out our lives we will be confronted with certain types of social stratification in our everyday lives within certain cultures and societies therefore we need to explore the Functionalist approach and the Marxists Approach. Like the functionalists, Marxists agree that education is functional in that it maintains the dominance of certain powerful groups in society. Unlike the functionalists, however, Marxists do not believe that it works for the benefit of all. Instead Marxists argue that the education system sustains one small group’s ideas about appropriate forms of schooling and assumptions about what knowledge is. The system also maintains different levels of access to knowledge for different groups and thereby prohibits the widespread dissemination of knowledge to everyone. From a functionalist perspective, the main parts of society (its institutions such as education, religion and the family) are the foundations for social structure. These institutions have interconnected roles and interrelated norms to form a complete system. All of the institutions have a role to meet the functional prerequisites (society’s basic needs). Integration between the parts is necessary so therefore integration is a functional prerequisite in itself. Social relations are organized, in result of values providing general guidelines for behavior. These state that the function is a consequence, which adds to the stability of the system. A dysfunction is a consequence, which takes away stability from the system of social stratification. There are certain institutions, among them include the family, religion and economy, etc. , which aid the structure of society. These institutions, working in order, with harmony, will not only increase the stability of social stratification, but will add to it. The functionalist will then point out that these institutions, while independent of each other, have a shared system of values which guides them and helps hold the society together. To find out what function each institution performs in the whole social stratification system, one must ask themselves the question of what are the consequences of each institutions contribution to the social stratification of the society Functionalists view on social stratification of our society is centered on their basic interpretations. The role of education is to educate individuals within society and to prepare and qualify them for work in the economy as well as helping to integrate individuals into society and teach them the norms, values and morals of society. Yet there are two sociological theories that differ greatly between them on the role of education. These are Functionalism and Marxism. Like many functionalists, Talcott and Parsons believe that stratification systems derive from common values, it follows from the existence of values that individuals will be evaluated and therefore placed in some form of ranking order. In Parsons words â€Å"Stratification, in its valuational aspect, then is the ranking of units in a social system in accordance with the common value system†. In other words those who perform successfully in terms of society’s values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. Most societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining a high position will vary from society to society. Parsons argument suggests that stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies and there is a general belief that stratification systems are just, right and proper since they are basically an expression of shared values. In Parsons words he sees social stratification as both inevitable and functional for society, it is inevitable because it derives from shared values which are a necessary part of all social systems and functional because it strives to integrate various groups in society. Functionalists view the role of education as a means of socializing individuals and to integrate society, to keep society running smoothly and remain stable. Durkheim believes that society can only survive if its members are committed to common social values and that education provides these to children and young people as well as raising awareness of their commitment to society. Durkheim also believed that schools teach young people that they must co-operate with their peers and be prepared to listen and learn from their teachers. Individual pupils eventually learn to suspend their own self interests for those of society as a whole, work together and that success in education, just like in society, involves commitment to a value consensus. Bowles and Gintis, writers of ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ (1976) believe in the ‘Correspondence Principle’, where they suggest that the hierarchy in work is similar to the hierarchy in school, particularly in the differences in social class between state school pupils and fee paying school pupils. Bowles and Gintis also believe that schools are no longer about the teaching of a subject but the social principle or control of the pupils meaning that schools concentrate more on the hidden curriculum than the knowledge process. Equally, schools don’t reward independence and innovation; therefore meritocracy cannot exist within our capitalist society as capitalism is based on the principle of the ruling class (the bourgeois). Bowles and Gintis (1976) refer to the social reproduction theory as a ‘Correspondence Principle’ between schooling and career. This theory suggests that school and careers are closely related and that this correlation is essential for the production of an efficient workforce. For example, the hierarchical structure at school, with the principle at the top and the pupil at the bottom can correspond with life in the workforce where the manager or boss is located at the top and the manual staff at the bottom. Pupils also have little control over what they learn, when they learn it and how; this is, to some extent, decided by the teacher and the curriculum. This is much the same in the workforce where a person may have little option over their task and is set tasks by people above them in the hierarchy. Similarly, Davis and Moore (1945), believed that education is strongly linked to social stratification by members of society and that education ‘sifts, sorts and allocates’ people to their correct place in the economy and society. By rewarding the most talented and most dedicated by allowing them into the highest paid and highest status jobs, education performs the function which is always necessary to Functionalists – differentiating all members of society so that the system runs smoothly. Davis and Moore argued that social stratification exists in every known human society and that all social systems share certain functional prerequisites’ which must be met if the system is to survive and operate efficiently. They regard social stratification as a functional necessity for all societies, and seen it as a solution to a problem faced by all social systems, that of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure, they offer no others means of solving this problem and imply that social inequality is an inevitable feature of human society. Davis and Moore concluded that differential rewards are functional for society, because they contribute to the maintenance and well being of social systems. The Marxists theory on social stratification can be found out by asking the simple question of Who benefits? from the social arrangements of the day. One must look at those who hold the power of the day to find out who benefits. The power elite control the wealth, and impose their will on those who dont control the wealth. This class system of social stratification dates back to the days of Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller who where the owners of big business who controlled the lives of their workers. Whoever the power elite want to be in power will be in power. This structure of social stratification will lead to conflicts that have been pre-determined to happen. These conflicts include all social institutions. Marxists, in general, argue that equality is impossible in a class-based society. Like functionalists, they think there is a belief in the link between education and the economy. Functionalists see the link as a positive one, which serves to benefit industrial society, However, Marxists see the education system, existing in order to put children into their class-defined roles in order to benefit capitalist society. Thus, it serves the bourgeoisie well and keepstheproletariatdown. Some researches supported the view that class differences played a role in classrooms. Hargreaves (Luzzo) demonstrated that teachers constantly under-estimated or were ignorant of the power of the peer group in regulating the behavior of pupils. Hargreaves found that boys placed in lower streams were associated with failure at school. Keddie(Luzzo) found that teachers in the humanities department of a mixed comprehensive school tended to see students from the top stream as displaying middle class conforming behaviors, and students from the lower streams as having working class noisy behaviors. Marx predicted a new and final epoch. A society would have complete equality. There would be no new force of production but the relations of production will be transformed. The ownership of production would be collective, as the members of society would share the wealth. The ruling class would no longer exploit or oppress the workers. It is interesting how Functionalists see people as unequal a positive thing and Marxists believe it a negative one. Karl Marx was struck by the inequalities the capitalist system creates. Marx’s theory was that there are two main classes in society, those who own the means of production and those who do not; he recognized that class systems are much more complex. Marx believed that there are splits which can occur among the classes. Examples of these are within the upper classes there are often conflicts between financial capitalists and manufactures. Marx’s concept of class directs us towards objectively structured economic inequalities in society and that class does not refer to beliefs people hold about their position, but to objective conditions which allow some to have greater access to material rewards than others. Marx believed that large scales of inequalities would persist within industrialized countries as the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. American sociologist Erik Olin Wright has developed a theoretical position which owes much to Marx, but also incorporates ideas from Weber (Wright 1978-1985). According to Wright, there are three dimensions of control over economic resources in modern capitalist production, and these allow us to identify the major classes which exist ie: 1)Control over investments and money capital. 2)Control over the physical means of production (Land or factories and offices. 3)Control over labour power. Those who belong to the capital class have control over each of these dimensions within the production system and members of the working class have control over none of them. In between these two main classes, however there are groups whose position is more ambiguous. These people are what Wright called contradictory class locations because they are able to influence some aspects of production but are denied control over others. Wright terms the class position of such workers as ‘contradictory’ because they are neither capitalists nor manual workers, yet they share certain common features with each. Melvin Tumin a critique of Davis and Moore argues that they have ignored the influence of power on the unequal distribution of rewards. Tumin concludes that stratification by its very nature can never adequately perform the functions which Davis and Moore assign to it. Tumin argues that those born into the lower strata can never have the same opportunities for realizing their talents as those born into the higher strata. Tumin believes that stratification can weaken social integration by giving members of the lower strata a feeling of being excluded from participation in the larger society. Tumin concluded that their enthuastic search for positive functions of stratification Davis and Moore have ignored or tried to play down its many dysfunctions. The time I have spent looking at social stratification has brought me to the conclusion both the structural-functionalist and the social conflict theorists have very strong and explained theories. I believe that in today’s world the structural-functionalist theory is very accurate and seems to be true in our everyday lives. The media makes it so clear to everyone that an education is the only way to make it in the world. The world has advanced tremendously in the past century and continues to expand in technology, making it essential to have a college background and extensive educational background. It’s our choice on where we want to go in life and I feel that no one can shape it for us, we must do it ourselves. We can not live in this world without structure, although personally I think the Marxists approach works better for society as people can change their positions within our society through hard work. The functionalist approach works better for certain societies therefore why would we change it if it is working effectively, although within certain cultures social stratification produces a lot of inequalities which is vital for that society to work. Giddens. (1997). Stratification and Class Structure. In: Anthony Giddens Sociology third edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers ltd. 240-282. Ken Browne. (1998). Social Stratification. In: Polity Press an introduction to Sociology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Haralambos and Holborn. (1995). Social Stratification. In: Micahel Haralambos and Martin Holborn SOCIOLOGY Themes and Perspectives. 4th ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers. 21-122. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore with a response by Melvin Tumin. (1996). Class readings in Sociology. Available: soc. iastate. edu/sapp/DavisMoore. html. Last accessed 18th Nov 2010. ________________________________________